Not unnaturally, the recent terrorism in Paris has had effects during the climate summit. I’m still recovering from Turkey overload. Discuss.
As we are discussing recent violence in the world, feel free to read any double entendres you wish into “Turkey”.
Mr Obama will sign the US up to a treaty in Paris, and unlawfully refuse to send it to the Senate for consent. After signing he will declare victory over terrorism and attack anyone who questions his insane world view. Fortunately, this unlawful lunatic will soon be gone from office. Undoing the legal and political damage he has done (both domestic and international) will take much longer.
Since Lucia gave explicit permission, anyone understand what military decision makers in Turkey were thinking when they shot down Russia’s SU-24? It might well be that it was such a brilliant move that I’m unable to grasp the genius. On the other hand, it sure looks like a dumb thing to have done to me by any measure I can think of.
Why do I say it was dumb? Obvious one, Putin’s happy to reinforce his/Assad’s position with antiaircraft missiles, and as I understand it they’ve got a pretty good antiaircraft system. Cost of an old warplane, seems cheap at the price.
Anybody follow Turkey’s reasoning on this one?
SteveF,
Do you really think he won’t even send it to the Senate?
I’m anticipating he’ll send it but moan and complain that it doesn’t get ratified.
Yes. But I despair at the thought of what follows. I wish the front runners for nomination weren’t so horrible.
I think Turkey’s reasoning was that they had been warning Russia for 2 weeks about incursions into Turkish airspace and apparently warned that specific aircraft repeatedly. Those warnings are empty if nothing is done about it. It looks like the aircraft would have been downed with no loss of life if the Turkmen rebels hadn’t shot at the parachutes.
Something our own president has encountered repeatedly: you can’t set red lines and fail to enforce them.
I expect Obama will hold the agreement back from the Senate and use it as a political crutch next year to energize the regressive Stalinist voters that form his core: vote for a Dem president and Dem Senate so the agreement can be ratified. In the meantime, he’ll institute executive action to carry it out via federal agency regulations.
The Kyoto Protocol was signed by the U.S., but Clinton never submitted it to the Senate. It was obviously a non-starter after the Byrd-Hagel resolution passed 95-0 (or something like that), and Kyoto did not include developing nations.
While there hasn’t been a similar resolution passed with bipartisan support in the run-up to Paris, Obama certainly realizes that a Kyoto-like agreement lacking strong commitments from e.g. China and India has no chance of ratification. He might submit it anyway, thinking to put senators on record as rejecting climate salvation. That is, as political theater.
Thanks Derek. Just a reaction then, in your view.
HaroldW,
It wasn’t just that it didn’t include developing nations. The provisions were clearly biased against the US. And yet, IIRC, we’re closer to the Kyoto goals than many of the European countries that did ratify the treaty. Moreover, at the time we were the leading emitter of CO2 by far and now we’re not because China’s CO2 emissions have increased so much since then. In 2013, China accounted for 29% of global CO2 emissions, almost twice as much as the US at 15%. China carbon emissions per capita are now similar to the EU rate.
Carbon emission per capita in China went from 2.3 Mg in 1992 to 6.7Mg in 2011 while the US went from 19.1Mg in 1992 to 17.0Mg per capita.
Lucia,
Not a chance. It would be defeated 85+ to 15-. Unlawful and unscrupulous though he is, Mr Obama recognizes this; noting will go to the Senate, where it would be rejected.
.
Lots of people despair over this. People who are willing to tell the truth (the current socioeconomic path in the USA is unsustainable) are unelectable. The viable candidates flat out lie, almost like a form of art (Hillary, Cruz et al), suck up to targeted voters (most of the rest), or are insane (Trump, Sanders). Honest people who are not crazy need not apply for the job…. crazies, whores, and liars are all we have. What a selection.
Mark – this is an angle that has had some press coverage:
https://www.rt.com/business/323391-isis-oil-business-turkey-russia/
Erdogan Snr has refuted the link saying he’ll resign if it’s proven:
https://www.rt.com/news/324045-putin-erdogan-su-downing/
https://www.rt.com/about-us/
Other sources have carried stories on it too.
Curious,
Thanks so much for the link [edit: links]. I hadn’t seen those. Interesting!
No problem Mark. You might be interested to watch this too:
http://youtu.be/U7qiqPGUXhc
RT has several YouTube playlists worth a browse for alternative perspectives.
Mark, Russians went into Turkey air space.
Just a little,but if they can go in a little safely they could then go in a lot.
Oil from Isis is really Syrian oil, but Turkey making billions out of it even though they know it is not theirs.
If Isis/Rebels win oil goes out through Turkey at a fat commission, win/win for Erdogan.
Turks are supporting rebels big time expecting to win until Russians came in. USA happy to help rebels/Turks [Nato]/ Isis to access Syrian oil. Shame that they also want Northern Iraq back.
Russians are winning, America shares kudos for Isis defeat, Turks do not lose face with their supporters in Syria even if the supporters lose the battle. The war is long term generational, Putin only has a short life span.
Lucia, no, he won’t send it to congress. Oren Cass has the best read on what Paris is really about.
http://www.politico.eu/article/paris-climate-deal-is-meaningless-cop21-emissions-china-obama/
Bob,
I didn’t realize negotiating a treaty with no intention of sending it to the Senate was “done”. I knew Kyoto wasn’t ratified, but I missed the bit about never even being sent.
In “real” life, people would be pretty pissed off if you spent time “negotiating” and “agreement” but then never sent it to be signed– and didn’t even send it to the person on whose behalf you were claiming to negotiate. But I guess negotiating partners at Paris must know the drill. As far as getting the US on board, Obama isn’t even going to try?!! That is so bizarre.
Lucia, if you remember what Kerry said a few weeks ago (i.e. it is an agreement, not a treaty), than Obama’s strategy is clear. The constitution says that all treaties have to be approved by the senate. They know there is zero chance of the senate approving a climate treaty, so if they call it an agreement Obama can use executive orders to implement the agreement. I think this climate deal maybe the straw that broke congress’s back and I anticipate they will fight hard to stop his unconstitutional actions.
PNAS article on drought impact on Syria
Associated popular media article
Food for thought, I suppose.
curious seems to be a troll working out of the Kremlin founded internet troll warehouse in Leningrad. RT as information source… Well done indeed.
Game-theoretic predictions for Paris:
Bob,
” I think this climate deal maybe the straw that broke congress’s back and I anticipate they will fight hard to stop his unconstitutional actions.”
.
I kind of doubt that. The only thing that would stop Mr Obama’s plans would be a law (or laws) passed over his veto. Not going to happen; there are not enough votes in either house to override. Linking limitations to “must pass” legislation would only be used as campaign ammunition against the Republicans. The only thing that will stop Mr Obama from doing exactly what he wants, on every contentious issue, is 14 months time.
Sven,
I don’t see that. I asked a general question and curious pointed me to some stories in the press. I didn’t read his endorsement of those stories in his response.
~shrug~
Let’s all be good Muslims here.
Regarding the insanity of invoking climate change as any significant portion of the Syrian problems, WUWT did cite this article in the Guardian:
.
“The earliest reports on the subject were not scientific studies but military-led attempts to dramatise the importance of climate change by linking it to security interests. And the recent outpouring of claims about Syria’s civil war is motivated by a similar attempt – in our view misguided – to “securitise†climate change ahead of the Paris summit. While some scientific studies do find that climate change has conflict and security implications, just as many disagree.”
.
“Most important of all, the Columbia authors present no serious evidence whatsoever that Syria’s “drought migrants†helped spark the civil war. The basis for their claims is twofold: testimony from a single Syrian farmer; and a more general, un-evidenced assertion that the presence of migrants exacerbated urban stresses. They offer no evidence that any of the early unrest was directed against these migrants – which one would surely expect if they were indeed a cause of social stresses. And this, to put it bluntly, is because there is no such evidence.”
.
Also, this good analysis lays out why individual stations within actual agricultural areas are much more relevant and do not support the drought cause speculation
.
But during the Syrian uprising, there were no protests for jobs, water, subsidies, or other farmer relief but rather calls for Assad to go – because Syria was led by an Alawi leader over a majority Sunni population!
.
This is a clear case of confirmation bias – finding a problem one might plausibly pin on climate.
.
Syria was clearly part of the Arab Spring, and not the other way round.
.
Clearly political divides cut Syria in multiple ways. These political divides, not drought explain Syria.
Sven seems to be an idiot who doesn’t understand the nature of question and response dialogue. Not so well done.
Mark – correct, no endorsement intended or implied. Simply pointing up a source and angle you might have been interested to see. It seems you were, so all good – If you come up with a definitive truth on the matter please let us know! (-:
Matt Ridley and Benny Peisner in the WSJ:
“At the Paris conference, expect an agreement that is sufficiently vague and noncommittal for all countries to claim victory.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/your-complete-guide-to-the-climate-debate-1448656890
Paris working already.
November UAH down to 0.33 and Arctic sea ice expanding rapidly though still negative.
All we needed was a lot of hot air in a temperate zone to cool the world immediately.
Will they claim the credit.
We should wait for GISS and HadCrut before we decide whether the Paris agreements are working. 🙂
Kyoto was never sent to the Senate for a vote (and Al Gore was the VP).
This one will never be voted on either. The Democrats don’t want that vote to happen either.
The left gets the most bang for the buck by pontificating on climate change, but never having to present the public with the bill to pay for it, or the ineffectiveness of the solution in regards to the global emissions trajectory.
If they vote for it, they are going to be attacked in their district with “Senator X would rather send your money to Africa for global warming than spend it on your local schools”.
If the right is wise, it will put up a bill with a huge price tag to fight global warming (get Bill McKibben’s desired costs) and make the left vote on it.
Asking people if they support action on climate change is like asking them if they support fighting cancer. A worthless question until you ask how much they are willing to sacrifice for that effort.
I will further comment that the media assault (especially the NYT) on this meeting is beginning to really smell like a major propaganda effort. Anyone with half a brain can see that they are bending over backwards to only tell one side of the story. Not sure this is helpful to their cause.
I foresee the developing countries holding the agreement hostage for their $100B/year cash payoff and this sending the agreement down in flames, although success will be declared under any circumstances.
Tom wrote: “Kyoto was never sent to the Senate for a vote.
This one will never be voted on either. The Democrats don’t want that vote to happen either.”
No votes need to be taken. The Supreme Court ruled that CO2 was a pollutant and therefore its emissions can be regulated under existing air-quality regulations. As long as a Democrat is in the White House and appoints the EPA Administrator, almost any new regulations limiting GHG emissions can be imposed. The Senate will almost certainly be unable to get the 60 votes or 66 votes needed to modify the EPA’s authority over GHGs.
As long as five Justices appointed by Republican Presidents remain on the Court, it is possible that a 5-4 ruling by the EPA might place some restrictions on the EPA’s authority to regulate GHGs. That possibility disappears if Hillary is elected.
And if a Republican is elected President, environmentalists will be able to sue the EPA to force them to regulate CO2 emissions.
We only need a Senate-approved treaty if we want a binding agreement with other nations. Such a treaty would make it somewhat more likely that the world-wide “benefits” of limiting US emissions will be linked to worldwide limitations on emissions. So, the EPA can force Americans to pay the cost of reducing domestic emissions, but the Senate will never approve a binding treaty ensuring that Americans will “benefit” from foreign reductions.
Frank, unfortunately you are correct: He does not need anything to from Congress to carry out his will. He only has to defend the powers he claimed for himself. This President is fulfilling the predictions that the bureaucratic state would damage our Republic in serious ways.
FWIW, the Russians had been bombing the Turkmen (a turkish ethnic group in Syria that is in revolt against Assad). The Turks see themselves as protectors of the Turkmen.
To make it complicated, the Russians had been bombing the Kurds, something the Turks approve of.
Re: SteveF (Comment #141104)
I think I could live with Bush, Kasich, or even (possibly) Christie, but the odds of any of them winning the nomination seem almost nil.
Of the rest, the best is probably Rubio, but being the best of that lot is hardly something to be proud of. And does the country need another inexperienced, absentee junior senator in the White House?
julio,
America needs Bozo the Clown more than it needs Hillary.
Hunter,
We tried that. It neither began (9/11) nor ended well (financial melt down).
julio,
A random name selected from the phone book in Chicago (or Orlando, or Dallas, etc.) would seem a better selection than most of what is on offer. That said, Rubio probably is the best of the choices; yes, he is another young first term Senator, but any other similarity with Mr Obama is nonexistent. Unlike Mr Obama, Mr Rubio seems to actually like the USA and its people.
.
Besides, Rubio is fluent in Spanish. How bad can that be? 🙂
(OK, rhetorical, but only joking rhetorical.)
Eli,
If Mr Bush is like Bozo the Clown, then it is difficult to find a suitable comparison for Mr Obama. He is by far the worst (least competent) president of my lifetime, and after Mr Carter, I had wrongly guessed that was an impossibility: weak in diplomacy, willfully lawless, obnoxious and arrogant in his views, incapable of meaningful policy compromise; he is almost beyond caricature. Fortunately, he will soon be gone.
Eli,
Thank you. More stuff I hadn’t run across.
Truthfully, I sort of regret asking the question. I’ve been insanely busy this week and haven’t had time to look into the matter. But surely eventually I’ll have free time again…
Anyways. Thanks.
Steve,
I hope you are right about Rubio, since we just might end up with him. The conventional wisdom about presidents is that former governors (people with executive experience) tend to be better than former senators at what is, after all, an executive job. Obama has done nothing to disprove this theory…
What Obama does not do is bluster.
The economy is back from the dead, unemployment is 5% or less etc. and oh yes, the lack of policy compromise was a choice made by the Republicans.
Eli,
There is plenty of blame to spread about on lack of compromise, but any suggestion that Mr Obama is inclinded to compromise on policy is delusional. He is the most politically divisive president in at least the last century. His political views are far to the left of the electorate, and he cares not a wit about that. Obnoxious arrogance is the most accurate description.
Eli,
In Obamaspeak, compromise = capitulation. And that’s not to mention a long history of Democrats reneging on their end of the deal when they do make one. “We’ll cut spending if you increase taxes.” Remember that one?
julio,
Yes, successful executive experience is a predictor of success as a president. But I think there is danger of confusing cause with effect here. Successful executives are successful because of the characteristics they bring to the job; they don’t necessarily develop these characteristics on the job. Humility, thoughtfulness, actually liking and respecting people (‘simpatico’ in Portuguese), clear thinking, acceptance of reality… these things are lacking in poor executives, and present in some who have never held an executive position.
.
My mother worked as a photographer many years ago. She was hired by a local Republican organization to photograph people shaking hands with Ronald Reagan during a fundraising dinner. After taking a few hundred photos of Reagan with the attendees, my mom was starting to pack up her gear when Reagan stopped her, called an aid over, and insisted on a photo with my mom… I still have that photo. Reagan was ‘connected’ to people, and that made him successful; that he had been the govenor of California was secondary.
Eli,
You are so far off on so many points in so few words.
As a non American , though I did pass that ecfmg English thingamee 45 years ago, I would like to say that Obama has done a lot of good things as well as stuff I disagree with. He has stuck to his promises. I think in 20 years he will be seen as an example of the American democratic process in a good way even if his policies are disliked .
Eli is wrong about his “success ” in bringing down unemployment and improving the economy. They were due to happen anyway and were coincidental.
Two terms ago there were only 2 candidates Clinton and Obama. His talent and ability to beat Hilary meant he had massive electoral appeal.
Trump unfortunately looks the Republican and Presidential winner by a kilometre, sorry, mile.
Hilary will need all Bill’s charm to compete and might still do it.
Despite the agony of 4 more years of AGW under her I would personally feel safer with her in the Whitehouse than Trump.
SteveF,
It’s true some people with no executive experience are natural executives– but how is a voter to know? They can’t.
Part of the issue with proven executive ability means voters can tell it’s there. Beyond that, practice even helps those who are naturals.
No. At best you have it backwards. He will not be seen as an good example of the ‘democratic process’ because he isn’t one. He isn’t one whether you like his policies or not. He’s abusing executive power. It’s likely some people will continue to like his policies– just as some like them now. Others won’t like his policies. But whether you like his policies or not, he is not a good example of how our democratic process is supposed to work. He subverts it whenever or wherever he can.
Lucia,
No, the voters can’t tell for sure, but they can make some reasonable inferences… Ted Cruz probably would never make a good executive (in any field!), in spite of being smart and knowing law better than the other candidates. I don’t see any experienced, electable executives in either party. Abraham Lincoln never held executive office before becoming president…. but Jimmy Carter did.
.
That block quote is not mine. In 20 years I think Mr Obama will be seen as a lawless and ineffective president, and anything but a good example.
From the article:
…
They said Farook recently traveled to Saudi Arabia and returned with a new wife he had met online. The couple had a baby and appeared to be “living the American dream,” said Patrick Baccari, a fellow health inspector who shared a cubicle with Farook.
…
They and other colleagues said Farook was a devout Muslim, but rarely discussed religion at work.
“He never struck me as a fanatic, he never struck me as suspicious,” said Griselda Reisinger, who worked with Farook before leaving the agency in May.
…
Reisinger said she heard that the office recently threw a baby shower for Farook and that he had taken paternity leave.
…
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-syed-farook-had-traveled-to-saudi-arabia-married-appeared-to-live-american-dream-co-workers-say-20151202-story.html
Anyone that ascribes US economic performance to presidential policy preferences probably doesn’t understand either economics or government, but is, like most, emotionally attached to a politics.
.
We purposefully have a weak executive. We spent a bloody revolution getting rid of a king only to spend every presidential election trying to re-elect one. We don’t want a presidency with the power to fix everything – that’s what we got rid of!
.
I don’t blame Obama for most of the ills, even being a misguided global laughing stock on climate change. He just wants to go play golf and smoke a cigar.
.
Commander-in-chief is the exception. Losing Iraq, in spite of advice from generals and predictions of what our exit would mean, was the incubator for Isis. No wonder they’re trying to spin Syrian drought. As pointed out, not even the Guardian believes that nonsense. That only leaves the insane at Eli’s.
.
Now, it may have been a mistake to enter Iraq – but popular with the majority.
.
It was definitely a mistake to leave Iraq – but popular with the majority.
.
So….
So I guess that this US born Muslim, said by some to be “living the American dream”, goes to Saudi Arabia to find a wife…. yup, that is almost the definition of the American dream. If you are living that American dream you really need a devoted wife to stand by you, literally, helping you blast away, when it comes time to kill a bunch of infidels; a wife like that is hard to find the the USA.
.
According to CNBC: “The Associated Press, citing the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, said two of the weapons — two assault rifles and two handguns — were purchased by someone who is now under investigation.”
.
Well, their arithmetic is dubious, but lemme guess: The killers were given at least some of their weapons, explosives, and assault gear by someone with a name like Smith, Brady, Steinmetz, Ferrari, Chou, Josephson, or Rodriguez? I don’t think so. Any possible chance the person under investigation might turn out to be … dare I say it and offend PC sensibilities…. a Muslim? I’d say the chances are pretty damned good.
Another thing that Eli appears to have forgotten is that, except for the 2001 recession, this recovery is the slowest and weakest since WWII. Unemployment may be 5%, but labor force participation has declined and there are still lots of people under-employed in part time jobs. Obamacare has contributed to that. Then there’s the damage that the zero interest rate policy has done to the savings of retirees and those nearing retirement.
The liberal disconnect from economics is best demonstrated by the move to raise the minimum wage to $15/hour.
Turbulent Eddie:
That is likely to be the case for Eli.
Anyone who blames George Bush the Younger for an attack that occurred 9 months after he took office, whilst the terrorist attack was planned, trained for and executed over a period of years with the loving neglect of the prior president, does not reality test very well.
Nor does anybody who blames all current Middle East problems on climate change. I think environmental damage associated with all anthropogenic activity plays an important role here, but claiming that climate change is anything but an extremely minor player here is an exceedingly silly argument.
Which was all too predictable years ago, based on conventional macro-economics, which also predicted little inflation. I made the same point here a year ago , so I don’t expect to change any minds.
Obama has been at best a mediocre president, and that was before he went completely delusional (“global warming is the greatest threat to our country!”).
The thing is that I look at Rubio and I see the same train wreck waiting to happen. Different minority group and opposite end of the political spectrum, but same total lack of experience at anything other than getting himself elected.
And yet I might even bring myself to vote for Rubio over Hillary for at least a couple of reasons. One is that it might be good for the country to see what an unfettered republican agenda can bring about (if it works, great; if not, it might be a valuable lesson for the future).
The other is just to annoy people like Eli…
julio,
” I might even bring myself to vote for Rubio over Hillary for at least a couple of reasons.”
.
I can think of a few of other reasons: a shameless liar, corrupt (taking money for her ‘family trust’ from foreigners who just happen to need help from the US State Department), a thief (‘lost’ law firm billing records surprisingly found in the residence of the White House)…. other than that, Hilliary is just swell. A random name from a phone book is unlikely to be worse.
From the article:
…
Dr. Steve Parson, a minister in Richmond, Virginia, joined eight others at a Manassas rally to show their support for the Republican front runner.
“People ask my ‘why are you endorsing Donald Trump?’ Well, in my opinion, he’s the best and the only one that can beat Hillary Clinton,†Parson said.
“We’ve got to win and one thing about Donald Trump is that he’s a winner. He knows how to create wealth. As a black minister, we’re right in the inner city and I’ll tell you, we need jobs, we need employment, we need businesses, and who better can help us help ourselves than Donald Trump?†Parson asked.
…
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/video-black-pastors-endorse-trump-at-virginia-rally/
I think the black minister in Mannassas is likely mistaken about Trumps ability to create jobs.
As for this rhetorical question that closes the quote you chose to post:
My guess is that most of the other GOP contenders can create as many or more jobs than Trump can. Was your quote intended to make some sort of claim or point? If so, the point that comes across to me is “Look! There are some idiotic people in Richmond, Va who are deluded enough to think Trump would make a good president”.
But I already knew that. It’s why I am really bummed about this upcoming election.
About the San Bernadino shooting: Last night before anyone as named, Jim and I did hear reports it happened during a “holiday party” at work. We predicted it would be a personal grudge/employee issues. Turns out Farouk is an employee. Go figure.
Lucia,
Personal grudges don’t usually lead people to construct pipe bombs, don flack jackets, and enlist their spouse to go on a killing spree. Do you think he held a personal grudge against all 31 of the people shot at that party? How about his Pakistani wife who probably knew few (or none) of them? (Not rhetorical questions.)
Yes, Obama can’t determine the motivation of Farouk and his wife to go shoot up a Christmas party, either. I can speculate this thought going through Obama’s mind …
Farouk to wife: You know, I’m really tired of losing arguments at work. I think it’s time to show my co-workers how to really win an argument. What do you say we get some AKs and make a dozen pipe bombs. We can strap one to a toy remote controlled car and really dazzle them with our brilliance. After all, our part of the world invented zero, the most important number.
Wife replies: Yes, Farouk my husband, our child would be better off with no parents at all than to have a father who can’t win arguments at work – of course, I’ll stand by your side. We should also get a couple of 9 mm hand guns and 4,000 rounds of ammunition and have some friends over to help with the pipe bombs – kind of like a quilting party these idiots in the US have! And, we can buy all the weapons legally, so there won’t be any risk there. And we know that the guns laws here in California will guarantee no one at the party will be armed. It’s a great plan Farouk and you are a great man.
Lucia in reference to your workplace comment. Here is Latimes info: “Police discovered a veritable armory when they searched Farook and Malik’s Redlands home, recovering a dozen pipe bombs, 2,000 9-millimeter handgun rounds, 2,500 .223-caliber assault rifle rounds and “hundreds of tools†that could have been used to make additional explosive devices, Burguan said.
“Certainly they were equipped and they could have continued to do another attack … we intercepted them,†he said.”
….
“On Thursday, a federal law enforcement source told the Los Angeles Times that while investigators have yet to establish a clear motive in the shooting, they are leaning toward a possible “combination of terrorism and workplace†conflict.” http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-san-bernardino-shooting-main-20151203-story.html
This is my first take. Wouldn’t be surprised if the killers planned an attack and someone at the party irritated the husband. Then wouldn’t be surprised if husband figured why not start out with those who just irritated or insulted me.
JD
JD Ohio,
Yes. I know I was cryptic there. It’s pretty clear this guy was getting ready to do something pretty dramatic. There’s no doubt about that.
I’m just struck by oddities and wondering if this won’t turn out to be a co-worker who happened to be arming himself reading for a well planned terrorist attack who got pissed off and went postal in advance of some other better planned potentially more effective larger scale attack. (Not to minimize the deaths that occurred. But by more more effective, larger scale, I’m thinking something like Paris.)
That he did aim his attack at coworkers and did this during a holiday party strikes me as so classically “going postal” because one was pissed off at coworkers one hates (for whatever reason) or is resentful that others either favored or seem to to you and so on.
On the other hand, it’s pretty rare for someone to have this level of arms and to be able to enlist his wife and so on. So, that argues for “planning something all along.”
So I can’t help but wonder if — perhaps– it will turn out that he was involved in something much bigger and was collecting arms for that purpose, but then got so irate during a party that he ended up doing something that will end up derailing the “real” plan which may have resembled something more like Paris.
I know it might sound a bit fanciful– but it seems to me pipe-bombs in a mall would have created more terror.
SteveF
First: bear in mind this guy’s mental state must be somewhere outside the “normal/balanced” state. This is not to say he is insane, but no matter what one’s religious views and so on, filling your home with munitions and even arriving at work to kill one particularly hated co-worker is a sign that something is ‘not normal’ about this guy. Given that he is not normal, the chances that he married someone not entirely normal is higher than average. (As a divorce attorney friend of mine says “Geese don’t fly with ducks.”)
So, actually if he perceived unfairness or something at work he may well have held a grudge against everyone. Also: his wife’s only information about the co-workers was through him. And if she speaks little English and doesn’t get out much, any lack of balance in her thought process could have been aggravated by isolation and hearing one sided complaints. So, oddly she might have held a grudge. In fact: if “grudges” were over pay, she might have been even huffier than he was.
That means my answer to your questions are “yes”. But bear in mind, this in no way means my theory is the two (and possibly a whole cell) were not planning terrorism. I’m pretty sure they were. I’m just waiting to hear more because I wouldn’t be at all surprised if this particular even turns out to be work related and amplified by the fact that the disgruntled co-worker was planning a terrorist spree.
RB,
Suppose for the purpose of argument I concede that it was the takeover of the House of Representatives by the Republicans in the 2010 elections that contributed to the slow recovery. Whose fault was it that happened? Could it possibly have been a President who wasted his opportunity to do something positive about the economy when his party did control both Houses by passing a wildly unpopular health care reform bill with zero Republican participation? Obviously the answers are: Obama and yes.
DeWitt:
Why the people that voted them in! I’m wondering what ever happened to personal accountability in this country.
But anyway, I think this would have been a slow recovery regardless of administration’s policies: The damage was done before Obama took over as president. Blaming Obama for the depth of the recession is a bit like blaming Bush 43 for 9/11.
I happen to think there was a lot of waste in Obama’s economic stimulus (they were suboptimal), but I don’t think that anything he did significantly lengthened the recovery period.
On the other hand, I think it is indisputable that Bush 43 contributed to the crisis reaching the extreme level it did (as did the Democrats in Congress). Bush’s second term had some of the worst outcomes of any president in recent memory (since Carter IMO).
Carrick,
Yes, Bush the younger was as dumb as a box of rocks (sorry about that rocks). His policy decisions mostly reflected this.
.
Of course when you compare dumb with dumb, Jimmy is the hands-down dumbest. Obama beats Jimmy easily on intellect, but that is damning with very faint praise. Obama’s problem is not unimaginable stupidity like Carter’s, it is that he imagines he is much smarter than he actually is: he will listen to nobody, and abuses executive power with almost incredible self righteous arrogance.
Apparently, Farook worked with a Jew. Farook and the Jew would get into arguments. That probably explains why they attacked the Christmas party. But AFAIK, it doesn’t take 4,000 rounds and a dozen pipe bombs to kill one Jew. They probably had further plans, but their plans were cut short by police.
I don’t believe they were insane. They are just religious fanatics, IMO.
“Farook and the Jew would get into arguments. That probably explains why they attacked the Christmas party.”
.
See, ecumenicalism only leads to problems…. separate parties for each group, I say.
.
But seriously, radical islam is the fundamental problem, and only islam can solve the problem. The rest of us can only make that reality plain, by whatever means necessary, to the Muslin world. A religion where 5 to 10% of believers think religiously motivated violence is acceptable is a religion which is unacceptable in the 21st century; a profound reformation of islam has to happen, and only Muslims can make that reformation take place. For everyone’s sake, I hope the world of islam recognizes this, and soon.
jim2,
News reports call it a ‘holiday party’. As it’s the beginning of December, it could be any number of holidays all celebrated too early. Too early solstice; too early St. Lucia’s day, too early Hannukah, too early for Christmas. No idea why you’ve latched onto the idea it was a Christmas party.
Not sure why you think he was particularly concerned about 1 co-worker.
Carrick,
The voters in 2010 didn’t act out of the blue. They had the reasonable expectation that they were sending a message and voting for a change. It worked with Bill Clinton in 1994. Thanks primarily to Obama and Harry Reid, they got gridlock instead. It could have been worse, though. Executive orders can be reversed as easily as they were implemented.
I would say that Federal Reserve policy had more to do with the depth of the recession than the President and Congress, RB’s faith in the power of fiscal stimulus notwithstanding.
lucia,
It’s after Thanksgiving and Black Friday. That, by definition, makes it Christmas season. A Christmas party where I used to work is scheduled for December 7.
I consider the official Christmas season to run from Dec. 13 to Jan 6. That is: St. Lucia’s day to Epiphany (Popsie-Wopsie’s birthday.)
That said: I’m idiosyncratic. . .
Lucia – you are probably correct that it was a generic “holiday” party. The link to the argument with the Jew at work, from the article:
…
Radicalized US Muslim clashed with his Jewish co-worker over religion two weeks before he and Pakistani wife killed 14 at office holiday party using huge arsenal of weapons and pipe bombs
…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3344350/Devout-Muslim-citizen-Saudi-wife-living-American-Dream-identified-heavily-armed-duo-burst-office-holiday-party-slaughtered-14-leaving-baby-mother.html
jim2
Yes. One of his coworkers was jewish and they argued. What I don’t know is how you made the huge leap to suggesting that Farouk was particularly concerned about that Jewish coworker.
More generally: you are going to have to explain your own claims and thoughts in your own words if you want others to have the remotest clue what point you are trying to make. After all: there really is very little reason to think that the argument with the coworker only two weeks ago was the motivation for the huge arsenal of weapons — which one would guess would take at least months to accumulate. So one would generally suspect that arguments is entirely unconnected from Farouk accumulating the weapons.
But if you think otherwise or have some notion about how things are connected, perhaps you can explain your own thinking. Presumably that would be done by your tapping out a few paragraphs rather than providing an link to something that presents some information about something, but gives us no particular insight into whatever claim you might be making.
As far as I can see, the information at the links you provide suggest that Farouks motivation was likely entirely unconnected to the argument with the Jewish co-worker. So i remain mystified by what appears to be your suggestion that his motivation for something he must have done before the argument with the Jewish coworker was motivated by that argument. That is: generally, one does not assume what one does before an event is caused by something that happened after one does … whatever.
But if you think otherwise: please say so directly and explain why you think so. Because right now…. to the extent I can parse what you seem to be claiming, it seems to be utterly and completely contradicted by the links you are giving. But as you have not made your claims clear, perhaps it’s not. Perhaps your claim is that the existence of the Jewish co-worker and the purported argument have nothing whatsoever to do with Farouks later behavior. In which case, your links tend to support that.
Perhaps you could clarify what you mean? Using your own words to state your own claim? I invite you to do so.
I think I have explained to the extent necessary. As I have stated before, I’m not here to argue over minutiae. It is tedious and unproductive, and I have a lot on my plate.
What I would like to see is:
1. For everyone to do their own research into Islam and as thoroughly as possible.
2. For everyone to research the effect of Muslim migrants and/or refugees on the Western host country.
Even in the US, Muslims have given the government an excuse to spy on us 24/7. That alone is too much.
But, the bottom line is that everyone needs to be as informed as possible about Islam and its effects in order to make as rational a decision as possible about what course of action to take to deal with Muslims.
SteveF:
.
“But seriously, radical islam is the fundamental problem, and only islam can solve the problem. The rest of us can only make that reality plain, by whatever means necessary, to the Muslin world. A religion where 5 to 10% of believers think religiously motivated violence is acceptable is a religion which is unacceptable in the 21st century; a profound reformation of islam has to happen, and only Muslims can make that reformation take place. For everyone’s sake, I hope the world of islam recognizes this, and soon.”
.
I’m very sure it is far more than 5 to 10% muslims who accept religiously motivated violence. That is not to say that they commit violence or intend to do it but accept is widespread. A sign of this accept is that we don’t see large muslim crowds demonstrating against the terrorists in Paris and elsewhere.
If you don’t accept religiously motivated violence you are rejecting sharia law. If you don’t accept religiosly motivated violence you should condemn the prophet Muhammed, the infallible.
.
A transformation of Islam is needed – a reformation is not enough unfortunately. I think a RE-formation, a return to the “original” Islam, is what ISIS and al Al-Qaeda is about. The few voices from the Islamic World calling for Islam to change radically and denounce the terrible parts of the religion like Ayaan Hirsi Ali are facing continous threats to their lives. We in the Western world should support these lonely voices much more wholeheartedly than we currently do.
jim2
I think I and many others here have been at least as thorough as you have been.
I think I and many others here have done at least as much research as you have done.
Based on the rest of your response it appears you aren’t presenting any claims or trying to make any points at all. You are just dropping links to articles you happen to think people should read. My guess is most people have read those. I know I generally have read similar information before you dropped the link, and based on other people’s discussion it appears many of them have too.
So your practice is a bit mystifying.
Evidently I made the mistake of thinking your link /factoid dropping was intended to make or support some sort of claim about what our government or citizens should do, or policies we should have. Going forward, I’ll try to remember that the link/factoid dropping is just semi-random link/factoid dropping and I’ll know to ignore the comments as being substance free.
Thanks for clarifying as this will spare me some time.
Niels,
Yes, ‘transformation’ is a better description of what is needed than ‘reformation’.
.
You are also right about the number who clearly support violence, it is more like 13% (averaged across 11 Muslim countries) who have a favorable view of terrorist groups like Al Qadea (http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/09/10/muslim-publics-share-concerns-about-extremist-groups/). Pew suggests that survey is saying Muslims share the West’s concerned about terrorist violence. I think this is nonsense. 13% of a billion+ Muslims is a lot of people who support terrorist groups.
Lucia, “so bizarre” — see also Iranian deal.
Bizarre doesn’t even cover it. But you seem to have the notion that Obama feels some kind of fealty to the constitution. Even hard core left-wing professors like Lawrence Tribe and Jonathon Turley don’t think so. Tribe testified before Congress that he is “burning the constitution.” Turley testifying before Congress “The danger is quite severe. The problem with what the president is doing is that he’s not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He’s becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid. We have what many once called an imperial presidency model.”
I don’t post this to start a political argument. Both of these professors are life-long lefty Democrats who say they voted for Obama. Both are correct. It’s not even really arguable. Unfortunately, there are very few of their fellow lefty law professors with the integrity to join them in standing up for the republic.
This is really, really scary stuff. And it has been seen in a dozens of different areas of law and government.
Political disagreement is fine. We can and always will argue about the proper levels, scope and subjects of taxation, regulation, budgets, criminal law, etc. And to do so with respect for the good faith of those who disagree.
But what has to stop is the lying and vicious slander. In the global warming context it is the use of denier and the attempt to criminalize dissent. But we see this in accusations of a “war on women”, “rape culture”, “racist voter ID”, and all the rest.
Now that I have read the rest of the thread, I realize I didn’t need to worry about starting a political argument.
I find it sad that facts and logic play almost no role in politics. It cannot be argued that the Bush tax cuts substantially shifted the income tax burden away from middle class earners and onto the highest earners. [seriously, go check the numbers. can’t be argued] Yet somehow, Democrats argue that they made income inequality worse and caused the financial meltdown. There exists no school of economic theory that can support the argument, but it doesn’t seem to matter.
Right now, Obama and the Democrats are claiming that we need the same gun control laws that are already in place in France and California so that we can stop what just happened in Paris and San Bernardino from happening again. [this doesn’t even rise up high enough to achieve the level of brain dead stupid]
And the argument from Paris is that we need to make massive changes in our way of life so that we can make miniscule changes in temperature a century from now. Temp differences so tiny they reflect the difference in temp between our feet and the top of our head. And that assumes that the predictions and science are all accurate.
Democrats have argued (as Obama and Holder paid an “expert” to testify in the NC lawsuit) that African-Americans lack the sophistication to know the issues or their voting precinct or the date of the election in order to argue that voter ID is racist. No doubt, the Democrats’ argument is virulently racist, but doesn’t it seem really bizarre to use such an argument to claim that the GOP is? Especially since the Democrats have never been able to find someone who couldn’t get an ID.
They argue that there is a war on women because women are being denied access to birth control. But they can’t actually find a woman anywhere in the country who has been denied birth control.
It’s all bizarre, Lucia. Bizarre doesn’t even adequately cover it. We’re living in a looking glass world. Humpty Dumpty is in charge. And words mean whatever he says they do. Logic, reason and facts have been abandoned.
Stan,
Well, yes, Obama is believed by many to be a menace to the constitution, and even to the rule of law. This is why we have presidents term limited. Calm down, he will soon be gone.
.
While Hillary is corrupt, a liar, and thief, she is (I think!) less a threat to the constitution than Obama. Of course, if Republicans don’t get their act together and nominate a plausible presidential candidate, they could lose control of both houses of Congress in the next election, and there is no limit to the damage Hillary could do if not restrained by Congress….. think French and Danish marginal tax rates, gun confiscation, and huge government subsidies for favored progressive businesses. Republicans supporting Trump are, IMHO, crazier than both Obama AND Trump rolled into one raging madman.
stan,
Me? Oh, heavens no. I don’t think that! But I think you gathered that on re-reading.
I think it’s bizarre for the US executive branch negotiate a “treaty” or “agreement” or what-have-you with other countries, going through the motions of seeming to “agree” to it when our executive branch and other countries all know that the agreement won’t be binding on the US because the President isn’t even going to try to submit it to the Senate as required to make it binding. I’m perfectly aware that Obama would love to make it binding– damn the constitution. But whether he calls it a “treaty” or an “agreement” or what have you, it won’t be binding because a President doesn’t have that power. (This is not to say he can’t try to stick to it while he remains in office. But that’s not the same as having an agreement that is binding on the US.)
Where were the fortune tellers and prescients with 9/11?
No one saw an event of this magnitude coming.
Paris and Mumbai were relatively subdued but equally unexpected.
It is a bit like predicting Volcanoes and earthquakes, always one due and going around in circles.
So, major Indonesian incident well overdue.
Sweden most likely to have next European incident.
Japanese Earthquake major next 2 months.
Iceland to have a major volcanic eruption in next 4 months.
How is Paris going? or going to go with Climate summit.
On this I have no idea, just bad feelings.
As I voted twice for Obama and am gearing up to vote for Hilary, I’ll feel free to talk about Islam and violence for a second.
Or, no I won’t. How about militant Christian violence? How many mass shootings and individual assassinations do we have to cite before we agree that this religion, with such a bloody and violent history, is a threat to our society?
Re: stan (Comment #141183)
December 4th, 2015 at 2:06 pm
It would be brain dead stupid, because gun control laws in France clearly did not prevent what happened in Paris.
However, gun availability does seem highly correlated to rates of gun violence. It would seem to follow that inability to have a rational discussion about the pros and cons of functional gun control is probably even more indicative of stupidity, or at least terminal immaturity, in American society.
SteveF (Comment #141181)
December 4th, 2015 at 12:05 pm
The data over the past few decades seem to indicate that we in America are at greater risk from being shot by angry white males than by Muslims. Let me here suggest that the majority of Americans would answer a survey saying that they have a “favorable” view of white males. By your logic, this would seem to imply that Americans support domestic terrorism.
Only slightly less absurd, yet potentially more arguable, is the position that absolute opponents of gun control support domestic terrorism if it means keeping their guns.
I suspect some of these remarks are indicative of the problems the West has in rousing itself to deal with the rise of Islamic terrorism. It’s an abstract exercise; intellectual masturbation. What about Christian terrorism? What about white men and domestic terrorism? What about my cat Mittens and the way he tortures mice, how about that?
People wake up when a 9/11 happens, but all too quickly they drift back to sleep.
Fuller: “Or, no I won’t. How about militant Christian violence?”
Ok, how about it. Why don’t you be specific. Do you seriously contend that, for instance, German Catholics are a threat to the US? Please cite examples in modern times and not religious conflicts from the 1500s with respect to your contention that Christian violence is a serious concern in the US. Also, communism was probably the biggest scourge of the 20th century, and they were atheists. Some quotes to consider:
1. ““Surely you do not imagine that we shall be victorious without applying the most cruel revolutionary terror?â€
– V. I. Lenin
2. “We would be deceiving both ourselves and the people if we concealed from the masses the necessity of a desperate, bloody war of extermination, as the immediate task of the coming revolutionary action.â€
– V. I. Lenin
3. ““As for us, we were never concerned with the Kantian-priestly and vegetarian-Quaker prattle about the ‘sacredness of human life.’â€
– Leon Trotsky
4. “Let’s contemplate this, how many people would die if war breaks out. There are 2.7 billion people in the world. One-third could be lost; or, a little more, it could be half… I say that, taking the extreme situation, half dies, half lives, but imperialism would be razed to the ground and the whole world would become socialist.â€
– Mao Zedong
5. “If we were to add up all the landlords, rich peasants, counterrevolutionaries, bad elements and rightists, their number would reach thirty million… Of our total population of six hundred million people, these thirty million are only one out of twenty. So what is there to be afraid of? … We have so many people. We can afford to lose a few. What difference does it make?â€
– Mao Zedong
6. “I propose the immediate launching of a nuclear strike on the United States. The Cuban people are prepared to sacrifice themselves for the cause of the destruction of imperialism and the victory of world revolution.â€
– Fidel Castro
7. “What we affirm is that we must proceed along the path of liberation even if this costs millions of atomic victims… advancing fearlessly towards the hecatomb which signifies final redemption.â€
– Che Guevara
…
See http://www.paulbogdanor.com/left/communists.html
I knew Mao was a monster who thought nothing of sacrificing hundreds of millions of lives, but I didn’t realize what monsters the other communists (atheists) were. I would add that I am an atheist, but I don’t agree that Christianity, on balance, had a negative influence in the 20th & 21st century.
JD
SteveF:
“Pew suggests that survey is saying Muslims share the West’s concerned about terrorist violence. I think this is nonsense. 13% of a few + Muslims is a lot of people who support terrorist groups.”
.
I think you are right. It would be nice if you were not but reality is not different because we want it to be. Sad truths do not disappear if we ignore them. And it is a sad truth with implications for foreign policy and immigration laws that many Westerners find very hard to accept because it involves realising that people do not think like you everywhere in the world. Until we do realise that, our problems will keep growing.
Oliver,
It is becoming more clear why you believed $4/gallon gasoline was here to stay: you aren’t looking at the right data nor asking the right questions.
.
The Pew survey asked muslims if they had a favorable view of Al Qaida: 13% in 11 muslim countries did have a favorable view of Al Qaida. Al Qaida is a terrorist organization famous for 9/11 (remember?). If you want to ask a similar question of people in the States, you wouldn’t ask them if they have a favorable view of white males, you would ask if they have a favorable view mass murderers. Or a favorable view of Timothy McVeigh. I think the favorables would be very close to zero.
Thomas Fuller,
Mass murders are not viewed favorably by 13% of Christians, Jews, Hindus, or even the Godless atheists! Terrorists are viewed favorably by 13% of muslims in the Pew survey. Maybe you should at least consider the political and security implications of that many people who support a terrorist organization.
Tom,
Hillary is a transparently corrupt failed former Secretary of State. Vote for her if you wish to.
When you watch Mr. Obama use his standard tools of red herrings, dissembling and bullying when he is proven once again to be wrong on something, do you look at your two votes for him with the same level of satisfaction?
As to the equivalence you are seeking to create between Modern Islamic terrorists and modern Christianity or Judaism, please. That is unworthy of you.
Mark Bofill,
Yes, there is a lot desire to join hands with everyone, sing Kumbaya, and confiscate every gun. It is the same nonsensical rubbish as leads to the comical ‘no-profiling’ TSA airport screening: makes progressives feel good about themselves, but when actually tested, fails more than 90% of the time to stop someone from bringing a weapon on board a commercial airplane. The only things that keep terrorist from attacking commercial airliners are locked cockpit doors and the knowledge passengers would be a lot more willing than before 9/11 to overpower a terrorist.
Steve,
You are getting close to asking the right question here.
You see, it is not primarily a question of religion but of what disaffected group you identify with, and how strongly.
If you asked ordinary Americans how many of them believe that an armed revolution may be necessary to take back the power from the Federal government, you might well get a non-negligible percentage, at least in certain areas.
If you asked surly American teenagers how they feel about blowing up their school or shooting down their teachers and classmates, you might get some scary answers, depending on how you phrased your question.
If you ask young men in some inner cities how positively they feel towards gangs or drug dealers, you might also get some scary percentages.
And to those who complain that Muslims do not condemn terrorist violence loudly enough: how about asking the Black Lives Matter people to take to the streets to demonstrate solidarity with the police the next time a policeman is killed in the line of duty?
I don’t think so.
Personally, I don’t see why we should be worried about letting any potentially violent people into America. We are already the most violent country in the developed world. We are, consistently, much more successful at killing each other than terrorists are at killing us.
julio,
Yes disaffected groups do often hold extreme views. But there is a distinction here: disaffected teens who don’t like their teachers are not going to Paris to kill people and blow themselves up with suicide vests. Whatever rational (or if you prefer, justification) is offered for muslims supporting terror, that support still represents a real security threat in places like Paris, New York, Washington, and now California, a threat which needs to be addressed. Addressing that threat means focusing on the root cause, even if that is very non-PC. Suggesting street gangs or criminals are somehow similar to terror organizations makes no sense. Muslims in places like Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc. give money to terrorist organizations to conduct, well, international terror. No one is donating to street gangs to make them become a greater threat. Parents do fund disaffected teens, of course, but they pretty much have to. 😉
Re: SteveF (Comment #141193)
Re: the “right” data or questions – see julio’s comments above
Re: $4/gallon gasoline – this must be relevant to something, just not sure what.
I don’t know Julio, the percentage of Danes prepared to take up arms against the government is very close to zero. The only politicians, authors, cartoonists, newspaper editors etc who need police protection are people who are threatened by radical Muslims. Please open your eyes!
julio,
One other small point: There are about 10,000 gun related murders in the USA. The large majority of those murders are criminal-on-criminal (street gangs, drug gangs, etc.). This makes perfect sense, since criminals can’t enlist the police and the courts to settle disputes. Criminals do kill innocent bystanders with guns, or during the commission of a crime, but that number is relatively small. There are also a relatively small number of gun related accidental deaths (a former Vice President was nearly involved in one of these!). Somewhere near 30,000 people die in car accidents each year, even as the per mile risk has fallen… more people driving more miles keeps the death rate almost constant. So cars cause a far greater loss life than gun related murders. We accept that loss because the net benefits of driving cars is greater than the costs. If people want to take guns away from individuals, and many do, then they should start by trying to amend the Constitution. I think that effort would fail, of course, and for pretty much the same reasons that we accept the risk of death in car accidents… the writers of the constitution (and the bill of rights, same people), and many people today, think having guns in the hands of private individuals was and is of value.
Oliver,
Re $4 gasoline: It is an instance from some years back where you were factually wrong. Your take on Muslim support for terror organizations is another instance.
Steve,
If you’re going to keep on bringing up something from “years ago,” you may as well remind us of what I said that was factually wrong, just so we know why it’s relevant. Otherwise it just seems a weird, bordering on creepy.
Niels,
I’m very glad to hear that the Danes have moved away from the violent ways of their Viking ancestors! 🙂 But my post was specifically about violence in America, which still feels very much like the Wild West in places.
Oliver,
You did an economic analysis of owning a Prius based on expensive gasoline; you assumed gasoline would remain expensive. What I was pointing out, perhaps too obliquely, was that you make unjustified assumptions. Sorry if you find that creepy. I find your take on Muslim support for terror organizations frightening, mostly because it is apparently shared by Mr Obama.
“How about militant Christian violence?”
This is just the typical Lib/Prog programmed reaction to events that don’t fit their narrative.
Step 1 – Smear a group you don’t like.
Not only are we up against violent Muslims, we have to find a road around this kind of stupidity.
Andrew
SteveF (Comment #141205)
The funny thing is, when you brought up this Prius thing earlier this year, you seemed to remember it differently. You said:
“I recall you suggesting $4.00/gallon and higher would make the Prius a reasonable investment.”
If that’s what we were talking about, then it seems to me quite a reasonable analysis to work out gas prices at which owning a Prius would make direct economic sense (relative to a comparable, non-hybrid car). You can dispute the exact numbers used, but it seems kind of obvious that you need to drive a certain amount of miles per year with gas at a certain price to make up for the cost of owning a Prius over some number of years.
The second thing is that, when you asked about it earlier in the year, I replied out that because gas prices had not stayed high, and non-hybrid cars’ fuel economy had made substantial gains in the intervening years, a Prius didn’t make economic sense for most people.
It wasn’t oblique at all. It just seemed completely irrelevant.
What I find creepy is your fixation on something which I may or may have not said years ago, that has no apparent connection to our current discussion, and insisting on using it to interpret what I am saying now. Especially when the interpretation seems to shift as convenient.
And what is my “take,” pray tell us?
Except the constitution referred to a well-regulated militia not the right of individuals to bear arms, a re-interpretation that has occurred over the last 30 years. Or …
“well-regulated militia”
As I understand it, militia are citizens with guns. The whole idea of militia is that citizens with guns can be organized in an emergency.
Andrew
Oliver,
This, pray-tell, appears to be your ‘take’:
“The data over the past few decades seem to indicate that we in America are at greater risk from being shot by angry white males than by Muslims. Let me here suggest that the majority of Americans would answer a survey saying that they have a “favorable†view of white males. By your logic, this would seem to imply that Americans support domestic terrorism.”
.
That is so wrong that it is almost comical.
.
1) The fact that there have been murders by mentally ill people, as there have always been, has nothing to do with the causes for terrorism and the threats terrorism poses. Insane people with guns are not funded by donations from people who think mass murder by crazy people is a good thing. Terrorism is funded by people who think it is a good thing. Those people, and the terrorists themselves are, well, Muslims.
.
2) Asking people of their views of white males and then drawing an inference about “support” for a handful of crazy people who happen to share the same gender and race is a non-sequitur. You would ask people if they support Timothy McVeigh or crazy murders if you want know if those people support a terrorist or crazy murders.
I take exception to your suggestion that “my logic” would lead someone to conclude lots of people support domestic terrorism. That suggestion is bizarre.
.
Do pray tell us your suggestions for ‘functional gun control’; I’m just interested to see how consistent they are with the Constitution.
RB,
This might be a little more accurate summary of the history than the New Yorker article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_case_law_in_the_United_States
I recommend all make time to watch Tom Holland on ‘De-Radicalising Muhammad’
.
* Says calling ISIS ‘not true Islam’ plays into their hands, because they say mainstream Islam is ‘not true Islam’.
.
* Reminds us that the most and worst violence is being perpetrated on Muslims.
.
* Says if threatened with death ( conversion at the point of a sword ), he too would cease questioning.
.
* Hopes current struggles are similar to Christianity’s Thirty Years War.
.
I think assimilation means adopting some of other groups ideas as one wishes others to adopt your own. It that vein, Muslim tradition includes ‘Ijtihad’ – to “struggle with oneself” through deep thought.
.
That’s certainly something we can all aspire to, and hopefully, leads to thoughtful and reasonable reform of Muslim faith.
BTW, that concept is central to this remarkable woman’s book which I read after 9/11 and reccommend.
Tom Fuller,
“How about militant Christian violence? How many mass shootings and individual assassinations do we have to cite before we agree that this religion, with such a bloody and violent history, is a threat to our society?”
Please list examples. Seriously. Where’s your list? And a list of all the priests, and bishops, and ministers who celebrate and advocated all these examples of militant Christian violence.
C’mon, Tom. Facts matter. Even in some parts of Obama’s America.
Un-freaking-believeable.
TE: “Reminds us that the most and worst violence is being perpetrated on Muslims.”
…..
That is an irrelevant point if the violence they subject Americans to is unacceptable. In fact, it tends to support the proposition that Islam has the tendency to predispose its adherents to more violence than other religions or world views.
…
A useful thought exercise to engage in is to compare the violent tendencies of let’s say 2,000,000 Chinese immigrants to 2,000,000 Muslims. The only reasonable conclusion at this time is that the Chinese would be more productive and peaceful than the Muslim immigrants. Since many more people would like to be in the US than can be accommodated, discussions such as this have to occur. Those Muslims who unequivocally condemn the violent tendencies of their compatriots would be welcome in my view. If they need to temporize or equivocate, they should find another place to live.
….
There is a history of the American government demanding religious changes by those who wished to be part of the US. Utah (Mormons essentially) was required to ban polygamy in its Constitution in order to be admitted to the US. See generally https://www.lds.org/topics/the-manifesto-and-the-end-of-plural-marriage?lang=eng and Reynolds v US (1878)
JD
.
stan,
Wikipedia has a Christian terrorism page. Incidents in the US that might qualify mostly relate to abortion clinics. I don’t think any of them are in the same league as Charles Whitman or Timothy McVeigh, neither of which were religiously motivated.
I was a graduate student at UT at the time of the Whitman incident. My mother-in-law to be was actually in the tower at the time taking a class.
TE,
That was a thoughtful presentation…. but I’m not sure I can accept his conclusion: wait a century or so for Islam to figure out how to not take the Koran literally and stop murdering people.
Angeach said “No one saw an event of this magnitude coming.”
Yes, many did know it was coming, just not when. The first attempt was in 1993. Luckily it failed. After that everyone who worked in the Twin Towers took the fire alarm drills very seriously and that is why the death toll in 2001 was not as high as it could have been. When the first tower got it, the people in the second tower started evacuating immediately.
Fuller – “How about militant Christian violence?”
Please feel free to share your list of occurrences of “Christian violence” with us. I can share the list of provable Musilm violence with you if need be.
To make sure we are not going to be pretending about their religious beliefs, I would make the restriction that the perpetrators actually practice a faith by requiring proof that they attended a house of worship regularly, or they have documented their views of the religion we are ascribing them to be practitioners of.
Oliver “It would seem to follow that inability to have a rational discussion about the pros and cons of functional gun control is probably even more indicative of stupidity, or at least terminal immaturity, in American society.”
.
Define rational discussion. Your example shows that your working definition is non-functional.
Oliver,
‘Functional gun control’ is an oxymoron. Another one is ‘gun-free zone’.
Re: SteveF (Comment #141210)
What’s perhaps more comical is that the quoted passage isn’t a “take†on Muslim support for terror organizations at all, it’s my “take†on your faulty logic.
a) Was Timothy McVeigh a Muslim? Dylan Roof? Last week’s Planned Parenthood shooter, for that matter?
b) Do we have information that the shooters in San Bernardino received donations?
a) You are drawing an inference about an entire religion, Islam, that has over 1.5 billion followers from all parts of the world and walks of life, based on a fraction who answer they view a certain terrorist organization “favorably.†My criticism is completely sequitur.
b) If you asked southern Americans, you might get something like 38% who would say they sympathize with an organization which was formed expressly for the purpose of armed rebellion against the United States of America, in large part to ensure the continued practice of slavery. Those 38% are people living in this country, and it’s a lot more than the 13% of people living in those 11 Muslim countries who say they view Al Quaeda favorably. Do you suppose that means that southern white people today support armed rebellion and slavery? Because I don’t happen to think that logic holds.
See the above.
I haven’t said that we should have stronger gun control or, if so, what form that should take. What I said is that we as a society don’t seem able to have a rational discussion about gun control. That seems like a pre-requisite to deciding things like what controls, if any, are desirable and whether they are Constitutional. So, unless you actually want to have a discussion about gun control, I’m not really interested in coming up with ideas just so you can decide whether they are Constitutional.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #141221)
DeWitt,
When I say “functional,” I mean gun control that is actually designed to do something, rather than gun control that is designed to make people feel good. If someone wants to argue that working gun control isn’t possible at all, then that also needs to be part of the discussion. Simply calling the idea of ‘functional gun control’ an oxymoron doesn’t really add anything to any discussion.
Oliver,
My logic is not faulty. What is faulty is your logic.
A Deus.
Re: SteveF earlier
There seems to be some new information regarding this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/san-bernardino-investigation-targets-man-thought-to-have-bought-2-weapons/2015/12/05/ab663b0a-9b85-11e5-b499-76cbec161973_story.html
De Wiit why when
” Ocean and Sea Ice, Satellite Application Facility (OSISAF), where areas with ice concentration higher than 30% are classified as ice.”
shows sea ice so far ahead of all other records can the DMI publish their 15% graph showing quite different lower 15% ice extent figures?
Is it for the Paris conference?
PIOMAS well up but as usual Neven 2012 graphs only delays putting it up for a week when it is a bad result for his views.
Something wrong with CIA/FBI surveillance when so many red warning signs up and about.
Muslim
Goes overseas.
Mixes with radicals.
marries a radical.
buys guns.
has a baby.
[What fantastic cover though].
Think I will become a profiler for the Govt.
Run these through the mixer and see how many thousands or tens I can come up with.
Oliver – ” If someone wants to argue that working gun control isn’t possible at all, then that also needs to be part of the discussion.”
The phrase “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” It not just catchy, it is also true.
In France the only people allowed to own a gun must undergo a psychological evaluation and have a hunting permit renewed each year. There are 7.5M legal guns in France.
Yet in the last 10 months, there have been 3 terrorist attacks using guns ( this is counting the Paris attack as a single incident). Not one of the perpetrators used a legal gun.
Julio:
“I’m very glad to hear that the Danes have moved away from the violent ways of their Viking ancestors! 🙂 But my post was specifically about violence in America, which still feels very much like the Wild West in places.”
.
Yes, I am too 🙂 I’m sure you don’t mean to say that the Vikings were no problem for the Anglo-Saxons (they eventually ruled over England). I’m certain there were no Anglo-Saxons at that time saying: “Why do we fear the Vikings so much. We are violent too”.
.
The time of the Vikings ended as Christianity took root in Denmark and yes, I think that was a good thing too 🙂
.
I don’t think you are helping moderate muslims trying to transform their faith by apologizing the radicals. Frankly, I think that is just stupid. Reminds me of the fellow travellers during the Cold war. The dissidents felt betrayed. Don’t betray moderate muslims.
The idea that you can control behavior by passing laws is demonstrably false. Prohibition didn’t eliminate drinking and it created a business model for organized crime. Drug laws haven’t eliminated drug use and are another organized crime business opportunity. The 55MPH national speed limit didn’t work. Strict limits on immigration haven’t stopped immigration. Laws to restrict ownership and possession of guns haven’t stopped criminals from using guns. Making a behavior illegal doesn’t end the behavior, it just drives it underground.
RB,
We’ll have to see what the circumstances of the gun transfer turn out to be. The man identified as the purchaser is a former neighbor (different neighborhood) where Farook lived before he was married.
DeWitt,
The 55 MPH speed limit didn’t work for the same reason lowering the thermostat to 65F and wearing Jimmy Carter style sweaters didn’t work. Individuals make personal choices about personal costs and benefits, and it is almost impossible to prevent them from doing so. It is also almost impossible to force people to substitute someone else’s cost/benefit calculation in place of their own. Anyone who thinks otherwise has not been paying attention. Probably didn’t raise teenagers either.
angech,
Dunno. Different sources perhaps? MASIE extent has increased nearly 500,000km² in the last two days while NOAA near real time and JAXA have been flat.
Far ahead of what other records? If you look at the rankings of each data set, they’re about the same with four or five years with lower values for the current day. PIOMAS is slightly ahead of 2013, and ahead of 2010, 2011 and 2012 but is well behind 2014, for example.
SteveF,
Heh. +1
Re: Niels A Nielsen (Comment #141229)
Niels,
I’m sorry if I gave the impression that I was apologizing for the terrorists! Of course I am not. The terrorists need to be fought, and, yes, stopped at the border too–to the extent that’s possible.
The points I was trying to make were: first, that the actual risk to be killed by Muslim terrorists here in the US is astronomically small, way smaller than many other risks that we regularly accept as a part of life. I certainly do not advocate complacency, and I’m sure the intelligence agencies need to stay constantly on their toes, but the actual threat posed by Muslims in America today is insignificant, compared to (say) the size of their community.
Secondly, I was trying to address Steve’s point about the 13% of Muslims in the Middle East who have a favorable view of Al-Qaida, by pointing out that whenever you have a group of people who feel victimized you may have some that resort to violence, and others who will look upon them favorably. Religion is not the point, it’s just whatever makes you identify with your fellow “victims.”
The Middle East is a mess, and I’m sure that it’s very easy for people there to blame “the West” for any number of their troubles–because we support Israel, or because we support corrupt local governments, or because we seem to favor the Shia over the Sunni in places, or whatever you want. Given that, I’d say that the fact that only 13% of the people there have a favorable view of Al-Qaida in their fight agains the West is evidence of extraordinary good sense and good will on the part of the other 87%. I wish Americans could bring themselves to reject an obviously bad deal (such as Trump, for example) in such record numbers.
In any case, it is that 87% that I have been “apologizing” for since the beginning (a figure I’m sure would be much higher among Muslims living in Western countries in the first place).
“first, that the actual risk to be killed by Muslim terrorists here in the US is astronomically small”
julio… I’m guessing the risk of the SB attacks was around 100%, since they happened.
I’m not sure why you are introducing misleading/meaningless claims into this discussion.
Andrew
julio,
Of the 11 Muslim populations surveyed, only 5 were in the Middle East: Lebanon, Egypt, Palestinian Territory, Jordan and Turkey. The other six were in South Asia and Africa: Senegal, Tunisia, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan and Indonesia. Muslim views on suicide bombings vary widely with country, but it’s not just the Middle Eastern countries that have a relatively high percentage that consider suicide bombings justified often or sometimes. 27% of Malaysian Muslims are in the often/sometimes category. 20% of Malaysian Muslims also have a favorable view of Al Queda. So much for the view that Malaysian Muslims are moderate.
wait a century or so for Islam to figure out how to not take the Koran literally and stop murdering people.
.
Unfortunately, we may not have much choice.
.
Thousands of years hasn’t disabused people of religion, so I’m not sure that even another century will help.
The biggest Muslim threat isn’t murder. It’s the threat that their way of life, a religion that doubles as a form of government, poses to the US way of life. Sharia law needs to be banned comprehensively in the US by Federal statute.
A few random thoughts.
1. What ISIS Really Wants
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
Warning, this is a long read, but probably worth it if you want insight into their ideology. It seems to be fairly straight up. Short answer – ISIS are Koran literalists, similar to people who believe the Bible is the literal word of God, no interpretation allowed.
2. Mr Fuller, on radical Christians.
I think the difference here is that we can probably expect right wing terrorism to continue at more or less the same rate. The perceived threat of radical Islam to go on an upward trend is a legitimate concern. I consider terrorism death counts that don’t include 9/11 to be a bit insincere, it counts big time.
3. Motivations of the shooter. Very little evidence has been shown of a real workplace beef. It is a bit preposterous to imagine that he was so mad at someone for contending Islam was not a religion of peace that they….killed a bunch of people. The target may have been just for convenience, he knew the layout, knew the security, was comfortable with chances of success. It sure doesn’t fit the mold though.
One other point is that if this wasn’t about Islam, one might expect that they would have gone to great pains to make sure people knew that, so as not to stain their beloved religion. It would be obvious to them it would be interpreted as such by Americans.
4. The chance of being killed in a terror attack is basically zero. The emphasis and money used here is a bit misplaced. Voter priorities don’t have to be rational though. Politicians must respond to them.
5. It is striking to me how much more passion Obama has fighting the red tribe than protecting the US from radical Islam. It may be related to #4 here, or an assumption that this does not need to be stated, or something else. It is a sad day when the French “look” 10 times tougher than America. I personally would like to see a little smack talk and saber rattling. A “red line” demand for ISIS to stop asking for supporters to murder Westerners would be a good start.
julio,
“Religion is not the point, it’s just whatever makes you identify with your fellow “victims.—
.
Cries of ‘god is great’ while murdering people you do not know says exactly the opposite. I must respectfully disagree: in this case religion is indeed at least part of the point, just as it was when witches were burned alive and the inquisition led to torture and murder. Religion was and is (sadly) sometimes used to morally justify atrocities. Islam must becom a faith that is tolerant of other beliefs and other views, or it will remain incompatible with the 21st century world. This in not the West’s problem to resolve, it must be resolved within Islam, but it is the West’s obligation to make plain that Islam MUST change; there can be no other option given.
deWitt,
Thanks for the data. Malaysian Muslims do sound a bit scary; I wonder why?
SteveF,
Not sure I agree with Islam must change. Moderate Muslims don’t like these guys either. They aren’t exactly up in arms because ISIS is getting bombed every day. They seem to be more on our side from what I can tell. Most of the people fighting them on the ground are Muslim, as are the bulk of their victims.
It would be useful if Islam had a “Pope” that was considered the highest authority that could denounce this cancerous sect officially. As a westerner I don’t feel responsible because some lunatic shot up a PP clinic, and one can assume the Pope isn’t a fan.
For the next few decades, we probably need to commit ourselves to “mowing the jihadi grass” every 5 or 10 years.
Tom Scharf “ISIS are Koran literalists, similar to people who believe the Bible is the literal word of God, no interpretation allowed.”
Tom, to be a faithful Muslim, you have to be a literalist. Otherwise you are considered an apostate.
There is no wiggle room. This is not considered a radical Islamic position either. What seems to be in dispute is the order to which the Koran is to be read, and which Surah’s supercede previous ones.
Tom Scarf – “It would be useful if Islam had a “Pope†that was considered the highest authority that could denounce this cancerous sect officially.”
The Shiites do have one – the Ayatollah. The Sunnis disagree.
Tom Scharf,
Moderate people of every faith do not support ISIS. The issue is if a large majority of Muslims will stand up to ISIS and the other literalists, intellectually, morally, and yes, militarily. Real resolution will come when Muslims represent most of the ‘overwhelming force’, including intellectual force, used to defeat the crazies. The problem is, there is no broad consensus among muslims of the need for this. The Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia actually think a literal reading of the Koran is correct. They are aligned WITH ISIS, not against it.
Bit like my old swimming pool really, first swim 20,000 dollars
20 swims, 1000 dollars a swim
After 10 years down to 2 dollars a swim then moved house no pool much better.
Terrorist attacks in USA much the same big initial death tag, now 15 years later averaged out over 250 million people barely noticeable, except to the poor people involved or related or injured.
Nonetheless a totally over the top expensive reaction.
Does not matter if Muslim or not.
Monitor to reduce incidents.
Death penalty to all who have taken lives
Get on with life and the important issues,
More food, power and services to all, at the least environmental cost.
Re: SteveF (Comment #141241)
But, Steve… we already have, apparently, at least 87% of all Muslims for whom their religion does not equate with jihad or suicide bombings.
I do not think any of us have a right to tell any of those people that their religion must change before they can be considered fit to join the “civilized” world.
I also do not think any special tests or oaths, beyond what we already have, should be required of people who want to enter the US. Of course you have to agree to abide by the US laws. That includes already not murdering anyone!
Julio,
Well then those 87% should step up and address the problem. I am not talking about people taking oaths here, I am talking about eliminating an utterly barbaric culture: https://newrepublic.com/article/125069/saudi-arabias-depraved-justice
.
So long at this (and worse!) is going on in Islam, they most certainly are not fit to join the civilized world. Acting upon a literal reading of the Koran is profoundly evil (just as would be acting on a literal reading of the Bible). That is what must change.
No one is going to accuse me of being an expert on Islam, but from what I read the literal reading of the Koran involves recognizing no borders, no laws but Allah’s, constant jihad to expand the caliphate, execution of apostates which turns out to be a pretty broad category, enslavement of non-Muslim women, and a bunch of other things we don’t see in almost all Muslim countries. They would be what I call “moderate” compared to ISIS. Even Saudi Arabia is moderate in this view.
If a bunch of Muslims want to go live in the desert and practice Shariah law and basically revert to the 7th century that is fine with me, just stop the murdering expansionist craziness. They apparently believe in forcing an apocalyptic battle with the west (or Rome) to fulfill prophecy. It explains a lot of their seemingly insane behavior. They are doing the “death by cop” suicide on a large scale. There doesn’t appear to be any choice but to give it to them good and hard.
I have to say, I’ve mostly stopped commenting here now because I’m offended by the people here. I won’t bother with all of it, but the anti-Muslim attitude a number of people show here seems nothing more than simple bigotry to me. For instance, SteveF says:
But no fairminded individual should reach the conclusion the reason 13% of Muslims surveyed hold favorable views of the Taliban is they “cleary support violence.: Anyone with any knowledge of… well, anything, should realize organizations which do bad things will also tend to do some good things. The Taliban may be a terrorist organization, but that doesn’t mean all it does is commit terrorist acts.
If you ask people their views on criminal organizations, you’ll find people in some communities have more favorable views of them than others because the organizations do things which benefit those communities. Sure, a gang may sell drugs and commit various crimes, but if it keeps the streets safe in your neighborhood so people aren’t getting mugged/raped, you might be okay with them. That doesn’t mean you support them selling drugs or commiting other crimes. It just means you like that they provide you safety.
Claiming people who support a group “clearly support” one specific aspect of that group is the sort of infantile argument you almost only hear in biased rhetoric. And this isn’t a one-off sort of thing. From the same user:
Here, he blames Muslims for the actions of Saudi Arabia, saying they “are not fit to join the civilized world” until they address their responsibilities in regard to that country. Yet in doing so, he says not a word about his own culpability in Saudia Arabia’s actions, which even the article he links to highlights: Apparently Muslims aren’t fit to join the civilized world due to them not stopping horrendous behavior the whole world chooses to stand by andnot to try to stop… because upsetting Saudia Arabia would be economically damaging..
Apparently it’s cool to actively support Saudia Arabia by doing tons of business with it and inviting it to join your organizations to give it a veneer of credibility while ignoring its horrendous actions, unless you’re a Muslim. Then you have to actively campaign against the country’s government lest you be deemed a barbarian unfit for participation in modern civilization.
Maybe it’s not outright bigotry, but it’s certainly hypocritical.
Brandon,
You are simply wrong.
Brandon,
You say, “I’ve mostly stopped commenting here now because I’m offended by the people here. I won’t bother with all of it, but the anti-Muslim attitude a number of people show here seems nothing more than simple bigotry to me.”
Out of respect to our hostess I won’t say more than:
“Don’t let the door hit you on your backside as you leave.”
Honestly, I think the only intolerance anyone’s displaying here is towards those who hold the opinion (whoever they might be, whatever beliefs, creed, race, religion, ideology, whatever) that they are justified in murdering those who hold different opinions.
I’m intolerant of terrorists; people who hold different opinions from me. If this makes me a bigot, so be it.
Pardon, I should have elaborated to make this clear. My problem with terrorists isn’t that we have a difference of opinion. My problem is that they try to kill innocent people just like me, and that given the chance they’d kill me as well.
I should have thought all of this was obvious beyond the necessity of explanation, but.
Brandon:
This is the most sensible post I’ve ever seen from you. To think that the great administrative, economic and military powers of the west are innocent bystanders around a powder-keg that we have compiled and sparked is lunacy. On top of that, the US responded to what was essentially a Saudi attack on 911 by destroying many of their of their secular enemies.
Howard,
The deliberate conflating of disaffected Saudis with the Saudi government is an old and tired bit of deception.Tell us, while you are at it, who knew about the 911 attacks.
It is almost as annoying as those reactionaries who pretend a mass shooting by a nut case is the same as a terrorist attack (if they will even admit it is a terror attack) and has the same solution.
Brandon,
.
People who accept and act on ancient religious texts without thinking can do harmful things.
.
People who accept and act on texts of unfounded proclamations of climate catastrophe can also do harmful things.
.
We can tolerate wrong ideas, but not harmful things.
link
I don’t think President Obama is a bigot. But again, if he is, I’m with him in his bigotry regarding this.
Mark: Obummer, the half-pink Kenyan Muslim from Indonesia is not being racist, he is just being practical. Since the information age’s chief byproduct is ignorance, Barack Hussein is merely telling dolts what they want to hear… that is what politicians do. Their true talent is making pablum statements with a firm conviction, revealing no tells. Mission Accomplished!
Hunter: Your point is a distinction without a difference. That level of naivete indicates one whom would have been equally convinced by the movies of Riefenstahl.
Sure. My point is merely that in substance President Obama’s argument differs little from the argument SteveF is making. I’m using a form of argument from authority, which is of course fallacious. Obviously President Obama isn’t a bigot therefore… Still. It’s a short cut and more than what’s deserved in this case, IMO.
I gotta get back to work.
Obama’s argument is clearly different from the one SteveF makes. He is not for instance saying that Islam is the problem. Obama’s statement is the equivalent of substituting Islam for Christianity and the ISIL for the KKK.
One of the memes:
.
This is a war of ideas
.
We can’t even adopt the idea that moderate Muslims ascribe to the zealots by name: Daesh, meaning bigot.
.
Obama still uses ISIL, which I believe is three acronyms ago. ISIL->ISIS->IS ( or as NPR goes on about the self described Islamic State.
.
If he wasn’t golfing so much, perhaps Obama could help in the war of ideas to describe, explain, and emphasize the term Daesh to unify our oppositions to these yahoos with that of the more maintstream, upright and constructive Muslims.
.
But that may be too much to ask of Obama, and Americans.
Mark: Obummer, the half-pink Kenyan Muslim from Indonesia
.
Howard, I don’t care for Obama as an individual or for his policies.
.
But I don’t care for your expressed bigotry either.
.
Your words reflect poorly on you – I suggest you choose them more slowly.
Mark Bofill:
Um…What exactly is your definition of “substantive”?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think SteveF is arguing that Muslims are themselves problem, not just thugs and terrorists who are justifying their violence and brutality in the name of Islam.
That’s certainly not Obama’s argument.
I think the logical flaw here is not “argument from authority” but “false equivalence”.
Carrick,
Maybe my reading comprehension is off today. Seriously. It happens.
President Obama isn’t talking solely about terrorists and thugs, he is talking about what Muslim leaders ‘have to do’, and referring to the idea that ‘an extremist ideology has spread within some Muslim communities’.
Am I reading SteveF wrong? I thought this was what he was talking about.
Is the problem that SteveF referred to the practice of stoning? Not rhetorical.
Mark,
Yes you are reading SteveF wrong.
RB,
Ok. In what way?
.
There is a distinction between Daesh and majority Sunni views. Daesh is apocalyptic with an end of times battle before paradise ( kind of like Christians that take Revelations literally ). My understanding is that most Sunnis don’t believe this.
.
On the other hand, the name Islam itself means ‘submission’. Civilization based on reason is directly at odds with submission of reason to religion. So there’s a logical conflict with Ijtihad ( thinking for yourself ) versus submitting to a god you may not reason to even exist using your critical mind.
.
If we say Islam is the problem, we can’t stop there – any religion ( including the cult of global warming ) is the problem.
.
But, from a practical standpoint, one will not get 7 billion people to renounce religion.
.
Neither will one get more than 1 billion Muslims to renounce.
.
So from a practical standpoint, better to reward constructive individuals, regardless of their faith, and punish the crazies.
.
But to co-opt moderates of any group, one ( or one society ) must meet them in the middle with some concessions and find common ideas.
.
Mark, If you think it was not already pointed out, you won’t get it.
Jesus RB, can you at least link to the comment you think points it out?
Carrick: “Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think SteveF is arguing that Muslims are themselves problem, not just thugs and terrorists who are justifying their violence and brutality in the name of Islam.”
.
Of course you are wrong. Political Islam is the problem – not Muslims. The problem is that Islam IS fundamentalism. A literal readings of the Islamic texts is not a crazy fringe in Islam. The Koran is the exact words of Allah. For example: apostates should be killed. Why? Because the Koran says so. Did you ever hear an Imam explain theologically why apostates should not be killed? I don’t think so. If you have, that would be an exception.
In Denmark imams have been asked if they condone stoning of adulteress women? You never hear a clear no. You hear ambigous statements amounting to something like: not in Denmark as long as Denmark is not an Islamic country. I wonder why it is so hard to accept that political Islam is completely unacceptable and we Westerners have to say very clearly that these aspects of the religion have to change. We have no choice but to confront Muslims who think Sharia should be the law of the land.
.
Yes, there is a crazy fringe of Christians who are fundamentalists and want to read the Bible literally. They are a tiny minority (mostly Americans :-)) and they are indeed crazy.
IMO, SteveF’s position is that Muslims as a group haven’t done and won’t do as Obama asked them to do in his speech yesterday. At best we might get some lip service. I would be happy to be proven wrong about this, but I’m not holding my breath.
Niels, it would help if you pointed out something that SteveF said that was remotely similar to what your argument (which I assume you think are his arguments). Remember that SteveF said (and you quoted this):
I don’t accept that what Daesh and Al Qaeda are practicing is a legitimate form of religion, but rather an extension of politics by other means.
So in that since, my views are closer to yours, and farther from the views expressed by SteveF.
Carrick,
My argument is that Muslims have a responsibility to denounce not just the specific acts of radical terrorists, but to explicitly renounce and reject, and do their best to eliminate from Islam, the entire idea that any literal reading of the Koran is “correct”…. because a literal reading leads to violence, atrocities, and terror. (Eg. Stoning women to death in a pit for adultery is not ever going to be acceptable, even if the Koran says it is OK.) Until and unless Islam ‘evolves’ into a religion which accepts pluralism, and explicitly rejects violence based on what is in the Koran, Islam will remain incompatible with, and a threat to, the civilized world.
.
I am actually pleased that Mr. Obama has (finally!) started to say that terrorism by Islamic fundamentalists requires more of Muslims than just lip service about sympathy for the victims; it requires Muslims to actually ‘confront’ the problem within their faith. This is a big improvement over the 100% rubbish he has been spouting about terrorism; he might now be down to 70% rubbish. I am not so naive as to I think Mr. Obama will ever actually press Islam to evolve in that direction, but I think he recognizes the electoral prospects of his party in 2016 are going to be greatly diminished if he doesn’t adopt a public stance more in line with the electorate.
DeWitt,
Yes, exactly right. The problem is one that can only be solved by Islam.
Carrick,
If Mr. Obama were even a tiny bit sincere, he would long ago have been complaining, publicly, loudly, and regularly, about the brutal “justice” prescribed by Islam. As Niels correctly points out: the issue is that lots of Muslims (and some places, a majority) do in fact support atrocities like stoning, beating to death, throwing homosexuals from building tops, killing anyone who chooses to leave Islam, etc. Lots of Muslims do in fact think a literal reading of the Koran is both correct and absolutely ‘moral’. I have talked with some of them, including educated people with plenty of exposure to the Western world, and I know this is true.
.
That is what has to change. I am waiting for the loud outcry from within Islam for the change to start. So far: just crickets.
It is not a religion which evolves into accepting pluralism but a society which evolves into a pluralistic one. All paths are not considered equivalent, even in pluralistic societies, as exemplified here
Unfortunately, there doesn’t appear to be any such thing as Islam. There are Sunnis, Shiites, Alawites, Wahhabis, Sufis…. They all, except possibly the Sufis, appear to hate each other at least as, and possibly more, passionately than they hate other infidels.
Tis a shoe! – No! Tis a sandal!
RB,
For goodness sake….
“It is not a religion which evolves into accepting pluralism but a society which evolves into a pluralistic one.”
.
What tripe. It is as if Muslim support for:
1) imposition of Sharia law (in all countries!), and
2) government and Islam being one in the same
doesn’t exist in your universe.
Howard,
Your attempt at cleverness only makes you look even more shallow.
There were Americans supporting the IRA back in the day when the IRA was violent.
Did that mean American policy was to support the IRA?
In your world is that a distinction without a difference?
The irony of you picking Riefenstahl is that she helped glamorize exactly the sort of shallow thinking you display here so well.
TE,
Cast off the shoes, follow the Gourd!
RB (Comment #141263)
December 7th, 2015 at 8:53 am
“Obama’s argument is clearly different from the one SteveF makes. He is not for instance saying that Islam is the problem. Obama’s statement is the equivalent of substituting Islam for Christianity and the ISIL for the KKK.”
Christian complicity, or at least not forcefully speaking out against the KKK in the parts of the south and the north must have had a significant affect on their staying power.
Kenneth,
“Christian complicity, or at least not forcefully speaking out against the KKK in the parts of the south”
.
Sure, there was a lot of support for the KKK. There is a lot of support now for a literal reading of the Koran…. and the subsequent atrocities.
Kenneth, Tom Fuller, RB, Howard, Brandon,
I suggest that you read up on the logical fallacy called tu quoque. Past or even current sins by Christians and others is in no way germane to the current discussion.
DeWitt, the relevance is that a literalist interpretation is a choice made by some people i.e., there exist viewpoints that it is not relevant that humans were involved in transmitting the divine word.
DeWitt, in my comment I was making a point that a vicious small minority of a large group can have more staying power when the majority does not speak out loudly against that minority. In no way was I justifying majority Muslims not speaking out because of an instance of past Christian silence in a somewhat similar situation. In fact we should learn from our past.
Mark Bofill:
I’ll give you one for it.
TE,
One?! Are you trying to insult me?! Me, with a poor dying grandmother?! One?!
Well, looks like realities are impinging on Daesh’ socialist government. They have to cut services and raise taxes because they’re running out of other peoples money.
Apologies RB, I missed your comment here earlier.
“past Christian silence in a somewhat similar situation”
I know next to nothing about the Klu Klux Klan but I doubt that their killings and/or political aspirations were based on an interpretation of the Bible. If they were I doubt even more that this interpretation was not denounced by virtually all Christian groups.
.
BTW, I don’t see how you could read the New Testament and not understand that this text has nothing to do with politics. Jesus has no earthly aspirations: “My kingdom is not of this World”. In this and in most other regards, Islam is profoundly different, prescribing not only how a person must and must not conduct his daily life in detail but also how an ideal islamic society should be.
The task facing muslims willing to depolitize (is that a word?) their faith is a formidable one. It doesn’t help to pretend that it is not. Hirsi Ali (who lives under police protection in America) has identified the necessary changes that need to take place within Islam. They are truly radical changes!
DeWitt:
The issue is whether we are applying double standards (to some degree we are). It’s not tu quoque to look at whether this is happening.
DeWitt Payne, this statement of yours isn’t true at all:
In fact, I’m inclined to either call it idiotic or disingenuous as the link you provide explains why you’re wrong:
Calling people hypocrites because they apply different standards to Muslims than other groups such as Christians is not resorting to a tu quoque fallacy. It’s not saying their logic is wrong because of the double standards; it’s saying they’re hypocrites because of the double standards.
And in my case, it’s saying those double standards make them look like bigots, because there is no logical or moral reason for using double standards. The only reason to apply different logical arguments based solely upon which group is being considered is bias. Biased treatment of people based upon their ethnicity or religion is bigotry.
None of that has anything to do with the tu quoque fallacy, something anyone who read the article you linked to would know. Heck, anyone who just thought about the issue would know it’s not a logical fallacy to point out double standards. What you said is completely ridiculous.
“Jesus has no earthly aspirations”
?
Christ, being Greek for Messiah or the,
“saviour or liberator of a group of people”.
.
Seems pretty clear that those seeking liberation were the Roman occupied Israelites, and that liberation and restoration of sovereignty were the motivation of early Christians ( who were exclusively Jewish ).
“It is distinct from an argument condemning double standards, which argues against an opponent’s moral standing to demand better conduct from others when guilty of similar misconduct themselves”
Brandon,
Every hypothetical group, indeed every person, has been/is guilty of having had double standards at some point in their existence, including groups and people you happen to like.
We (you) should do like DeWitt says, and address the actual issue at some point.
Andrew
Niels A Nielsen (Comment #141295)
December 7th, 2015 at 3:36 pm
If you are not familiar with the KKK, you might want to Google Birth of a Nation and with reference to a US president by the name of Woodrow Wilson.
Brandon,
I have no double standards. I oppose any religion (or political philosophy) which is used to justify murder. You are in denial here.
Carrick,
What double standard? Has anyone here suggested that terrorism by other than Muslims is acceptable behavior? I don’t think so. The only thing I’ve seen is exactly tu quoque.
Just because people claiming to be Christians commit violence does not mean that they are acting in accordance with Scripture. That argument is, IMO, much more difficult to make regarding Muslim terrorists.
Brandon,
Read the definition of tu quoque again. Another name for it is appeal to hypocrisy. Whether someone is a hypocrite has nothing whatsoever to do with the logic of their argument, only their moral standing to make the argument. And again, I fail to see the double standard here.
DeWitt Payne, please try addressing what people say. For instance, it would help if you quoted what you’re responding to. If you did that, you would know this statement by you:
Is completely idiotic as you would have had to include this statement by me:
You just told me to read the definition of this fallacy again because it says something I explained in the comment you’re responding to.
It’s no wonder you aren’t seeing the double standards. You’re clearly not reading what people write.
DeWitt,
You fail to see a double standard because, well, there is none. Claims of double standards are rubbish: A crazy adolescent in Connecticut who murders a bunch of kids and teachers at a school is nothing at all like suicide bombers shooting away in Paris while shouting “God is great!”.
.
That people refuse to acknowledge this difference strikes me as bizarre; in fact it seems to me we need a word which is strong than ‘bizarre’. Should we try to minimize the chance of mentally unstable people killing? Sure. But that is in no way relevant to the question of how to stop Islamist terrorists from killing, nor relevant to the analysis of what motivates islamists terrorists.
By the way, I think it is incredible DeWitt Payne addressed me with a comment implying I’m guilty of using the tu quoque fallacy in response to my comment which said (in part):
And then, without having said a word about anything I discussed in that comment, he says he can’t see any double standards. And by “incredible,” I don’t mean extraordinary; I mean difficult, if not impossible to believe.
Brandon,
Besides being endlessly, tediously, argumentative, you border on irrational.
A Deus.
DeWitt, hopefully you aren’t totally oblivious to reality.
For example, we have a supposedly Christian man attack and kill 9 people in a black Church.
Response from the right: “He’s crazy obviously.”
Another supposedly Christian man attacks and kills 6 people at a Sikh temple.
Response from the right “The guy’s obviously insane”.
We have two supposedly Muslim people attack and kill 14.
Response from the right: “Obviously this is Islamic terrorism. ”
In alternative universe where a Muslim walked into a church and killed 9 people, a Muslim goes in and kills 6 more at another church and a Christian couple killed 14 co-workers, I don’t have any doubt which ones of these you guys would be discussing.
Carrick,
You are completely missing the point. Mentally unstable people who kill are not the same as people who kill after careful plans, motivated by Islamic fundamentalism.
“I don’t have any doubt which ones of these you guys would be discussing.” Nah, you are wrong, at least if the muslims were just crazy and the couple was killing based on extreme religious views.
Carrick: “For example, we have a supposedly Christian man attack and kill 9 people. Response from the right: “He’s crazy obviously.†We have two supposedly Muslim people attack and kill 14.Response from the right: “Obviously this is Islamic terrorism. â€
..
Your mistake is that you fail to acknowledge that ISIS arises out of substantial strands of Islam. No significant Christian religion that I am aware of could be used to justify the South Carolina killings. Surely, no Christian religion that has any relevance in the US.
..
Here for instance is a quote is a passage from an Atlantic Magazine article.
…
“The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam. ..Following takfiri doctrine, the Islamic State is committed to purifying the world by killing vast numbers of people.
… This behavior includes a number of practices that modern Muslims tend to prefer not to acknowledge as integral to their sacred texts. “Slavery, crucifixion, and beheadings are not something that freakish [jihadists] are cherry-picking from the medieval tradition,†Haykel said. Islamic State fighters “are smack in the middle of the medieval tradition and are bringing it wholesale into the present day.— See http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
…
Seeing that ISIS has declared, and is waging war on the US, and is the product of an incredibly inhumane world view, I believe that ISIS members should be treated in the same way we treated Nazis during and after WWII and that ISIS sympathizers should be given the same treatment as Nazi sympathizers.
JD
From the NYT room for debate: “Finding real policy solutions won’t work until we subject modernity to a fundamental scrutiny. Why are [Muslim] youth in the West, where there are religious and political freedoms, equality and economic opportunity, turning away? The key question here is not what is the appeal of ISIS but rather why has the American dream and the promise of Western liberalism lost its appeal?” http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/12/06/how-can-america-counter-the-appeal-of-isis/this-is-what-happens-when-modernity-fails-all-of-us
…
This deflection of responsibility and failure to directly address the violent characteristics of substantial strands of Islam is what needs to be stopped in my opinion. Germans after WWI had many legitimate gripes but that didn’t justify the Nazi Party.
JD
Criminals, crazies, thugs and terrorists are happy to don the cloak of religion to help justify to themselves and others the rightness of their actions.
Christians used to do it a lot more. Now, not so much. Islamists didn’t use to do it that much. Now, a lot more.
ISIL is a bunch of Sunnis disenfranchised by the new Shia government in Iraq. They’re fighting to get back some of their old power. They’ve done a superb propaganda job and about 30,000 kids from other countries who feel disenfranchised by unemployment and racism have moved there to fight with them.
What is difficult to understand about any of this?
I find the responses I’ve been getting on this subject interesting. In the last topic, JD Ohio said he wouldn’t respond to me because I had lost all credibility due to a mistake I had made then promptly admitted and corrected when it was pointed out. Now in this one SteveF has said:
And:
There a number more I could point to, but the point isn’t to dwell on who said what. The point is just that the people who appear to me to be expressing the anti-Muslim bigotry are also the ones who refuse to participate in anything resembling a real discussion. That those two traits might correlate isn’t surprising, but it is interesting people would put so little effort into not being, or even just not appearing, close-minded and biased.
I find it preferable to respond to the points of the people I criticize and mock so I can show why they deserve to be criticized and mocked. I don’t know why others feel differently.
Thomas Fuller “ISIL is a bunch of Sunnis disenfranchised by the new Shia government in Iraq. They’re fighting to get back some of their old power. They’ve done a superb propaganda job and about 30,000 kids from other countries who feel disenfranchised by unemployment and racism have moved there to fight with them.
What is difficult to understand about any of this?”
…
What is difficult to understand is your using unemployment and racism[alleged racism*] as an excuse for beheadings and the killing of innocent people. There are many other people in other parts of the world just as bad off and they don’t do what ISIS does. Also, in fact the San Bernardino ISIS terrorist had a decent job, so economic distress can’t be an excuse for his depravity.
…
JD
…
*[– don’t know the ethnic identity of ISIS members, so I can’t comment directly on race of people involved. However, from the outside one could view the various Islamic factions as being part of the same race as we would in the US use the term]
Thomas Fuller,
“What is difficult to understand about any of this?”
.
Not difficult to understand your analysis Tom, it’s just mostly wrong.
Tom Fuller: “ISIL is a bunch of Sunnis disenfranchised by the new Shia government in Iraq. They’re fighting to get back some of their old power.”
….
Have got this wrong too. They are killing people all over the world and not just in Iraq, including Turkey, France, Lebanon and Tunisia. See http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/isis-trail-death-n475861 Since Oct. 10, they have killed 525 people all over the world.
JD
” I criticize and mock people so I can show why they deserve to be criticized and mocked.
the point isn’t to dwell on who said what.”
Nobody likes being made fun of but most of us do make fun/disparage/mock other people if they disagree with us, as long as they are not bigger than us.
Most of us do dwell on criticism.
I feel it would be better to criticize arguments logically and leave people alone, but am prepared to make an exception with Stephen Lewindowsky.
“The only reason to apply different logical arguments based solely upon which group is being considered is bias.”
Not sure. Logically if the arguments are solely about which group is being considered and if you take away this, the only reason to have this argument, the argument, about the groups being considered, could not proceed.
Your wishing to perceive bias when the bias is the subject of the argument seems misplaced.
Like saying blue balls are different to red so you are biased against blue balls?
No, just pointing out that the colour is different.
The two ideas are not mutually exclusive.
.
The Frontline Losing Iraq and the Rise of ISIS do confirm a lot of this. They also damn Obama for not negotiating a new agreement to stay and baby sit Iraq. Much of what has transpired was predicted by his generals.
Thomas Fuller, You are wrong about this because you are ignoring important ideological differences between religions. Just like there were different strains of fascism in the early 1900’s, with Nazism being obviously more problematic. Nazism was not compatible with democracy. Is Islamism? Judging from the popularity of Islamism in the Muslim world and the sad status of human rights in Muslim states, its a legitimate question for Muslims to ask and do some soul searching.
angech:
Huh? The bias wasn’t the subject of the argument. My claim is Muslims and non-Muslims are being held to different standards by a number of people commenting here. I say this is a bias displayed when people apply different standards (or logical arguments) to different groups, solely based on what groups they are.
Simply pointing out Muslims are different from non-Muslims wouldn’t lead to the sort of things some people have said about Muslims here.
I criticize and mock people only when I feel they have behaved poorly, and I do it then to show I feel that behavior isn’t appropriate. I feel it is important people who behave poorly not be treated the same as people who behave well.
Carrick,
You are totally oblivious to reality if you think those incidents are comparable and justify the claim of a double standard.
Show me a poll where 13% of Christians world wide don’t disapprove of incidents like that or think they are justified and you might have a point.
Re: SteveF (Comment #141283)
It ought to be non-controversial that as far as Christianity is concerned pluralism is a social principle , not a religious one. Christianity the religion is not pluralistic:
Mark: sorry about the misunderstanding.
Neither is Judaism or Islam. I dunno about Hindus or Buddhists. However, given the propensity of Hindus and Muslims towards killing each other in India and Pakistan, I suspect Hinduism isn’t all that tolerant either. My impression is that the closest thing to an actual religion of peace is Buddhism, but I could be wrong about that too.
Since some people are scoffing at the idea there is any parallel between Christianity and Islam when it comes to terrorism, I feel I should point out it was just a week or so ago we had a Christian attack a Planned Parenthood clinic in the United States. This comes after a long series of other attacks on similar clinics, many carried out by self-proclaimed Christian terrorist groups, such as the Lambs of God, who have kidnapped and murdered people for decades.
I know people will say things about how the scale isn’t the same, but before they do, I want to draw people’s attention to the assassination of Dr. George Tiller. Prior to his murder, his clinic had been firebombed, he had received death threats, and he had been shot by a Christian five times. Rather than condemn such behavior as abhorrent and inexcusable, the right wing in the United States actively encouraged it by inflaming hostilities against him in national broadcasts on a regular basis. And even after his murder, many people on the right either refused to condemn it, offered only the weakest condemnation possible or even made jokes about it.
So… yeah. We could also look at the Christians who do things like murder 77 people in a single day, which I brought up in the last thread on this topic, but the reality is people who speak out against acts of violence by Muslims almost never speak out equally in terms of acts of violence by Christians. The opposite is likely true as well.
Personally though, I think the most troubling sign is Saudia Arabia has a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council. I don’t think any country can legitimately condemn terrorism and support that move, and if the rumors are true, the United Kingdoms might have done more than just support it – they might have ensured it happened. I don’t know how one rationalizes condemning ISIS and not condemning Saudia Arabia, much less actively helping Saudia Arabia get away with all the horrible things it does.
DeWitt,
I don’t plan on getting into a discussion of the Eastern religions, since it is tangential for the present purposes but my comment that SteveF found to be tripe earlier concerned my disputing this assertion of his:
It seems to me that you agree that neither Islam the religion nor Christianity the religion is pluralistic.
“I feel I should point out it was just a week or so ago we had a Christian attack a Planned Parenthood clinic in the United States.”
You’re like a broken record, Brandon. You can’t stop smearing Christians. You’re ill.
Andrew
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #141325)
“I don’t know how one rationalizes condemning ISIS and not condemning Saudi Arabia”,
Quite agree with this point of yours.
One answer may be ISIS sells its oil to Turkey and Saudi sells their oil to us.
As said previously terrorism acts by ISIS are the dying throes of a desperate people being battered into submission.
Expect Muslim extremists who see the west as an enemy and live in western countries will continue sporadic acts for years to come, each trying to outdo the previous in kills.
Good news is for the vast majority we will never personally be subjected to any such attack in our lives.
Bad news is we will all think we are personally the next target.
RB,
All religious groups are by their nature ‘intolerant’ in the sense that the believers take it as a matter of faith that ‘we are right and they are wrong’. That is very different from taking as a matter of faith ‘we are right and they are wrong, so we will burn them at the stake, nail them to a cross, cut off their heads, stone them in a pit, tear off their fingernails, throw them off rooftops…” etc (the styles of religiously motivated atrocities are almost limitless, of course). It is intolerance of different views which leads to atrocities that must be eliminated.
Brandon, your own lead example negated your claim of double standards. You only demonstrate your bigotry in your long winded yet empty diatribe. The attacker swore no allegiance to any group. He was not part of any pro-life movement. He is deranged, he was not praised by any mainstream pro-life group. His religious views are not part of any significant group. There are no polls showing that Christians or even pro-life group members support violence against abortion clinics.
Alright. I was impatient with the Christian argument thing to begin with, but maybe it has merit. FWIW, I denounce terrorism. I will be more vocal in denouncing terrorist acts committed by Christians in the future. There.
I still think was changing the subject, but OK. I always try to appreciate people helping point out my blind spots. I think it remains though, that SteveF, DeWitt, and absolutely everybody reading here opposes terrorism regardless of who perpetrates it, period paragraph.
Also, I still think we have a specific problem right now with Islamic terrorism, largely due to ISIS. I think it’s substantial enough that it deserves specific attention. Maybe in ten years Christian terrorism will dwarf Islamic terrorism as a threat to the U.S.; maybe not. Right now, ignoring Islamic terrorism and generalizing seems foolish, in my view.
When there is an avowedly Christian organization promoting terrorism and actively recruiting followers like Daesh/ISIS/ISIL, Boko Haram, Al Queda or the Taliban with widespread global support approaching 10% among Christians, I would concede that ignoring it and the the terrorist acts it promotes would be applying a double standard. There isn’t and I’m not.
SteveF,
Every stable member of society would agree that the intolerance that leads to atrocities must be eliminated. But what many of us, I believe, have been saying is that people do bad things and find justification within scripture. And people do bad things also within religions whose scripture is more inclusive than that of Christianity i.e, have an acknowledgement that there are many equally valid paths to God, salvation etc.
RB,
See DeWitt’s last comment; that pretty well sums it up.
.
In the past there may have been times where other religions were just as bad, but the problem today is mainly Islam as interpreted by a significant slice of all Muslims.
.
The issue is NOT that there are fringe individuals who ascribe to most any religion you might name, and who do bad things, nor even that some of those fringe individuals might try to use their religion as a justification. Everyone knows this is true. The issue is organizations which actively promote and/or carry out terror. Any such organization, no mater its claimed moral authority, would be a big problem.
.
Presently active terror organizations are all claimed by their members to be moral, just, and good, based upon their reading of…. wait for it…. the Koran. These terror organizations are viewed by many Muslims (in many countries) favorably, and it is clear that some terror organizations receive financial support from Muslims in the Middle East who are not themselves terrorists. I do not find that at all surprising, because many Muslims, in many countries, claim to also support the institution of sharia law and it’s many prescribed atrocities for ‘offenses’.
.
Though still nearly blinded by the opaque fog of his (il)liberal ideals, his self-righteous, smug political correctness, and a near rabid desire to collect guns owned by individuals (while likely humming Kumbaya), Mr Obama seems to have begun to recognize the voters have grown more than a little frustrated with him on how he fails to adequately address terrorism. He wants Hillary to be elected, if only to preserve his executive orders, so he has actually begun to acknowledge that the terrorist are (shockingly!) Muslim extremists. I hope he continues this recent drift toward reality, but I won’t hold my breath, for there are none so blind as those who choose not to see.
ISIS is Islamic, which as one of three branches of Abrahamic monotheism. I have not read the Koran nor have any desire to. I have read most of the old testament which tells the story of an angry, jealous “god” who requires animal sacrifice strict obedience and will rain death, destruction, pestilence, disease on those who do not obey him. Sounds more like a devil to me.
Next we have all the people who call themselves Jews, Christians and Moslims. The majority of these people are good, hard working and not strict fundamentalists. The abrahamic fundamentalists are responsible for a majority of terrorism, with islamic fundamentalists dominating that category.
On top of this, we have a history of western imperialism who carved up and exploited the abrahamic lands to fuel the industrial revolution and helped create the most powerful administrative, economic and military alliance the world has ever seen. To secure the natural resources and shipping lanes from this region, the great powers installed strongmen dictators, mostly secular, to provide stability for economic exploitation. These strongmen were armed, paid riches, given intelligence and training to achieve stability by eliminating most human rights and use fear and intimidation to keep the cash flow going.
Then, after one western power murdered 6-million Jews, the western powers decided it was a good idea to carve out Israel in the midst of Moslim lands. I am not debating the morality of the Israeli state, however, it has served as a catylist for warfare and terrorism.
It is surprising to me that there are not more islamic terrorists today. IMO, this is because most Moslims are very moral and do not wish to employ evil tactics. For their long suffering, they are rewarded by absorbing most of the poverty, death and destruction as a result of terrorists and from the great powers who continue to bomb their territories. In addition, Moslims receive the scorn of relatively rich middle class westerners whom sit safe in their temperature controlled homes eating a cornucopia of fresh food, operating machines designed for demi-gods paid for in part from the natural resources extracted from the middle east. The arrogance of the comfortable is about 10 orders of magnitude above Marie Antoinette: let them eat sand and defeat ISIS for us and while you are at it, bring me a sandwich.
For those of you who have sweet idyllic dreams of American exceptionalism and American capitalism, I recommend you read up on the Banana Wars (1898-1934). It’s that part of history they don’t cover in school unless you go to an MCRD. After WWII, the US got smart by using a targeted assassination program, payed off the right people and enlisted proxies fight to secure and protect American business interests.
Like I said before, it’s a miracle of human forgiveness that there are not more terrorists gunning for the USA.
.
Do they?
.
We’re killing lots of babies.
.
US drone pilots know this, and we do too but we live in denial.
.
It may not be our intent, but we’re terrorizing a lot of people, perhaps strengthening Daesh in the process.
.
So, if we believe drone strikes are necessary, we have to justify the terrorism we are also perpetrating.
.
For my part, I’m not sure, but since this thread is throwing out a lot of ideas, we should ask about courses of action, one of which is let Daesh have their state ( which is blood thirsty ) but let it fail and let people come to the conclusion that they are wrong. That may be wrong also, but we should ask the question.
There is no justification for the various terror organizations that DeWitt mentions. As I said earlier, the ‘germaneness’ of bringing up the equivalence with the KKK is that literalist interpretations of the scripture do not require the condition that something is in exact form, the word of God. For those who seek to justify atrocities, that there was a human hand in transcription is a distinction without a difference. The 10%+ support for these organizations is indeed a large number. So also is the support for Trump/Cruz – we should not be surprised that large numbers of people can have narrow-minded views. There are more than just religious factors at play and those who speak from a superior religion perspective are not going to get anywhere.
CNBC has this fellow who actually studies these things.
.
One of his points: nearly half of all the Daesh radicalized ( in FBI cases ) are not Muslim, so in this sense, it is not about religion, but more young people’s identity crises.
.
This shouldn’t be alien to us, since we have a long history of gangs and cults which seem to me to be the most apt analogies.
.
It is also a reminder of what an idiot and buffoon Trump is.
I’m beginning to think more and more that he’s here to make sure Hilary ( to whom he gave money in 2012 ) gets elected.
TE,
Your ‘killing babies’ link does not work for me, so I can’t speak to that.
That aside, if you wish to equate all U.S. military action with terrorism, I shrug at you. shrug. There. That’s not what terrorism means. Whether or not we use drones or manned aircraft in executing military objectives appears to be irrelevant to me. Whether or not people are terrified when subject to U.S. military attack (I expect they are) does not appear to be relevant to me in distinguishing military action from terrorism.
We can play word games; looking at definitions of terrorism perhaps we could define any military action as terrorism. I don’t see the value in obfuscating the matter this way.
Mark Bofill,
we know we are killing civilians. We can rationalize it as: “well, that’s not out intent”, but the victims don’t care about that and the surviving family, neighbors, coreligionists, and other sympathizers have far more reason to side with Daesh than us. And the longer it continues, the greater the baby counts, the greater the wedge. A terrorist from one perspective does tend to be a freedom fighter from another, and that includes us.
.
In the Tom Holland video above, he tries to liken this to the thirty years war in which third parties got involved but none successfully. Patreus, who I think is the only knowledgeable about this mess recommends against ground troops. If we’re not going in with ground troops, should we be there at all?
.
Maybe Patreus is wrong and we should invade.
.
Maybe Obama is right and drone strikes alone will ‘degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL ( though no agreeable Sunni force seems to want to do the ground work ).
.
Maybe Holland is right and nothing much will matter without lots of blood.
.
FWIW, here’s one of the baby killing links.
No, I tell you what. I’ll go a step further to head this off.
I’m speaking for myself, obviously.
.
I don’t care if the United States employs terrorism against our enemies. There. Don’t care.
I amend my earlier statement. I denounce terrorism, warfare, aggression, killing and destruction against my nation.
.
See, all of these wonderful high minded principles are great. We’re talking about whether or not we’re hypocrites, and if there’s a difference in principle between Christian terrorists and Muslim terrorists, and about our bias, and justice, and all sorts of delightful abstractions that matter to us solely because we believe that we are safe. As Angech put it, “Good news is for the vast majority we will never personally be subjected to any such attack in our lives.“. As long as that’s perceived to be true, we will continue clinging to these cherished ideas that only men who live at the pinnacle of a stable civilization can afford.
.
The ugly truth however, is that the luxury afforded us to quibble on blogs about these abstractions rests on our military; men with guns who kill those who would upset our stable civilization.
.
I am not some untouchable demigod, beyond petty mortal concerns for my tribe and my personal well-being. I am not impartial when it comes to choosing between my civilization or some other civilization that would destroy mine. Forget it. I suggest that those who believe they are beyond such concerns are deluding themselves.
.
end rant.
“we know we are killing civilians”
TE,
We know we are killing our own preborn children too.
Lots of death handed out to innocents going around these days.
Andrew
TE “we know we are killing civilians. We can rationalize it as: “well, that’s not out intentâ€, but the victims don’t care about that and the surviving family, neighbors, coreligionists, and other sympathizers have far more reason to side with Daesh than us. And the longer it continues, the greater the baby counts, the greater the wedge.”
…
I agree generally with much of the thrust of your point here — that killing non-soldiers only increases resistance. My solution militarily is pretty much to get out of this mess altogether as much as possible unless it reaches the point where a military invasion is required. (For instance, if ISIS creates a real country and is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons) I watched the second Frontline video that you linked and it made crystal clear the brutality that both the Sunnis and Shias had practiced on each other. Pretty much nothing we can do will ever reduce the vicious enmity between the 2 groups. By getting involved we only give Muslim loons an excuse to attack us.
…
Domestically though, the vicious and barbaric enmity between the 2 groups along with Islam’s assertion of combined political and religious authority only means that by taking large numbers of Muslims we are simply bringing in landmines that will go off some time. Muslims wanting to come to the US needed to be vetted more closely and in different manners than say the Chinese or the Vietnamese. For instance the San Bernardino terrorist stated that he never liked being in the US and he only stayed here (getting a good job) because he couldn’t get a job elsewhere. We don’t need people like him (See http://www.cbsnews.com/news/san-bernardino-shooting-ex-colleague-syed-rizwan-farook-reveals-new-insight/ ),
and the attitudes of Muslims surveyed in multiple places indicate that his attitude is not unusual.
…
JD
I ought to add, as a practical or strategic matter, I agree that killing civilians is a mistake to be avoided if possible, for the reasons noted by TE and JD above. Further, killing civilians is inhumane and barbaric, and should be avoided if possible for these reasons as well.
.
Sometimes it’s not possible to avoid.
An example of the type of accommodation granted to Muslims that I oppose:
..
“Despite the violent assault on two police officers, the migrant [If this was the US, I would use the term entrant — migrant implies a respect for the host country and a desire to be part of it] attacker is now considering whether to launch a legal case against the police for his treatment.
It is now common practice in Europe to allow migrants without railway tickets to travel for free to avoid confrontation.” http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/12/07/police-officer-bitten-by-rampaging-migrant-screaming-allah-akhbar/
…
JD
Actually history shows time and time again that killing non-combatants will frequently lead to collapse of the will to fight.
Mark: What protects the US is the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. It has been the abuse of our military by our government that has made us less secure.
hunter: justifying genocide? this encapsulates the Trump-right sickness.
Howard,
How does that work. Poseidon sends storms and krakens to pull down enemy vessels I imagine, as long as we throw 500+ billion dollars a year into the sea as tribute.
No. Our military protects us.
DeWitt:
Really?
Restrict ourselves to terrorism within the US, including carefully unnamed acts of terrorism, I think the double standard is blindingly obvious. How much more clearly could you possibly need it spelled out?
SteveF:
Well it’s not a surprise to me you think this way.
But the truth is most attacks within the US have been carefully planned, usually by mentally unstable people and only a few of those involved appeal to Islamic texts. So the issue to me is these terrorist attacks are generally not an expression of Islamic fundamentalism to me. And as terrible as they are, these sorts of isolated lone-wolf terrorism do not amount to a genuine strategic threat to US interests.
In the Middle East, which is where most so-called Islamic terrorism occurs, there are multiple reasons why these attacks happen and why the Arab countries permit these terrorist organizations to exist in neighboring countries.
In the US, addressing our sorry state of mental health care and seeing that more people get treated and are thus less susceptible to manipulation and exploitation would likely have a better long term outcome than e.g., stupidly blocking 200,000 Syrian refugees from entering the country.
I think most people in the Middle East do not see violence by terrorists groups simply as expressions of Islamic fundamentalism (at least in a way where rational argument can affect the outcome) anymore than you or I see an attack on a Sikh temple by a Bible-thumping American white supremacist in Wisconsin is an issue for fundamentalist churches in this country. I don’t expect the majority of Muslims to decry acts of individual violence (though doing so would make for good press), but even if they all did, it would have a negligible effect on the outcome.
I believe simply thinking of this as only an Islamic problem will not provide us with solutions. Fundamentally it is oil that is the currency for this war, and it is political ambition in Arab countries who help foment these terrorist organizations in neighboring non-aligned countries.
If Saudi Arabia and Jordan really didn’t want the piddly Daesh forces operating in Syria and Iraq, they could have put an end to this a long time ago. I think they actually benefit from what amounts to a contained cancer. Daesh forces might be large for a terrorist organization, but they are microscopic for a true military force with any strategic capability.
Put another way, there’s not going to be an end to Middle East terrorism because too many of the Arab countries benefit from it one way or another. And I think many Arab leaders as well as Iran are happy with the current state of affairs in Syria and Iraq.
hunter:
How about giving us a few examples.
Wow, a whole lot of non-sequiturs in this thread and I’ve found even more reasons to ignore the rabbitic postulations. I was hardly a fan of W but blaming him for 9/11 (a festering boil left over from Clinton) and a financial meltdown that stemmed from a Carter-era law doubled-down on by Clinton and a Democratic Congress? Laughable.
@Howard (comment 141348): Unfortunately, the era of quick transcontinental transport has more-or-less negated the oceanic barriers that traditionally protected the US. This was already known in national security circles but was proven out last week in San Bernardino. Now more than ever, the Second Amendment provides us the only immediate protection from enemies foreign and domestic.
Mark Bofill:
In this case, I think it’s generally possible to avoid. I believe it’s simply more politically expedient to kill the occasional innocent citizen than to adopt a strategy that puts US warfighters at immediate risk.
Turbulent Eddie:
Yes, because it’s not in our interest to allow them to set up terrorist training camps where they can rehearse terrorist attacks on the United States and our Allies.
Carrick: “In the US, addressing our sorry state of mental health care and seeing that more people get treated and are thus less susceptible to manipulation and exploitation would likely have a better long term outcome than e.g., stupidly blocking 200,000 Syrian refugees from entering the country.”
…
I am almost certain that you have virtually no experience with mental health care provided by the government. In my years as a workers comp lawyer (probably reviewed at least 1,000 cases where mental health was at least partially at issue), I have had extensive experience in this issue. Injured workers did not receive, in general, good or effective treatment.
…
There is no way, considering the bureaucratic hurdles and cultural differences as well as the general incompetence of the federal government (see my comment dealing with the Dept. of Homeland Security and how incompetent it was in dealing with an issue concerning my previous Chinese wife), that any form of government could provide meaningful mental health treatment for Muslims. The government can’t even provide decent treatment for American veterans and the VA is a tragedy and a joke. Your comment is emblematic of the idea that the Muslims are essentially just like us and would respond to matters as Americans would respond. The comparative success of ISIS and its barbarity disproves your viewpoint. We need to support those Muslims who will conform to our way of life. Those Muslims who will not and are not willing to forcefully oppose ISIS and sincerely join a pluralistic society should not be welcome in the US.
…
JD
“ISIL is a bunch of Sunnis disenfranchised by the new Shia government in Iraq. They’re fighting to get back some of their old power. They’ve done a superb propaganda job and about 30,000 kids from other countries who feel disenfranchised by unemployment and racism have moved there to fight with them.
What is difficult to understand about any of this?”
Pounding that square peg into your standard issue left-wing American circular hole must have taken a jackhammer and a saw.
wow. Who knew that the San Bernardino couple and the guys who flew jets into the towers were unemployed victims of racism? Only Tom and only in his progressive fantasies.
Carrick: “stupidly blocking 200,000 Syrian refugees from entering the country.”
…
I think a reasonable, very conservative assumption/estimate is that 500 of the 200,000 would be terrorists. Have you considered how much damage 500 terrorists would cause?
JD
JD Ohio:
Then you are certainly wrong. I actually have quite a bit of “real world” experience here.
The experience you describe has absolutely nothing to do with access to or the efficacy of mental health care treatment in this country. It’s almost an embarassment for you to even make such an association between your experience and treatment outcome.
To argue against your unvettable personal experience, I offer this
New Report Ranks States’ Mental Health Status and Access to Care:
Access to health care is a huge issue in this country (the long lead times for an appointment being one). Another is the quality of the care once people get into see a psychologist is another major issue.
Because the psychologists are way over-booked the visits are often cursory and sometimes lead to very negative outcomes for their patients (prescribing Prosaic to people suffering from depression without monitoring them after initiation of treatment comes to mind).
What a stupid, bigoted statement.
So let me get this right: There are 12,000,000 Muslims living in the United States. And you are basically arguing they are space aliens.
Wow.
JD Ohio:
Based on European experience, it would be much less than 500 that would be involved in acts of terrorism.
Many of those 200,000 Syrians are middle and upper class and are simply fleeing a failed, oppressive regime. I think it’s a very high probability that our country would substantially benefit from their presence.
Carrick: “So let me get this right: There are 12,000,000 Muslims living in the United States. And you are basically arguing they are space aliens.”
…
For now I won’t respond to your other goofy arguments, but it appears you can’t even get your basic facts right. Estimating the number of Muslims in the US is difficult but according to Religious Tolerance Org, the best estimates range from 1- to 7 million. See http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_numb.htm According to Pew (a well-known right wing organization — sarc) there are about 3 million Muslims in the US. (1% of 300,000,000. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/07/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/ )
….
Sorry I am opposed to crucifixion and beheading. Those who engage in it are worse than space aliens in my view. Also, those Muslims who won’t vigorously oppose those who engage in those practices should not be admitted to the US.
…
JD
Carrick,
I don’t disagree.
SteveF: “there are none so blind as those who choose not to see.”
.
So true. Like Carrick, sadly:
“Based on European experience, it would be much less than 500 that would be involved in acts of terrorism.
Many of those 200,000 Syrians are middle and upper class and are simply fleeing a failed, oppressive regime. I think it’s a very high probability that our country would substantially benefit from their presence.”
How much less, you think?
In 2013 MI5 director Andrew Parker said that thirty-four terror plots targeted against the UK had been disrupted by the security services and police in the eight years since 2005:
.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/07/mi5-chief-34-uk-terror-plots-disrupted
.
In Denmark the buildings of the two largest newspapers (JP Politikens hus) are constructed almost like fortresses and the security to enter is immense. A terrorist attack was recently averted. The terrorists planned to behead the employees to revenge the publication of the Muhammed cartoons. JyllandsPosten, the newspaper that published the cartoons will not do something similar again they write. Why? Simple fear. I don’t blame them.
.
A meeting on the topic of freedom of speech arranged by the Free Press Society in Denmark was recently attacked by a muslim man with an automatic weapon. A film director was shot dead outside the building where the meeting was held. Police armed with hand guns inside the building managed to prevent the man from entering the building. He proceeded to a Jewish gathering, a Bar Mitzvah where a Jewish guard was shot dead and the police managed to prevent him from entering the room where the ceremony was held.
.
In 2013 the former leader of the Free Press Society survived an assassination attempt (shot to the head). The muslim suspect was held by the police in Turkey. Denmark asked Turkey to surrender him for prosecution in Denmark. For some unknown reason (Turkey has not supplied any explanation) he was released.
.
Several politicians, including one of middle Eastern descent, need constant police protection because they hold critical views of Islam.
.
Comedians admit that they do not dare make fun of muslims or Islam. Out of simple fear. It is not unfounded. A comedian dressed up like a poet (of Palestinean ancestry) who had written poetry critical of the muslim community in Denmark was attacked by muslims on the stage. His disguise was too good…
.
These are just a few examples from a very small country in the North of Europe. There are countless others. On the whole, I am of the opinion that muslim immigration into this country which has taken place over mainly the last 30 years has not been beneficial but rather detrimental to the kind of society I and most of my countrymen prefer. I think it is completely rational, and yes a duty even, to oppose muslim immigration under the present circumstances. If they subscribe to Hirsi Alis version of Islam or similar, no problem.
Somebody threw a severed pigs head at a mosque in Philly I think I just heard on the news.
.
I do hereby publicly denounce this. Stupid, pointless, hateful, ugly thing to do that shouldn’t have been done.
John Cleese is right:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2851888/John-Cleese-blasts-political-correctness-protecting-select-groups-ridicule.html
Niels,
That link tried to take over Firefox on my computer. Maybe I had a backdoor installed somewhere else that allowed the exploit. But I would be very reluctant to click on that link again.
Many of those 200,000 Syrians are middle and upper class and are simply fleeing a failed, oppressive regime. I think it’s a very high probability that our country would substantially benefit from their presence.
.
Ya, that’s what I was thinking – most revolutions get rid of the intellectuals and financial types first ( because their conflicting ideas and interests take the rage out of revolution ).
.
Most of the first to flee are probably also Christians and atheists.
.
On the other hand, Daesh aren’t fools. They’ve already made plans to sneak in sleepers in the masses.
Wow, the tolerant people here are really intolerant, lots of politically incorrect views and politically correct views, all intolerant.
People are people.
Individually everyone is nice.
One son traveled overseas including Turkey and Iran last year and was amazed at how friendly the people in Iran were, offering him support, meals and friendship even though he was a non Muslim westerner.
Loved the place and the people.
Glimmers of agreement, JD an Carrick both despair for a better US Mental Health Service.
Carrick (Comment #141351)
” Actually history shows time and time again that killing non-combatants will frequently lead to collapse of the will to fight.How about giving us a few examples.”
Um, try bombing Dresden and Hiroshima.
The point about collateral damage killing babies, civilians and non combatants is that it is the natural consequence of warfare when two groups try to kill each other.
No Geneva Convention for the heroes who end a war buy mass “drone” slaughter.
Civilians and non combatants are not innocent. They are complicit in giving birth to, bringing up and indoctrinating people in the attitudes and beliefs that led to the war in the first place. They believe that their fighters should be fighting.
Here is the conundrum.
Do they deserve to be killed.
Everyone, No
Do they deserve to be killed if attacking America
grudging, No
Do they deserve to be killed if they are attacking America and me?
Darn right, Yes.
Carrick,
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that muslim terrorists are just mentally ill. Really? I hope you don’t actually believe that, because there is plenty of evidence to the contrary…. the many thousands of second generation Muslims in Europe, plus a few hundred from the States, all heading off to join ISIS (a terror organization) can’t all be insane. The couple in San Bernadino did not seem insane; the man had plenty of contact at work, and I don’t think any of those people thought him insane.
“And as terrible as they are, these sorts of isolated lone-wolf terrorism do not amount to a genuine strategic threat to US interests.” Yup, just like 9/11. That was conducted by insane men as well, right?
Mark Bofill made a comment upthread that highlights something I find incredibly troubling. He said:
I don’t understand this mentality, and it frightens me. I know the reasons for it, but I can’t understand them. Bofill explains:
Which is basically the classic mentality of, “They’re are enemies, so it’s okay to do bad things to them.” That sort of mentality is what caused the United States to institute torture programs that ultimately served no purpose, not actually accomplishing anything, save to diminish the nation’s credibility and give ammunition to its enemies.
But it’s worse than that. The same sort of mentality has been used time and time again to justify all sorts of despicable acts in the name of fighting the “enemy.” The current problems in the Middle East stem in no small part due to the constant meddling by outside nations, meddling which has often involved doing things that a naive person would never expect a moral country to do. The United States has helped prop up dictators and squash populist uprisings so many times the idea it supports democracy is almost offensive.
Whether it be installing a dictator in the Middle East, helping crush a rebellion by peasants in Central America or just making nice with murderous tyrants for the cameras, the United States constantly justifies its actions by saying it is doing what is best for its interests and its people, not by saying it is doing what is right. I don’t understand that. I especially don’t understand it when many, if not most, of these actions wind up backfiring.
Perhaps the most disturbing part of all this, however, is the sort of tribalism Bofill expressed often results in a, “If you’re not with us, you’re against us” mentality. I’ve had many people tell me if I don’t agree with X, then I should leave the country. If you think that line of logic through, it’s really quite creepy. If you’re okay with hurting your enemies, and you view anyone who’s not with you as anemey…
I’m not saying Bofill feels that way, but it’s not hard to see where extremism comes from.
Thanks for noticing my remark Brandon.
Andrew_KY:
I suppose it should come as no surprise given your comment has no substance to it at all and is just a baseless derogatory remark, but… you’re ocmpletely wrong.
hunter:
That does nothing to contradict my claim of double standards. I’ve never said Christian terrorists are equitable to Muslim terrorists. I simply said people react differently to the two of them. A deranged Muslim who committed a similar act would receive different reactions than this man did, even if the Muslim had never been part of any radical group.
Reacting differently to organized terrorism than lone-wolf terrorism is fine, but that’s not what I’m referring to. Cases of lone-wolf terrorism commited by Muslims are not treated the same as cases of lone-wolf terrorism commited by Christians. Similarly, certain people seem to ignore Christian terrorist groups like the Lamb of Gods and the bombings and murders committed by them. Other people seem to even support such acts to one extent or another, such as in the case I brought up of Dr. George Tiller.
None of that is saying Christian terrorists are the same as Muslim terrorists. It is simply saying the reactions to Christian terrorists would be very different if the acts were committed by Muslims.
Fighting ISIS is important, but we in a way are fighting only the pawns. We need to fight the Kings of Islam (my liberty with words there.) And those are the MILITANT Imams. We need to pick that one in Pakistan where the San Bernardino female murderer attended the Mosque. Then we need to find the next 9 more or less MILITANT Imams and bomb all those mosques while they are having a service. We need to then go after the supporters of MILITANT Muslims in the same manner. JMO.
jim2, sometimes assassinating the major figures of a movement can destroy the movement, but that’s not always the case. In the case of ISIS, I suspect going after Imams who support ISIS, but are not directly involved with it, would do more harm than good as I suspect it would just drive more people to join ISIS.
As sad as it is to say, the current approach is actually a reasonable one. ISIS isn’t like the terrorist groups we’re used to. Its ideology is quite different. One of the articles above explains it well, pointing out ISIS’s ideology requires it control territory and maintain a government which provides a number of important social services. Failing to do that would mean failing at its own ideology, removing its legitimacy in the eyes of many of its followers. That means it can’t just cede territory and go underground like Al Qaeda would; it has to stay and fight until it collapses.
That’s the point of the current approach. It’s to try to keep ISIS contained and weaken its ability to function as a government/society until its members feel it is failing to meet the requirements of their ideology. Removing ISIS supporters should only be done if it serves to further that goal (or related goals like weakening their ability to perform terrorist attacks), unless it’s decided a completely new strategy is going to be used. Otherwise, the biggest thing is just to try not to do anything reckless that will wind up strengthening ISIS.
(For instance, a boots on the ground invasion would likely be the best thing that could happen for ISIS as it would drive tons of people to join their cause.)
Brandon,
People do bad things to their enemies, Brandon. In war people kill their enemies.
You can attribute torture programs to ‘my mentality’ if you wish. Some might call this a straw man. I don’t think torture programs accomplished anything either.
Indeed. And it will be so used till the end of humankind.
Using scare quotes doesn’t invalidate the concept of an enemy. Go watch some ISIS execution videos. The people performing those executions are our enemies. Justification has nothing to do with it. Part of my point was that those who have the leisure to ponder such questions have forgotten that the willingness of our military to commit despicable acts is what makes that leisure possible. Killing people is ugly Brandon, it’s a despicable act. Sometimes it’s the only option.
I didn’t mean I don’t care about the U.S. meddling. We’ve gone pretty far afield at this point. Once again, you can chalk that up to my mentality if you wish; that’s no concern of mine.
Not my position, not what I said, again; no concern of mine.
Ok.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Going after the MILITANT Imans and their followers and supporters would no doubt put us here in the US at more risk, but historically we have been willing to die for our rights and freedoms and IMO we should be willing to accept that risk. The knee jerk reaction of some MILITANT Muslims would be to join the fight, but in that case we keep up the strategy of going after their leaders until the leaders decide their interpretation of the Koran needs an adjustment.
I think it will have to eventually go that way because as I see it the MILITANT Muslims are kind of like the Japanese were before the end of WWII. They are committed to a certain way of life and believe themselves to be morally superior. On a Mission from God, if you will.
I’m not posting this because this guy agrees with Trump. I find this interesting – but don’t yet know what to make of it.
From the article:
BEAUMONT –
Local imam Nidal candidates agreed with Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s controversial plan to institute a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” until a further review can be conducted by “country representatives.”
Alsayyed told 12News exclusively, “I certainly see it to be wise (to) stop temporarily accepting any new Muslim immigrants (refugees and non-refugees) into the United States.”
His justification, Alsayyed said, “is based on the fact that we can hardly distinguish who is Muslim and who is not. Islam is not about an ID card or last name or shouting ‘Allahu Akbar.'”
…
http://www.12newsnow.com/story/30689150/local-imam-agrees-with-trump-it-would-be-wise-to-stop-temporarily-accepting-any-new-muslim-immigrants
Mark Bofill, you say:
I didn’t attribute the programs to your mentality. I said, “This sort of mentality is what caused…” I don’t know what you would and would not support. What I do know is the argument you made is in the same form of the arguments many people who supported the torture programs made. When two people make arguments in the same form as one another, on similar topics as one another, I think it is reasonable to say they share a similar sort of mentality. That doesn’t mean they would both go as far as one another or agree on all the details though.
Saying you didn’t support the torture programs and suggesting I’ve created a straw man does nothing to address what I was actually saying. Similarly, you say:
And:
Which is a massive straw man. You said you don’t care about terrorism against your enemies. Killing enemies in war is nothing like committing terrorist acts against your enemies. It has often been the case in war people would kill their enemies as a part of fighting the war but would otherwise try to treat them humanely. General George Washington cautioned his troops to not harm the British soldiers they captured, as the idea of torturing enemies was considered heinous at the time.
The discussion was not about killing enemies. It was me responding to the fact you said you don’t care about terrorism carried out against our enemies. My point was once people start applying double standards, such as saying terrorism against us is wrong but terrorism against our enemies is okay, there is no moral credibility. And once you stop using morality to judge which actions are right and wrong, you can start justifying all sorts of other things, just like the United States has done in the examples I gave.
My view is simple. I believe the same standards should apply for everyone. I would never support an action be taken against an enemy if I would not accept that the same action would be appropriate against me and my own if the situation were reversed.
jim2:
Can you think of any examples where persecution or things similar to what you describe has successfully caused people of a religion to shift their religious beliefs to something less extreme?
Brandon – Two atomic bombs changed the way Japanese view life. I’m not suggesting we go to that extreme, but this case shows that deeply embedded beliefs and social structures can be changed. The price has to be high, though.
SteveF, no you didn’t understand me correctly. I never said all so-called Muslim terrorists are mentally ill. Some are disaffected. Many are not lifetime Muslims, but recruits from non-Muslim families. And some are legitimately Muslim extremists and even match your simplistic model for what creates so-called Muslim extremism.
angech:
Dresden had nothing to do with the surrender of Germany.
In Japan, it wasn’t the killing of civilians that led to the surrender by the Japanese military commanders. It was the application of overwhelming force.
Killing some villagers using a cruise mister is hardly the application of overwhelming force.
So neither example is valid.
Niels, I’m not sure you could get any less intellectual in your response. Your quote:
is just somebody’s highly biased opinion, which you report as established fact.
The objective numbers for Syrian refugees committing terrorism in Europe is very small.
As in, there are exactly zero credentialed examples.
Brandon,
Thanks for your response.
jim2:
Yes, but changing how people view life isn’t the same as changing their religious views. The atomic bombs showed the Japanese there was a force they couldn’t resist. That obviously changed their views on a number of things, but I’m not aware of it causing any changes like one would need to happen within the members of ISIS.
Showing you’re more powerful than someone else might shake religious views based on that person being a divine being, but it’s not going to shake people’s views on what some unseen god wants them to do. A number of religions have survived and even flourished despite oppression and persecution. I’m not aware of any religion which has been significantly reformed via the use of force.
(Which isn’t to say there isn’t any. Maybe there is some precedent for your proposed strategy. If there is though, I’m not aware of it. I’m only aware of instances where force failed to change religions.)
Carrick: “is just somebody’s highly biased opinion, which you report as established fact. The objective numbers for Syrian refugees committing terrorism in Europe is very small. As in, there are exactly zero credentialed examples.”
…
OK, you have made the accusation of poor factual support. You have offered none of your sources. In light of your inability to come close to getting right the number of Muslims in the US, I think at the very least, you should identify your sources.
…
Also, the head of MI5, Andrew Parker, cited by Niels identified serious concerns in 2013 stating: “Syria in particular was a concern as it was drawing hundreds of individuals from the UK to train and fight alongside groups where al-Qaida ideology had taken root.
“Syria has become a very attractive place for people to go … who sympathise with the AQ message,” Parker said. “We have seen low hundreds of people from this country go to Syria … That includes people we believe are there now fighting and those who have been and come back … who have been involved in fighting.
“We need to take some regard to and interest in them to check they are not intending to be involved in violence. Most will not but some may so we need to have an informed view of that.”
…
JD
Carrick, MI5 director Andrew Parker reporting facts to MP’s is “just somebody’s higly biased opinion”.
Bizarre. You are more blind than I thoght you were.
JD, actually I’ve provided links such as this one.
But seriously, the quote is self-labeled as an opinion and the quotes you give aren’t even relevant to the question of Syrian refugees in Europe or the process by which they enter Europe or the US. The question of repatriated Europeans is another problem entirely.
Niels A Nielsion:
If it makes me blind that I’m driven by data rather than some guys highly biased opinion, or can form my own opinions based on actual facts rather than walking lock step with a group of like minded sheep, well, I can happily live with that.
The guy who actually investigate terrorist threats in the UK is just a “somebody with a highly biased opinion” when he reports 34 averted terrorist attempts against the UK for the last 8 years and he estimates potential terrorists in the thousands.
.
I don’t know which group of like-minded sheep you refer to. It is my impression that governments and intelligence services in Europe tend to downplay the threats from Islamic terror. In fact I think it is obvious they will do that. Otherwise they would look very bad when they allow Muslim immigration in the hundreds of thousands to millions. The bias is likely in the other direction of what you think.
The signal to noise ration of this thread is approaching zero.
This is somewhat off-topic, but this entire thread seems to be off topic, so I hope people will forgive me. Not long ago, Zeke Hausfather posted a chart showing his comparison of modern temperatures to model projections:
https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/672831147047424000
My question is, what do you guys think of his choice of baseline period? I asked to verify my understanding, and the answer is he uses the 1979-2010 period as the baseline for comparing the series. Do you guys think that is good?
Personally, I find it a bit weird as it forces the model projections and actual temperatures values to be rather different in ~2000, when I understand that the projections begin, but I’m not sure that means anything. That’s why I’m asking here. I know this site has looked at model projections vs. actual reality many a time, and I’m curious what people here think of this choice for comparisons.
Carrick: “If it makes me blind that I’m driven by data rather than some guys highly biased opinion, or can form my own opinions based on actual facts rather than walking lock step with a group of like minded sheep, well, I can happily live with that.”
….
The study you cited dealt with all refugees beginning with 2001. It did not focus on Syrian refugees. (Of whom, we have virtually no experience because only about 1,500 have been admitted so far.) Particularly, It did not focus on Syrian refugees since ISIS became active. It claims that refugees are thoroughly vetted. However, it is well known that the Department of Homeland security is a total mess. For instance, the Washington Post quoted a general who investigated it as saying:
…
“Underscoring the seriousness of these issues are the conclusions of retired Army Lt. Gen. John R. Vines, who was asked last year to review the method for tracking the Defense Department’s most sensitive programs. Vines, who once commanded 145,000 troops in Iraq and is familiar with complex problems, was stunned by what he discovered.
“I’m not aware of any agency with the authority, responsibility or a process in place to coordinate all these interagency and commercial activities,” he said in an interview. “The complexity of this system defies description.”
The result, he added, is that it’s impossible to tell whether the country is safer because of all this spending and all these activities. “Because it lacks a synchronizing process, it inevitably results in message dissonance, reduced effectiveness and waste,” Vines said. “We consequently can’t effectively assess whether it is making us more safe.” See http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/a-hidden-world-growing-beyond-control/
…
Also, “Employee surveys find that DHS is the worst department to work for in the federal government.5
The results from a 2014 survey of 40,000 DHS employees are grim.6 Only 42 percent of DHS employees say they are satisfied with the department, only 25 percent have a positive view of their leaders’ ability to “generate high levels of motivation and commitment in the workforce,” and only 39 percent say department leaders “maintain high standards of honesty and integrity.”
A 2014 Washington Post investigation found that many DHS employees say they have “a dysfunctional work environment” with “abysmal morale.”7 Not surprisingly, DHS has a very high employee turnover rate.8 Current and former DHS officials told thePost that “the department can be an infuriating, exhausting place to work” with “stifling bureaucracy.”9 See http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/dhs/spending-cuts
…
Of course, Tashfeen Malik was vetted by the Department of Homeland Security and had no problems getting admitted to the US prior to her killings.
JD
JD Ohio, actually with Tashfeen Malik, there is at the moment no evidence that she was an Daesh operative. But she was not a Syrian refugee and did not go through the same vetting process because she came from Saudi Arabia rather than from a refugee zone.
Rather she came in the “conventional” way, which is through normal immigration. If she is a “sleeper”, though, this completely undermines your entire argument.
As pointed out with the CATO study, it takes up to three years for a refugee to enter the US. Since they can enter (apparently) without needing to wait three years, there’s absolutely no rational reason to try and sneak them in via the more rigorous screening process given to refugees.
As I’ve pointed out before, Muslim Syrian refugees represent an existential threat to Daesh.
They are supposed to be flocking to the new caliphate not leaving it. This threatens the legitimacy of Daesh. And when they leave the war zone, they are carrying actionable intelligence with them. Every interview of a Syrian refugee from the war zone potentially yields tactical and logistic intelligence on how Daesh operates. And Daesh is obviously been made aware of this (via the missiles targeted their way).
I can very easily see Daesh putting out counter propaganda to try and “foul the waters” to prevent them from leaving Syria under a fear that some of them might be Daesh operatives. It is in their best interest to do so, and naturally there are plenty of fearful people like yourself (honestly many are as scared of the skin color and difference in garb and culture as they are the threat of terrorism) who can easily be swayed to become ardent opponents of immigration of refugees to their country.
Now your arguments about the weakness of DHS similarly point out to the problems with the conventional screening process for immigrants, and also undermine your position here.
Again: Assume DHS is so poor. Then if she was a terrorist, there’d be no reason to wait three years and take the risk of additional layers of screening that would be given to Syrian refugees.
Suppose there’s a 96% chance of being detected by DHS… that’s a 4% chance of getting through security. (I think the actual odds are worse than this.)
That puts your chances at making it through three screenings of the same level of rigor (the claim is the other screenings are more rigorous, so this is likely a high ball estimate), then the chance of making it through three screenings is only 0.0064%.
If you have three screenings instead of one, you’re looking at a 99.9936% or higher chance of being detected. And you get to wait three years instead of a few months before entering.
So there’s simply no logic to send Daesh terrorists into the US via Syrian refugees, the direct route makes more sense, both in terms of time and in probability of success. Shockingly to you apparently, Daesh lies. They even lie about evil things they apparently have done or will do.
They are trying to manipulate you, and to an extent probably have succeeded.
Carrick: “Again: Assume DHS is so poor. Then if she was a terrorist, there’d be no reason to wait three years and take the risk of additional layers of screening that would be given to Syrian refugees.”
…
Carrick– ISIS or other Islamic terrorists are not Pollyannas who follow the rules. By sheer numbers of the Muslims admitted, they will find allies and find ways to evade the procedures. Since the Department of Homeland security is the worst of the worst that won’t be difficult to do. The fact that Malik got in so easily and was a terrorist shows both how difficult it is to screen for terrorists and how ineffective it is. We already have very serious problems with terrorism in the US, and very substantial portions Muslim community in the US refuses to seriously challenge those portions of Muslim doctrine that is inimical to Western values. That being the case, I see no reason to admit large numbers of Muslims who are essentially hostile to the US. It will only make the terrorism problem substantially worse.
JD
JD Ohio,
Most of it home grown and most of it non-Islamic.
Which again confirms there’s no point in them waiting three years in a refugee camp and going through more rigorous screening.
It’s a prejudice on your part that these people are “essentially hostile to the US.” .
Anyway, many more of those 300,000 people allowed in will commit murder (but not in the name of Allah), will commit other acts of violence (but not in the name of Allah), will steal from others (but not in the name of Allah). So based on your risk assessment criteria none of them should be allowed in on that basis either.
After all, for the person who is victimized, the motives of the victimizer hardly matters. Harm is still harm.
By the same token, many more of the 4,000,000 babies born each year will grow up to become murderers and thieves. By your criterion, we shouldn’t allow these people to grow into adulthood in the US either. Think of all of the murders that could have been prevented.
Humans are a generally mixed bag—some of them are good and some of them are evil. The hope is that the good outweighs the evil and progress is made.
I see no evidence that allowing middle class, generally educated, many not even Muslim, Syrians into the US is going to create greater harm than good.
Many of those Syrians were business owners, educators, doctors and so forth. Their presence in the US is a net benefit to US and a net loss for Syria. The vast majority of their children would grow up to be gainful members of society. Some few would become criminals. An even smaller number would engage in terrorism.
But again, the good will outweigh the evil. The harm is small compared to the good that is done. Nobody in their right mind would argue we should outlaw babies because some of them will grow up to people who commit evil acts. A bad argument when applied to US babies is not automatically a better argument when applied to Syrian refugees.
In my opinion, efforts to keep the Syrian refugees out amounts to for the most part close-minded bigotry. They don’t want these people in the US because they aren’t white, they don’t speak English and they don’t practice the same religion.
Brandon, if the purpose is to compare slopes, I’d anchor the curves so they cross on the left hand side of the figure.
Comparing OLS trends with uncertainty estimates is a much more solid way of doing the comparison though.
“In my opinion, efforts to keep the Syrian refugees out amounts to for the most part close-minded bigotry.”
Carrick, since you are not thinking about this clearly, perhaps you can consider the question to be “who do we let in?”, and go from there. Scientifically, of course.
Andrew
Carrick
In a sense, that may have already happened. Some researchers thing the drop in US violent crime since the 1990’s has been due to more liberally available abortion.
My understanding is that an important cause was removing lead from gasoline (and Giuliani got the credit).
RB,
A lot of the folks who stir up trouble in the city may have grown up in houses with lead paint still on the walls. Sometimes toddlers chew the peels.
Apparently Freddy Gray who was treated to what was intended as an educational ride in a police vehicle in Baltimore had a considerable amount of lead in his system.
Or maybe it’s the 18-27 cohort as a percentage of the indigenous population. I took a very interesting course in penology in 1964. The instructor who had a lot of real experience in both state and federal systems assured us that non-intellectual crime tracked with 18-27 cohort as percentage of population in the afflicted community.
I suppose it would be easy to check. FWIW, the Chicago Police Department maintains a really interesting statistical database of the activities of the people who come to their attention – well worth a look. And yes, it was much worse in Chicago in the early ’90s than it is now.
And just to offer some historical perspective on what has the Islamic terror apologists in a tizzy:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/261062/carter-banned-iranians-coming-us-during-hostage-daniel-greenfield
It is annoying that reactionaries immediately rally to defend the status quo on immigration without bothering to reconcile history, much less common sense.
Carrick,
OT, but have you ever tried painting a floor?
jferguson: the article I linked to mentions lead paint too. The Amherst researcher mentions both abortion and lead phase-out as factors.
In a sense, that may have already happened. Some researchers thing the drop in US violent crime since the 1990’s has been due to more liberally available abortion
.
I saw that from the Freakonomics guys.
.
However, this chart indicates it may be more a matter of:
1. Baby Boomers aging and
2. long term decline.
.
Some other references had US homocides per 100,000 at 4.2 which would be an all time low for the US, and a similar trend to other countries ( though we’re ‘special’ – very multi-cultural, rural, 2nd amendment, and a little bit crazy because we’re the descendants of risk takers to begin with ).
According to this article demographic change forecast a rise in crime rate starting 2010 which didn’t pan out and primarily leaded gasoline is implicated.
I can see blaming lead for low intelligence as a logical scientifically proven effect.
I see lead being blamed for violence as an unproven association not a cause.
The causes of violence are perceived poverty in a system which allows violence both as an expression of frustration and as a means to temporarily reduce the poverty [theft].
Millions of poor people in India prove that poverty does not cause violence. It is the culture and opportunities that the poor people live in but miss out on that permits violence to develop.
All religions can be peaceful or violent.
Islam starts most of its texts with an acknowledgment of god, his wonder, intelligence , power and peacefulness but then proceeds to advise on how to wipe out anyone who dares to oppose his views. The peacefulness obviously comes from wiping out all opposition.
People advising Islam to change are obviously missing the point that taking up the religion means you cannot change.
Having peaceful, liberal leaders of the Muslim world and a peaceful Islam world is easily possible.
Be peaceful. Become a Muslim leader.
I wonder if those here who appear to morally equate Christianity with Islam and take a dispassionate view of the probabilities of being involved in a terrorist incident would be quite so sanguine if they had lost a family member to Islamic terrorists. My sister lost her husband on 9/11.
Christianity is not an existential threat to Western civilization. Radical Islam is. And I question whether there is, in fact, any such thing as a moderate Muslim.
“Some researchers thing the drop in US violent crime since the 1990’s has been due to more liberally available abortion.”
Only theoretical people can commit hypothetical crimes.
Andrew
Carrick: “We already have very serious problems with terrorism in the US, Most of it home grown and most of it non-Islamic.”
….
Simply a silly statement and ridiculous comparison. The abortion killers target doctors and abortion personnel. They don’t blow up airplanes and simply shoot up workplaces. Please give me your actual numbers for terrorist dead since 2000. We can start with nearly 3,000 people that died as a result of 9/11 and then you (who claim to be data driven) can supply the number of people killed by right wing terrorists since the year 2,000. In any event, your point is illogical. If we can prevent one form of terrorism, we should do that irrespective of whether another form exists.
…
Carrick: “In my opinion, efforts to keep the Syrian refugees out amounts to for the most part close-minded bigotry. They don’t want these people in the US because they aren’t white, they don’t speak English and they don’t practice the same religion.”
…
No it amounts to keeping out people who sympathize with, or practice, a religion that countenances crucifixion and is intolerant of non-believers. To the extent that you are claiming I am intolerant of non-whites, I have had 2 Chinese wives and my 2 children are half-Chinese by ethnicity. In my interactions with many Chinese people, although they have uniquely Chinese perspectives, most genuinely admire and like the US. On the other hand, the Islamic religion as practiced by substantial amounts of Muslims is aggressively hostile to the US. The idea that I would discriminate against people who aren’t white is ridiculous. I do discriminate against people who commit terrorism or who are sympathetic to it. I would welcome, and do welcome, Muslims who genuinely renounce and are antagonistic to those Muslims who would commit terrorist acts or would, if given the chance, impose Sharia law on non-believers.
…
My simple test for this is that I would welcome Muslims who would genuinely and sincerely support Pam Geller’s right to draw cartoons of Muhammad. Generally, in the US, Muslim spokespeople state that they oppose the killing of Geller but do virtually nothing to assure that it won’t happen. (And, of course, there has already been one attempt on her life by Islamic terrorists) What I vigorously oppose is the climate caused by Muslims that is so violent that Geller has to have bodyguards to protect her as a result of her sponsorship of a harmless cartoon of Muhammad.
JD
Can anyone tell me if this is essentially true (From the Hill):
“We have seen in the last several weeks that President Obama has no difficulty using his “phone and his pen,†as he dramatically boasts, to circumvent the law. …
But there are not even such constraints when it comes to the Middle East’s Christians fleeing the brutality of ISIS and Al Qaeda. The Department of State chooses to adhere to a definition of refugees as people persecuted by their own government. What difference does it make which army imperils the lives of innocent Christians? Christians are still be slaughtered for being Christian, and their government is incapable of protecting them.”
See http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/228670-no-room-in-america-for-christian-refugees
JD
Brandon said:Yes, but changing how people view life isn’t the same as changing their religious views.
******
So what sets religious views apart from other views? Do you believe religious views are based on the supernatural?
I suspect not. I believe religious views are subject to the same social forces as other views, that means religious views can change. They have through the centuries and they will continue to. A nudge in the right direction would speed up the process.
True or false? From the article:
…
One serving officer in west London said: “Islamification has and is occurring. You have to have extra vigilance in certain parts when you are working.”
Speaking to Breitbart he added: “When I was a teenage lad in Burnley there were no go white areas. This is the case still nationally, including London where you have to have extra vigilance in certain parts when you are working.â€
Another officer with Lancashire police said that officers have to “contact local community leaders to get their permission†before they are allowed to patrol in Muslim areas of Preston.
And a policeman posted in Yorkshire said police top brass were so afraid of potential terrorist attacks he had been ordered not to wear police uniform in his own patrol car.
…
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/625545/Donald-Trump-Muslims-speech-British-police-ISIS-radicalisation-London
People from foreign countries have no Constitutional right to be here. If desired, the US can stop all immigration. It probably should until it can figure out who’s a terrorist before they kill people.
The crazies who were born here also occasionally kill people. But we are stuck with them. They have a right to be here.
DeWitt Payne:
I’m not sure if you had a particular point here, but I have to say, I hope I would be able to overcome any grief or anger I might hold toward the people who took someone I love from me enough that I would not irrationally blame an entire religion for their actions. That might not be the case though. Maybe I would wind up suffering from irrational biases I couldn’t overcome.
But if that happened, I would hope people wouldn’t take my irrationality as a justification for any action. I’d also hope I would have enough sense to recognize my own biases and not expect people to share them simply because I had suffered.
This is an incredibly disturbing thing to say. Suggesting there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim… well, I’ll be blunt, makes you look like a paranoid bigot.
I’ve met plenty of people from all walks of life and all sorts of religions. It has been rare that any group has consistently had worse people than another. What has always been true, however, is that the best people I’ve met have also been the most open-minded ones.
jim2:
Religious views can be based on any number of things. There is no singular answer which applies to all religions or all beliefs. If you want to change the religious views of a group of people, you need to understand why they hold the views they hold, not just:
Bomb or murder people to try to scare them into changing their views. If one’s beliefs are based in the physical world, such as believing one’s emperor is a divine being of immense power, physical force might be enough to challenge those views. That’s because their views and your actions are directly in conflict.
But if someone’s beliefs make claims only with the afterlife or some plane of existence one cannot see or touch and draw inspiration as to how they should behave based upon those untestable claims, physical force cannot contradict their beliefs. In that case, all force can do is frighten people.
Of course, many of out predecessors had no Constitutional right to be here either. This “right” to be here exists only because people came here without that right. Despite that, this attitude has existed since almost the first settlers came to this country. People kept coming here then turning around and saying, “Now that I’m here, you guys don’t have the right to come here.” It’s really quite fascinating.
There aren’t words for how dumb an idea this is.
Brandon,
When you are not repeating, endlessly, the same points to demonstrate how immune you are to fact, logic, reason or even ethics, you seem to be busy calling people bigots after misquoting them.
A question was asked: “Are there moderate Muslims?”
You seem comfortable with your position on Christianity, implying that Christianity is a dangerous religion filled with extremists.
Yet you take your bizarre reactionary trolling out on people who ask the question of Islam.
And your understanding of American history is even weaker than that of religion, it would seem.
You are an incredibly long winded scammer, aren’t you?
Carrick, here is what you claim is less dangerous than right wing terrorism: An Islamic plot to kill 10,000 people, including Americans on trans-atlantic flights. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/6153243/Airline-terror-trial-The-bomb-plot-to-kill-10000-people.html
Brandon said:
Of course, many of out predecessors had no Constitutional right to be here either. This “right†to be here exists only because people came here without that right. Despite that, this attitude has existed since almost the first settlers came to this country. People kept coming here then turning around and saying, “Now that I’m here, you guys don’t have the right to come here.†It’s really quite fascinating.
*****
Our ancestors had no “right” to come and settle in North America. They killed indians in order to establish that “right.” Ultimately, rights emanate from force. It is nice when everyone agrees to abide by a common set of laws, but underlying all social order is force. Even the EPA has armed agents.
Well, I’ve said enough.
hunter, this is fascinating:
You accused me of misquoting people, yet you didn’t actually point to where I misquoted anyone. Instead, you claimed a question was asked and provided words in quotation marks… even though those words had not been written by anyone. This means you accused me of misquoting people while fabricating a quote.
In fact, not only were the words you put in quotation marks not actually said by anyone, no such question was actually asked. DeWitt Payne said he questions something. That is not the same as asking a question. You continue this sort of misrepresentation by going on to say:
I quit reading after that. I don’t know what it is you think you are responding to, but if you believe your comments are remotely accurate depictions of what gets said, you’re delusional. You should go back to making the comments that consist of nothing but mindless insults, as at least then it won’t be so obvious what you say has no connection to reality.
jim2:
I think our Founding Fathers and many philosophers would disagree. There is a significant school of thought that says our rights are either inherent to our beings or granted by some sort of divine creator.
But from a practical perspective, I have to agree. It doesn’t much matter what your philosophy is if people choose to ignore it. The only way you can ensure they don’t is with force.
Carrick:
According to an enquiry done by Danish national television at our language schools Syrian Immigrants/refugees to Denmark are not well-educated on average. That was a myth prevailing in Denmark too. Their average shooling is about 10 years (exactly the same as the entire group of refugees). 7 out of 10 are illiterate or latin-illiterate – illiterate in the latin alphabet (exactly the same as the refugee group as a whole).
.
http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/samfund/2015-11-02-tv-2-punkterer-myte-syriske-flygtninge-er-ikke-bedre-uddannede
.
Immigrants from muslim countries are not on average a net benefit they are a net loss. Non-western immigrants (mainly muslims) are a large net economic loss, western immigrants (Norway, USA, CAnada etc) a net benefit according to studies using standard econometric models.
.
http://jyllands-posten.dk/indland/ECE6449723/5.000+nye+ikke-vestlige+indvandrere+koster+2,1+mia./
.
Muslims don’t integrate/assimilate well in their host countries, at least not in Europe. Maybe they integrate sligtly better in the US, your much smaller share of muslims matter there too. And no, sadly their children don’t either. They don’t participate in the labor market to a large extent and they are hugely overrepresented in criminal records when it comes to violent crimes. When a woman is raped by a stranger or near stranger the perpetrator is with near certainty a muslim, although their share of the pupulation is still less than 5%.
Female teachers of course have a very hard time getting respect from muslim school boys.
.
That’s not really surprising when a poll in Denmark is showing that muslims are becoming more devout. In 2015 77.2 percent of Danish Muslims agreed that “the Quran’s instructions should be followed completelyâ€. In 2006 just 62.4 percent agreed.
.
http://www.thelocal.dk/20151013/danish-muslims-more-devout-than-in-years-past
.
Not very comforting when a German study among 45.000 teenagers found that religious muslim boys are more violent than their less religious peers:
“Pfeiffer said he was dismayed by the results, and told the Süddeutsche Zeitung he was a strong critic of political campaigns which painted foreigners as criminals – such as those led by Roland Koch and Thilo Sarrazin.
Pfeiffer’s work took into account the level of education and standard of living in the families of the children – aged between 14 and 16 – who were questioned. He also asked them how religious they considered themselves, and how integrated they felt in Germany.
Pfeiffer said that even when other social factors were taken into account, there remained a significant correlation between religiosity and readiness to use violence. There were some positive correlations too he said, noting that young religious Muslims were much less likely than their non-Muslim counterparts to drink alcohol – or to steal from shops. ”
.
http://www.thelocal.de/20100606/27673
.
Sorry Carrick, but you are the close-minded here as I see it. Sometimes I am mystified by you failing to see the obvious.
I think dark skin is pretty, I think people speaking foreign languages are interesting but no, I’m not fond of Islam and the clothing signifying adherence to that faith. If that makes me a bigot, so be it.
BTW. Immigrants/refugees from China, Vietnam, Sri Lanka are Integrated and well-liked and, they (and their children) participate much more in the normal activities among Danes. Unfortunately, muslims is the largest group among immigrants to Denmark.
“I’ll be blunt, makes you look like a paranoid bigot.”
Brandon,
I don’t think it’s a matter of being blunt. It’s a matter of a tendency to call people names. Of course, the intention is to smear people who disagree with you. Typical and transparent.
Andrew
From the Urban Dictionary:
JDOhio:
I’m honestly amazed at how ignorant some of the things you say are.
As it happens, the clinic Robert L. Dear targeted does not perform abortions and of course a policeman was killed in the process.
Eric Rudolph certainly did not target just “target doctors and abortion personnel” when he set off a bomb during the Atlanta Olympics.
According a the list of terrorist attacks in the US, the last time an abortion clinic was actually attacked and people who worked at the clinic were killed was 1994. (For people looking at the list, Jihadist extremism is broken out as a separate list.)
There are many more where Christian beliefs are cited as a motivation
Beyond that, I think you are getting confused between what is happening in the Middle East and what I was discussing, which was domestic acts of terrorism in the US.
Most US acts of terrorism including the recent one in San Bernardino are “loan wolf” uncoordinated attacks. It is becoming clear that Tashfeen Malik was radicalized before she entered the US, but there’s no evidence she was a Daesh operative for example.
Obviously “9/11” types of attacks by external entities represent a different sort of threat, but the solution has nothing to do with how we handle Syrian refugees.
DeWitt, I see a lot of what looks to me like xenophobia and outright racism. You might disagree with the perception, but it’s a new one to me that these shouldn’t be considered forms of bigotry.
DeWitt,
I am sorry for your family’s loss. It was a horrific incident that the world was united in condemning. In its aftermath, there were people like Rumsfeld who wanted to attack Iraq since there were no more targets to bomb in Afghanistan . The Middle East is seeing a lot of gruesome images of civilian casualties and so they question whether American blood is more precious than theirs. When Americans don’t see the images that they do, they cannot understand the reactions of others either.
Niels, the demographics of Syrian refugees seeking to enter the US is very different than those entering Europe. The reason should be obvious, unless you have a sponsor, you will have pay for at least part of the cost of transportation and immigration into the US (that includes medical exams).
.
If you read Bernard Lewis ( and I recommend everyone do so – the books are probably in the library and easy to read ), he will write of Christendom and the land of Islam.
.
In this view, Christianity is not an existential threat to Western civilization precisely because Western civilization is Christian civilization.
.
In the US, Lewis also writes, we took things a step further into freedom of religion and separation of church and state. We (as a nation) did this with good reason since many of the colonies were established fleeing persecution, but then immediately became exclusive, persecuting other religions! In the historically few generations of our nation, we’ve grown quite accustomed to the idea of separation, but it is very recent, historically.
.
Some like to project the Christian->Western->US experience onto Islam and that Islam will go through the same experiences and reach the same conclusions. But this wouldn’t seem to be a forgone conclusion to me.
.
In your statement, you did cite Radical Islam which is a distinction. At the same time, there is a long history which forms some popular ideas, which may be more important in the Middle East than it is to us in the US with our still only two plus century old nation.
.
This link of a Lewis article has some weight because it was written in 1990. He writes both sympathetically and with caution about The Roots of Muslim Rage.
.
The books are better and interesting. Particularly when he writes about the ‘Golden Age’ of Islam ( which has caused some controversy ). During the ‘Golden Age’, it was the time of the Alhambra in Spain and the intellectual, artistic, and civilizational achievements were at a peak, but the society was more liberal ( meaning free ) and fundamentalists at that time assassinated caliph after caliph to return to more strict ( and less free ) religious times. Some others dispute this but Lewis is extremely well versed in the documents of the time.
.
So the advanced Muslim society of that time ( twelfth century IIRC ) was the first victim of Islamic fundamentalists. That caliphate subsequently weakened and ended, eventually replaced by the Ottoman empire which was driven out of Europe in the fifteenth century.
.
This perspective helps appreciate more the Muslim peoples ( during this time civilization was only Islam – the rest of Europe was barbaric), and reject more religious fundamentalism in general, though especially the apparently most dangerous sects of Islam.
Niels:
As I mentioned above, the demographics are different as are the societies. Especially in the major urban areas, refugees typically settle in US is much more pluralistic. In my view, part of the problem Europe is having is the stratification present in European society presents a bigger barrier for integration of immigrants in Europe than it does in the US.
I don’t and can’t accuse you personally of xenophobia or racism, since I don’t know you well enough.
But, in my mind, there’s no question that xenophobia and the issue of racial and ethnic purity has been a problem that has plagued Europe for many centuries, and I doubt the horrific events of WWII (which had wide spread participation of governments and citizens through most occupied European countries) were enough to eradicate cultural biases.
I would suspect one could apply your language mutatis mutandis about Muslims to for example Jews living in Holland the 1930s.
While racial and ethnic purity is a big issue in Europe, it’s pretty much absent in the US because there are few truly homogenous communities, especially ones in the urban areas that immigrants typically get integrated into. It’s a bigger problem in rural communities, and one can find a similar scale of bigotry where people who aren’t part of the majority typically have less access to education, health care, housing and jobs.
For those communities your “dangerous language” once again shifts the all of the blame to the minority community. (Cultural values can be part of the problem, but I’d say it’s rare its all on the cultural values of the minority group.)
.
Do you have any friends or acquaintances ( more than passing acquaintance ) that come from Muslim lands?
.
I have a friend from Iran ( he became a citizen in the early 1980s ). He hosts events for many of the Iranian students and I’ve met ( and played sports with and partied with ) dozens of them over the years.
.
Now, these students are not necessarily representative of peoples of Muslim lands as a whole. Their parents are probably wealthy, Iranians have a strong national/cultural identity as Persians more than Muslim ( with traditions, language, long pre-dating Mohammed ), Iran is mostly Shia, and most of the students are secular if not outright atheist ( though some still observed ).
.
But knowing these students and how much they not only appreciated but knew of Western/US culture ( through movies/internet/friends ) has given me a better sense of the diversity of people and a somewhat more hopeful outlook that ‘folks is folks’.
Carrick: “I’m honestly amazed at how ignorant some of the things you say are. As it happens, the clinic Robert L. Dear targeted does not perform abortions and of course a policeman was killed in the process.”
…
You consistently ignore my arguments and the facts and slur me. I have never mentioned Dear, yet you bring him up. Someone mentioned Dr. Tiller who was killed.
…
To make matters simpler for your hopelessly confused and addled mind, I will repeat my arguments. I consider substantial parts of Islam to be aggressively and implacably hostile to the US. The Syrian refugees are overwhelming Islamic. So, I believe there is a real problem with admitting Syrian refugees, some of which, or their offspring, will be implacably hostile to the US and pose a great risk of terrorism by virtue of their Islamic religion. My problem is not with their nationality but with their religion, substantial branches of which predispose people to terrorism. (I am assuming you have a basic familiarity with the 9/11 bombings, for instance — maybe I shouldn’t)
…
While discussing the advisability of admitting large numbers of Syrians to the US, you brought up the subject of domestic terrorism in the US, stating that “Most of it home grown and most of it non-Islamic.†I pointed out that Islamic terrorists killed 3,000 people on 9/11 and challenged you to come up with the numbers killed by domestic terrorism in the US. The numbers are, of course, way lower than the numbers of people killed by Muslims. You [it turns out now, falsely] claimed that your positions were supported by data. However, you go silent about the comparison between domestically caused terrorist deaths in the US and then go about mentioning one incident caused by Dear that I didn’t even mention.
…
Your gobsmackingly stupid and mean spirited posts are really classic examples of deluded and amazing ignorant junk thought that is posted by someone who can’t make even a hint of a rational argument. Having lost the argument, you create ridiculous deflections having nothing to do with my positions and totally ignore the facts. Still waiting for the numbers of people killed by domestic non-islamic terrorists as compared to Islamic terrorists.
…
Of course, I won’t waste any more of my time with you and you can continue with whatever goofy or stupid comments you wish to make about me or my arguments.
..
JD
DeWitt Payne:
Many of us have lost family and/or friends in this war. And many of us have family and friends who served in Afghanistan and Iraq. Many of us know people personally who bear internal and external scars from their experiences. No one person has a corner on sorrow and grief.
Probably our loss explains some of the rancor towards Muslims. The irony here is the US and Europe have willfully caused more harm to Arab nations than they have ever done to us, before 9/11 or after. If you feel negatively towards Arabs for the loss of one family member, imagine how they feel towards us and our government, after innocent family members are killed by errant bombs and missiles or by military action based on erroneous intelligence.
I think there is no justification to use personal loss for the mistreatment of other people. I look at this a reminder for the costs of demanding retribution for our own loss. Otherwise it becomes a never-ending cycle of kill and counter-kill.
In any case there is no moral, political or economic justification to allow our personal feelings to dictate our policies, especially when these policies affect other people’s lives too.
Policy needs to be set, to the degree to which it is possible, on a rational analysis of the facts and on cost/benefit analysis. I use this same set of rules regardless of my personal stake in the outcome, regardless of whether it is purely a scientific question or a social-political one.
For Syrian refugees, were I the US, I would screen for non-Muslim (because these people at are higher risk in left), I would weight more heavily people who are likely to be an economic asset in the US. The rest, I’ve seen the argument and I think it’s very plausible, it’s probably cheaper and more cost effectively to provide aid to these people in their homelands, and after the termination of violence, allow them to return to their homes.
As to your statement “And I question whether there is, in fact, any such thing as a moderate Muslim”, frankly that’s just a ridiculous comment and grief (which many of us share) does not excuse it.
JD Ohio, I address your comment “The abortion killers target doctors and abortion personnel.”
I point out to you how wrongheaded it is, which of course very intimately involves self-acclaimed “Army of God” and “warrior for the babies” Robert L Dear…
And that’s both mean-spirited and slurring you.
Just lol. Well, mostly lol and a bit of wtf.
Bye.
RB,
Thank you.
TE,
Exactly my point. If the vast majority of Muslims wished to return to that ‘Golden Age’ of tolerance and enlightenment, I wouldn’t be questioning the existence of moderate Muslims as a significant presence in Islamic society. ISIS wants to restore a caliphate, but not the caliphate of that time.
We now know that one person, Enrique Marquez, a recent convert to Islam, knew that Farook and his wife were plotting an attack. I find it hard to believe that he was the only one in the community who knew that.
Carrick,
What the West has done in the Middle East in the last hundred years pales into insignificance compared to the bloody history of Islam. Maybe I’ve missed it, but I’ve never heard that modern Muslims are now appalled by the slaughter and forced conversion under threat of death during the conquest of India, for example. That would be a start at convincing me that there are what a neutral observer would call moderate Muslims.
By the way, Trump’s poll numbers appear to have increased after his call to temporarily ban immigration by Muslims. I’m not sure what all the fuss is about, as Trump was already clearly opposed to immigration by anyone.
DeWitt:
I’d say be careful about this argument—you really can’t hold people are alive today for the acts of people long dead. [I know that is news to many a liberal.]
And it’s hardly the case (in reality) that leaders were always driven by religious fanaticism to engage in wars of conquest. I imagine this was more of a case of theft by other means (e.g., loot from conquest).
In any case, I think people in the Middle East have a legitimate grievance against how they were treated during the period of European colonialism. And they are still affected today by the political boundaries that were draw up, some historians argue intentionally, to keep the region in a perpetual state of warfare.
As far as Muslims go, I can only draw on my experience. I’ve only met moderate Muslims, and the ones I’ve talked to have always been willing to condemn acts of terrorism.
DeWitt,
Some people have a very hard time accepting the reality that there are beliefs and behaviors shared by a large fraction of people in certain identifiable groups, and that these beliefs and behaviors are simply incompatible with western style pluralistic democracy. No amount of argument or discussion will make them accept this.
I mentioned above I thought that Arab nationalism was a bigger strategic threat than Muslim fundamentalism. Even with Daesh and Syria, I think there’s a reason that Assad isn’t engaging them: He’s trying to get the rest of the world to see him as the lesser of two evils. To the extent that Russian has thrown in with him, it’s worked.
For leaders like Assad, the story of radicalized Muslims is the gift that keeps on giving. As long as the west is more concerned about Muslim extremism, these guys not only get a free pass on the acts of cruelty towards their own populace, in many cases they get a nice amount of monetary support from the US and other countries by playing up fears of jihadism.
The truth is that Daesh has been far from a successful Islamic state. There wouldn’t be a huge refuge crisis and they wouldn’t be suffering from brain drain, were they successful.
I don’t think Middle Eastern leaders take Daesh very seriously, and nor, unlike many of us, are they at all concerned about large numbers of causalities of civilians of other countries. Since there seems to be no danger of this really snowballing into a crisis that threatens their own sovereignty, I think Daesh actually represents an opportunity, especially for neighboring states like Iran and Turkey interested in expanding their borders.
…and some people think you can just swap one religion for another in your thinking and your memes because all religions are the same.
A cursory examination will demonstrate they aren’t.
Andrew
SteveF:
This is politics, so what do you expect? You are no more likely to be persuaded by me, than me by you, or Donald Trump by anybody.
But some of us likely have shoulder problems from all of the self-congratulatory back-patting about our superior insight. The Donald certainly is one of those.
I prefer to stay a bit more self-critical than that.
So I can be convinced I’m wrong on this, but not by using emotional appeal, appeal to anecdote, by simplistic interpretations of historical events, or via any other logically flawed approach. I even read the comments by people (like JD) when they are just venting at me.
If there’s a reasonable point, I will generally acknowledge it. But if there’s an obvious flaw in somebody’s argument, I will also generally notice it.
But I’m under no obligation to point out everything I find wrong on the internet.
So when the problems are obvious enough, I figure other people—if they should be take seriously on this issue—can work the flaws out on their own. If they embrace flaws because they like the conclusions to be drawn, that’s a data point too.
Andrew_KY:
I don’t see anybody who’s said that.
Do any mind reading lately?
.
Even that may be a little harsh on Europeans.
.
Remember it’s only been less than a century since the Ottoman Empire fell ( the last caliphate ). I’m not too familiar with the stories of that time ( it was WW I, no? ).
.
Somewhat reasonably, the victors ( Europeans ) took ‘mandates’ divided amongst them. It could have been cold imperialism or it could have been some sense of responsibility for the newly ungoverned lands. Certainly the lines were inept ( and the US had a different plan ) but it’s not clear that even better lines would have mattered. The cultures/religions/languages/customs overlap a lot. And further, Islam never had nation states, only caliphates, because there is only one legitimate government – Islam. This kind of describes the situation we’re in. And Afghans holding up their Korans proclaiming ‘president Bush, this is our constitution.’
.
Iran kind of compromised. They have competitive elections but still the primacy of a religious council that decides the candidates. Doesn’t seem like much, but at least a step in the right direction and consideration of the ideas.
.
The purple finger elections in Iraq seemed genuinely appreciated, but when we left, the ethnic/religious division re-emerged. The experiment of democratizing Iraq was ended prematurely and we can’t go back.
.
What to do now? Certainly beats the hell out of me, though perhaps we should draft Patreus as president?
Carrick,
I didn’t aim my remarks specifically at you, although they may apply.
I see it on the interwebs that people think “religious freedom” means the same thing for Christians and for Muslims. And that the resulting behaviors will be the same.
These are low-information people.
Andrew
.
Yes.
.
Except for giving us the first libraries.
.
And hospitals.
.
And the first Republican tax analyst ( Ibn Kalduhn in Tunisia )
.
And some astronomy.
.
And algebra.
.
And algorithms.
.
And of course, alcohol!
.
Fundamentalism has slowed them down a bit, but do remember that Muslims were the civilization ( west of the Indus river, anyway ) while plague ridden Christians were superstitiously wandering around in poo.
“Except for giving us the first libraries.”
TE,
There were “libraries” around before there were Muslims.
Hear what I say about low-information people.
Andrew
Carrick:
Sorry, I don’t follow. Your link says the plane ticket is paid for and each refugee gets a 1000$ stipend upon arrival. They are supposed to pay back the price of ticket when they get a job. How does that make it obvious that the demographics of Syrian refugees seeking to enter the US is very different than those entering Europe?
.
I have no idea what are you talking about. Jews living in Holland in the 30’s? I’m familiar with the Danish Jews who were completely Integrated/assimilated into the Danish society. They were regarded as other Danes and their children often didn’t even know they were of Jewish descent. The Danish helped their countrymen escape to Sweden when followers of a violent, racist, totalitarian ideology wanted to kill them. Of course.
My beef is with Islam, a belief system/totalitarian ideology of which Muslims of course are the first victims.
.
.
This part is the most sensible I have read from you in this debate. I take back my words about your closed-mindedness. You were swayed by arguments. Respect.
.
Dewitts comment: “And I question whether there is, in fact, any such thing as a moderate Muslim†is not ridiculous. Some branches of Islam like Sufis and Ahmadiyya are moderate but they are persecuted in most muslim countries and they are a small minority among muslim immigrants to the West. In general it is true that a muslim is only moderate to the extent that he does not follow the teachings of Islam. In that way moderate muslim is a contradiction in terms. A muslim who does not think apostates should be killed, who condemns stoning of adulteress women, think the Koran is not written by Allah and should not be read literally is not regarded as a true muslim by the majority of muslims.
.
My “dangerous language”. Oh please. I cannot criticize, dislike, abhor the religion of Islam and want protect my country from its influence because this religion has followers?
In my view muslim immigration has already changed the Danish society considerably for the worse. And that’s with only 5% muslims. We see attacks on authors, poets, politicians, newspapers publishers, cartoonists, the Danish society for freedom of speech, Jews (that’s getting really bad now). I want to preserve a free, democratic society for my children. That’s not a given at all.
.
You know perhaps that there are no-go zones in Britain and France. Denmark has them too. Stones and bottles are thrown at not only policecars but also firetrucks and ambulances – even buses – when they enter certain muslim neighbourhoods. Soldiers are advised not to wear their uniforms when they leave military compunds to visit family – to avoid provoking and getting attacked by young muslims. Danish youth serving their country cannot wear their uniform in their own country.
.
That’s how the Dutch Jews behaved in the 30’s? No, I’m fairly certain they behaved much like the Danish Jews.
.
What is dangerous about my language and for whom?
Neils,
Your ‘dangerous’ language is only dangerous because it could get you killed by Muslim extremists if you were a sufficiently public figure that they would pay attention to you like Pim Fortuyn or Theo van Gogh.
So, I heard a talking head advocate for a freeze on all immigration in order to allow time for existing emigrants to assimilate, before thawing again.
.
Emigrants have, of course, been the life blood of the US.
We tend to attract the most ambitious because of the financial reward.
.
At the same time, assimilation is the key word.
.
And this made a certain amount of sense to me.
Hospitals:
Hospitals predate Islam by something in the thousand year range:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_hospitals
“The earliest surviving encyclopaedia of medicine in Sanskrit is the Carakasamhita (Compendium of Caraka). This text, which describes the building of a hospital is dated by Dominik Wujastyk of the University College London from the period between 100 BCE and CE150.[6] The description by Fa Xian is one of the earliest accounts of a civic hospital system anywhere in the world and, coupled with Caraka’s description of how a clinic should be equipped, suggests that India may have been the first part of the world to have evolved an organized cosmopolitan system of institutionally-based medical provision.[6]”
History of Alcoholic Beverages:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_alcoholic_beverages
“Chemical analysis of jars from the neolithic village Jiahu in the Henan province of northern China revealed traces of alcohol that were absorbed and preserved. According to a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, chemical analysis of the residue confirmed that a fermented drink made of grapes, hawthorn berries, honey, and rice was being produced in 7000–6650 BC.[3][4][5] The results of this analysis were published in December 2004.[5][6] This is approximately the time when barley beer and grape wine were beginning to be made in the Middle East.
Wine’s first appearance is thought to date from 6000 BC in Georgia.[7] The earliest firm evidence of wine production dates back to 5400 BC in Iran [1][2].
Evidence of alcoholic beverages has also been found dating from 3150 BC in ancient Egypt,[8] 3000 BC in Babylon,[9] 2000 BC in pre-Hispanic Mexico,[9] and 1500 BC in Sudan.[10]”
Not only predating Islam by thousands of years, is a common part of human culture. Try reading the book of Genesis, the Noah story predates Islam. Noah got drunk in a bizarre scene at the end of that story.
History of Economics:
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/History_of_economic_thought
Muslims play no significant historical role.
Algebra:
http://www.livescience.com/50258-algebra.html
Although often confused to have been invented by Muslims, the reality is more interesting:
“According to Jacques Sesiano in “An Introduction to the History of Algebra” (AMS, 2009), this problem is based on a Babylonian clay tablet circa 1800 B.C. (VAT 8389, Museum of the Ancient Near East). Since these roots in ancient Mesopotamia, algebra has been central to many advances in science, technology, and civilization as a whole. The language of algebra has varied significantly across the history of all civilizations to inherit it (including our own).”
And Libraries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_libraries
“The first libraries consisted of archives of the earliest form of writing—the clay tablets in cuneiform script discovered in temple rooms in Sumer,[1][2] some dating back to 2600 BC.[3] These archives, which mainly consisted of the records of commercial transactions or inventories, mark the end of prehistory and the start of history.[4][5]
Things were much the same in the government and temple records on papyrus of Ancient Egypt.[2] The earliest discovered private archives were kept at Ugarit; besides correspondence and inventories, texts of myths may have been standardized practice-texts for teaching new scribes. There is also evidence of libraries at Nippur about 1900 BC and those at Nineveh about 700 BC showing a library classification system.[6]”
Hyping Islam as some sort of uniquely creative vital contributor to the world is a great idea until one looks even a wee bit into the facts.
Using incorrect claims about ancient Islam to justify not being concerned with the modern reality of Islam is not really rational if one thinks a little bit about it.
And the gross over simplification of Islamic culture during the European dark ages to the extent of claiming it was *the* civilization west of the Indus is plain weird.
The reality was a highly dynamic, frequently contested fragmented set of societies bound by Islam and Arabic:
http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/694/the-islamic-middle-ages-a-fractured-polity-and-the-flourishing-of-a-cultural-and-scientific-renaissance
But again, the fixation on an ancient, idealized Islam that never actually existed does not seem to be a very meaningful way to defend Islamic terror today.
TE,
Freezing immigration isn’t going to pass, much less work. IMO, it’s also a bad idea.
America, like any other country, should run its immigration policy to help its own citizens first.
We have from time to time swung the immigration door open as well as closed that door.
Both have turned out pretty well.
The negligent conversion of that door into a hole in the wall is what many people today are concerned about.
Focusing more on assimilation and reasonable security concerns does not seem anti-American or bigoted.
hunter,
Allowing crops to rot in the field because there was no one to harvest them even at $15/hour doesn’t help American citizens.
Turbulent Eddie (Comment #141443)
” remember that Muslims were the civilization ( west of the Indus river, anyway ) while plague ridden Christians were superstitiously wandering around in poo”.
So the Roman Christians were not civilized well before Muslims existed?
All religions are superstitiously wandering around following their guiding lights.
Arctic ice continues to make an impressive turn around though the last time I said this it promptly went into a dive.
Both Piomas and DMI 30% show impressive gains and Total Global Sea Ice will soon be back to positive.
Carrick:
It’s sad how few Americans realize this. I’ve seen a number of people argue this is a large part of why we wound up invading Iraq (this last time). While many people dismiss it with stupid statements like, “We invaded them for their oil,” the reality is Saddam Hussein was a horrible person, and the world would have been a better place if the United States had done a good job with its invasion/occupation.
The argument, which I think holds some merit, is invading Afghanistan was pretty much necessary for Bush because of the terrorist attack of September 11th, but Bush and/or his advisors knew the real problem with the Middle East isn’t the radical terrorists – it’s the tyrranical governments. Because of that they decided to depose one of the region’s tyrants they knew they could build some sort of “moral” case against. The idea was to replace one war-mongering tyrant with a decent government that would help start bringing some stability to the region. And if they could make it work with one country, then they could use the threat of it on other countries to start bringing them into line.
I think that argument has merit because the logic it ascribes is sound. Pretty much the only way the United States could remove these sorts of governments is to flat-out invade the countries, occupy them and create a new government. That can’t happen though as the United States cannot be imperialistic due to its people and other countries not tolerating such from it. This was a one-time exception brought upon by the momentum leftover from responding to such a major terrorist attack.
And honestly, I think people would have been okay with all that if it had been successful. There’s that saying, people love a winner. It’s true. When it comes to foreign policy, people and nations will forgive a great deal of things as long as they work. The United States’s war with Mexico is a great example. President Polk pretty much fabricated a reason to invade Mexico so he could steal territory from it, and most people didn’t mind because it worked.
If Bush and his team hadn’t screwed things up so badly, who knows what might have happened?
More Mexicans Leaving Than Coming to the U.S.
.
We were counting on them to prop up our graying population.
.
Falling population isn’t good for economies.
And honestly, I think people would have been okay with all that if it had been successful.
That’s the remaining part of the story that’s really sad – it was successful, at least after the surge and Patreus ‘flipped the Sunni tribesmen’. He did so with bribes and the promise of representation in a pluralistic government.
.
But despite advice otherwise, Obama did not pursue a status of forces agreement ( though to be fair, that’s what he promised to do as a candidate ). Without baby-sitting, Iraq quickly dissolved and Isis rose. Generals predicted what has happened and the double-crossed Sunni tribesmen flipped back.
.
If this is a war of ideas, we have failed in demonstrating any power of those ideas.
.
We promoted elections but fled and failed the fledgling Iraq.
Palestine held elections but elected Islamist government we couldn’t abide.
Egypt held elections but elected the Muslim Brotherhood which the Egyptian military voided with our tacit approval.
.
What would you make of democracy or the US after that?
By the way, I would totally be willing to vote for an imperialistic president. Heck, I’d probably campaign for one. A presidential candidate who got up and said the United Nations has failed to police the world so the United States is going to ramp up its military capabilities so if necessary it can defend those who can’t defend themselves would have my support in an instant. A candidate who got up and said:
Would probably give a lot of people heart attacks, but he’d get vote. Because seriously, while terrorism is bad and scary, it’s nowhere near as bad or scary as immoral governments which oppress their people trying to gain more power.
And I’m not just talking about Russia. Every Middle Eastern tyrant celebrates when there’s a terrorist attack, not because they care about the civilians dying, but because they know it means they can sleep a bit more safely at night.
TE: More Mexicans Leaving Pew Link
…
Unfortunately, Pew is not a reliable source on this topic. Obama started counting turn aways at the border as deportations and Pew claims that Obama had stricter enforcement based on the turn away numbers, which were not generally counted as deportations previously. Pew stated inaccurately: “In addition, stricter enforcement of U.S. immigration laws, particularly at the U.S.-Mexico border (Rosenblum and Meissner, 2014), may have contributed to the reduction of Mexican immigrants coming to the U.S. in recent years.”
…
Instead, of course, the Obama administration has greatly loosened border enforcement and is blatantly deceptive about what it has done. See http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deportations-20140402-story.html and http://www.nationalreview.com/article/370784/obama-administration-inflating-deportation-numbers-andrew-stiles
JD
TE: “We were counting on them (Mexicans) to prop up our graying population.”
…
We certainly don’t need to. We could get as many Chinese, Vietnamese or Filipinos as we would want. I would add that I went to a high school in California that was about 50% Mexican/American by ethnicity. Mexicans are generally hard working and very decent people. My issue is that although they are very good people, we can’t have open borders and accept all Mexicans who would want to come whenever they would decide to enter.
JD
yeah, that was the neocon upstream linked Bernard Lewis-inspired view . He was Cheney’s hero for the need to appear strong within the Arab world. Anybody and anything supported by Cheney has to be viewed with deep suspicion.
Turbulent Eddie:
I don’t know if it would have been successful had Obama done otherwise. It might have fallen apart anyway. Still, Obama’s decision was a terrible one. When it comes to things like this, you have to pick a strategy and see it through. Obama didn’t.
I’m kind of reminded of the Bay of Pigs fiasco. The invasion was doomed to fail if President Kennedy didn’t use the United States military to support it. The sensible choice would be to either not carry the invasion out, or to use the military. Basically, you either try and do what you can to make sure you succeed or you don’t try. Instead, Kennedy decided to… try in a way that was doomed to fail.
Politicians play at politics too much. Politics shouldn’t shape foreign policy aside from setting the overall goals and parameters. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. Foreign policy is constantly affected by how the political winds shift, and that causes a multitude of problems.
Which in a lot of ways is due to presidents being weak leaders. I don’t mean that to say the office of President is weak. I just mean, the men themselves often are. A lot of the men that get elected just aren’t men of strong character who can commit to causes like they need to.
The Lewis view:
Shock and awe! And thus was foreign policy made.
RB,
So because you don’t like Cheney, that means that Lewis must be wrong. Interesting logic.
Neils, I’m not sure about the point of your argument about the demographics. Obviously they are very different, and the monetary costs (even if loaned up front, you still are required to pay it back) are very different.
Regarding Holland and the Holocaust, I’m referring to this. History books have a different account than you regarding the amount of integration of Jews into Holland prior to WWII, but I’ll let you fight that out with other people.
Since you brought up Danish Jews, I guess you are unaware that there were many fewer Danish Jews than Dutch Jews prior to WWII. One interesting thing that happened, was unlike every other European country, the Danish actively resisted the Germans in their attempts to intern the indigenous Jewish population.
And of course Europe’s issues with ethnic purity extend many centuries prior to WWII.
This is seriously old territory.
Your argument follows much the same as people who don’t follow the teachings of the Old Testament authorizing the genocide of nonbelievers in deference to contradictory text in the New Testament are therefore not following the Bible. Nobody says that though (I think that’s an example of double standards).
The Quran is divided into two substantively contradictory texts, the Mecca and Medina texts. The Mecca is a book of peace, the Medina is a book of war. Plus, Islamic doctrine isn’t limited to simply the Quran (there are multiple sources of Islamic doctrine, e.g., see this).
As with Christianity, you can’t say somebody isn’t a practicing Muslim if they ignore a particular passage. Different Christian denominations emphasize different portions of the Bible (some of them, notably the Catholics, have books that aren’t in other versions of the Bible). Similarly, there are different Muslim sects. Each have their own religious expression.
What you can say is, if an individual isn’t treating the Eucharist as prescribed by Catholic doctrine, that this person isn’t following Catholic doctrine. You can’t say he isn’t a Catholic, really only the Catholic Church can determine that.
So when you say “muslim is only moderate to the extent that he does not follow the teachings of Islam” what you should have said was a “Muslim is only moderate to the extent that he ignores certain parts of the Quran”. On that we certainly agree.
But put that way that does allow for the reality that most Muslims (by most I mean “the vast majority”) are not endanger of becoming radicalized, even when they get mistreated and abused because of their culture and religious choices.
I grew up in Indiana in the 1960s, and I was surrounded by hate and prejudice towards black people. Part of the cultural experience I carry with me is the major parallels between blacks and Muslims.
Based on what I’ve read and seen, it’s going to be a tough sell that you aren’t letting your own prejudices heavily affect your judgment here.
Turbulent Eddie
I’ll point you to the book that I linked. It provides documentation that the boundaries were consciously chosen to create conflict. It’s been forever since I read the book, but if I recall right, the reasoning was something along the lines of “king of the hill”: If you have two people, the strongest person ends up on top in a struggle. With three, the two weaker people are usually strong enough to push the strongest person off. You end up with a chaotic system.
I’m not really sure about the accuracy of your history, but not arguing that.
But even if there is “one Islam”, as usual with humans, different groups have different ideas how that should be. Likely you couldn’t fit all of them one caliphate without discord. Iraq is certainly a good example of that, with its main populations of Arab Sunni, Shias and Kurdish Sunni, and pretty much constant strife since its founding in 1920.
Brandon, I’ve made the argument that the reason that the Middle East totalitarian governments are stable is because the world buys their cheap oil. If we either quit buying the oil (that will never happen, Paris Accord or no) or simply slapped a tariff when they engaged unfair market practices—as those ass-hats in Saudia Arabia are doing currently-certainly this would destabilize these governments.
I suppose the problem is what these governments get replaced with.
Remove Bremer from the equation (so no disbanding the Iraqi Army, no restricting Baathists from holding office), and I’d guess “relatively stable country”. Bremer couldn’t have done a worse job if he had tried, but our clever President at the time gave Bremer a Presidential medal for it.
Carrick:
.
English is not my first language. If someone understands what Carrick is saying, please enlighten me:
I’m at a loss with the rest of your comment too. I fail to see how it is adressing anything I said. I’m tempted to add: obviously 🙂
I think I will expand my answer later today, I’m not sure it is worth it, though.
.
Yes Dewitt, in that sense my language is dangerous. Freedom of speech is under severe threats in todays Europe.
DeWitt,
I must have forgotten about the post I made saying we should ban all foreign workers or deport crop workers.
Or perhaps you just ran out of points so had to make a strawman?
It is so interesting how defenders of a failed dangerous immigration policy will just make up totally off the wall comments and hope to distract from the issue.
When Muslim terrorists posing as crop workers become an issue we can worry about our crops getting picked.
Thanks for playing.
DeWitt,
Let’s consider Cheney a figure of speech. There are other reasons to consider the neocon policy a failed one.
From this article
DeWitt Payne (Comment #141434)
December 10th, 2015 at 12:28 pm
By the way, Trump’s poll numbers appear to have increased after his call to temporarily ban immigration by Muslims. I’m not sure what all the fuss is about, as Trump was already clearly opposed to immigration by anyone.
**********
Trump has said he is opposed to immigration “by anyone.” What he HAS said is that we should put a stop to it UNTIL we can figure out how to properly vet Muslims. This is a rational and totally reasonable idea.
Trump’s basic ideas are pragmatic and sensible. Of course, he is slimmed as a bigot by politicians competing with him and liberals because, well, that’s just what they do.
That should have been:
Trump has NOT said he is opposed to immigration “by anyone.â€
I can understand why many Middle Eastern Muslims are upset with the West. The West has ruled with a heavy hand there. And of course, there is Israel, which Muslims hate (talk about bigotry!!). This history is unfortunate.
Personally, I don’t see throwing Israel to the wolves. To me, THAT would be highly unethical – genocide. So, that’s going to be a problem forever as far as I can see.
The bottom line is that no matter how we all got to this point, the US has a right to control who comes in and to do whatever is necessary to keep our laws Western and not Shari, and to defend our people from any sort, lone wolf or otherwise, Muslim aggression.
OK. Some data on Muslim tolerance and freedom. From the article:
…
The Texas Imam who publicly agreed with Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s suggestion that America set-up a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States†until further investigation can be done, has been forced to resign. The Imam also said that more than 100 Houston, Texas, area Imams have been asked to leave because of a “political agenda.â€
As reported by 12News in Beaumont, Texas, Imam Nidal Alsayyed says he received a late-night phone call from a board member asking for his resignation.
…
As reported by Breitbart Texas, the Imam from east Texas told his local television station, “I certainly see it to be wise [to] stop temporarily accepting any new Muslim immigrants [refugees and non-refugees] into the United States.â€
Alsayyed led the Islamic Center of Triplex.
…
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/12/11/texas-imam-forced-resign-agreeing-trump/
hunter,
I am drawing an inference that Trump is opposed to immigration in general from the rest of his program and statements. He has said he wants the current immigration laws strictly enforced. His proposed reforms would make immigration much less attractive. His idea that the Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t actually give birth right citizenship is very similar to the gun control supporters’ claim that the Second Amendment does not give an individual right to keep and bear arms and is equally wrong.
The current H-2A program for agricultural worker visas is too restrictive. That’s why crops rotted in the fields this year. Strict enforcement will mean that will continue to happen. So yes, Trump is opposed to foreign agricultural workers, just not in so many words.
Neils, if you won’t admit that the additional barriers to immigration to the US and Canada generate sa distortion in the demographics, there’s really no point in continuing this conversation.
Speech becomes dangerous when it irrationally inflames others to acts of bigotry or violence towards minorities. It was not meant as as compliment.
Realizing that English is not your first language, another term for dangerous speech is “inflammatory speech”.
Jim2, Just Wow. Has he said anything in public before?
jim2:
I agree we have a right to control who comes into our borders. In case you missed it, this is the policy I advocate (a bit of editing from above):
For Syrian refugees, I would screen for non-Muslim (because these people at are higher risk for harm from Islamic extremists if left). I would also weight more heavily people who are likely to be an economic asset in the US. The rest, I’ve seen the argument and I think it’s very plausible, it’s probably cheaper and more cost effectively to provide aid to these people and keep them in their home country, and after the termination of violence, allow them to return to their homes.
As it happens, I think this is pretty close to the actual US policy.
Niels A Nielsen (Comment #141478)
December 11th, 2015 at 10:15 am
Jim2, Just Wow. Has he said anything in public before?
*****
Yes, Niels, if you search this thread for jim2, you will find it. He spoke out against Muslim violence and has been punished for it.
I’m definitely encouraged that this Iman and perhaps others are speaking out. There are Muslims that are “good” by my judgement. The problem is how to sort out the ones that want to kill infidels from those who don’t.
“acts of bigotry or violence towards minorities”
Oh look. Carrick is playing the “bigot” card again.
Andrew
Carrick (Comment #141479)
December 11th, 2015 at 10:19 am
The rest, I’ve seen the argument and I think it’s very plausible, it’s probably cheaper and more cost effectively to provide aid to these people and keep them in their home country, and after the termination of violence, allow them to return to their homes.
As it happens, I think this is pretty close to the actual US policy.
********
I’m not sure how close this is to US policy, but I agree with you generally.
jim2:
I don’t advocate throwing Israel to the wolves either.
But I believe a major reason for the continued existence of terrorist groups is they are being funded by Arab states seeking to destabilize Israel.
I’ll point out again this money comes eventually from oil purchased by the West. And many of these Arab countries are supposedly our allies in the region. This might be an example of selling your enemy the rope to hang you with. (If so, it’s very poor business practice–no repeat business.)
Since the costs to these Arab states are relatively low, like you, I think it’s going to be a problem for the foreseeable future. I predict it will take industrialization of the Palestinian Territories for this to eventually change.
Andrew_KY:
No, I use the appropriate term.
As the saying goes, “if you don’t like the way the shoe fits, stop wearing it.”
“if you don’t like the way the shoe fits”
Doesn’t fit, except as a smear.
Andrew
Carrick, I just don’t follow your argument. The demographics of your Syrian refugees may well be different than Europes where probably around 7 out of ten are illiterate or Latin-illiterate. I don’t know. I never said I did.
But according to your link you don’t need a sponsor to enter the US as a Syrian refugee as you claimed. And you get a 1000$. I just don’t get how that “obviously” make the demographics of your immigrants different.
Niels commenting about Carrick: “English is not my first language. If someone understands what Carrick is saying, please enlighten me:”
…
Niels, there used to be a Carrick who commented about climate matters who seemed to have logical points to make. So, I continued my conversations above thinking that Carrick might eventually have a point to make worth engaging based on my past memories. However, you would have more success conversing with a tree stump than engaging with Carrick because he is so obtuse. My best guess is that the worst commentator at Dotearth, Mike Roddy, stole Carrick’s identity and is trying to embarrass him. On the other hand, maybe Carrick has just gone loony. His only useful function here is to prompt your very interesting comments.
…
One tell for a loon is that he can’t get even the most basic procedures correct. Two examples from Carrick that I didn’t even mention before while dealing with the blizzard of his invective and irrationality.
…
1. He claimed that Andrew Parker was highly biased but never gave any particular reason for his claim. The best he could do was simply repeat that he was biased, stating “If it makes me blind that I’m driven by data rather than some guys highly biased opinion, or can form my own opinions based on actual facts rather than walking lock step with a group of like minded sheep.” He has never identified any particular reason for a bias or past evidence of bias.
…
2. He claimed to have real world experience in mental health care but has never given any statement whatsoever as to what it is. His statement was in response to my supposition that he probably didn’t have any experience in dealing with mental health care. He responded by stating that: “Then you are certainly wrong. I actually have quite a bit of “real world†experience here.’ Bizarrely, he then mentions absolutely nothing. See comment 141358.
…
Hope you will continue to comment here. However, any interaction with Carrick is bound to be worthless.
JD
Trump (who is not my favorite candidate but is much better than any democrat alternative) said “suspend” the immigration policy as it is.
On its face that is not so unreasonable. It has been done before.
It is based on the apparently radical concept that immigration policy should serve the citizens of the nation dealing with the immigrants.
Carter suspended visas for Iranians after they illegally took US diplomats hostage, for instance.
It has taken mis-quoting, parsing and attributing motives to Trump to make his call for suspension and review seem like some wild eyed racist call.
Oddly little if any effort is spent on deconstructing the motives of a President whose immigration policies have failed, who deceptively reports on his policy, and has put Americans at risk.
It is pretty clever to focus on the words of a possible nominee rather than the failed actions of the President or his corrupt loser former Secretary of State.
Carrick,
“Realizing that English is not your first language, another term for dangerous speech is “inflammatory speechâ€.”
.
Well, my first language is English, and I am quite aware of what inflammatory speech is. Shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater when there is no fire is is not the same as shouting “fire!” when there is in fact a fire. What constitutes inflammatory speech depends on if that speech is factually accurate or not. In this case, there is a clear, and I think sincerely held, difference of opinion about what is factually accurate. Perhaps you could at least consider that there are a lot of people (a substantial majority of people in the US, for example) who, based on their personal knowledge, experience, and analysis, perceive the situation as being factually different than you do.
FWIW, Arab Christians in American and elsewhere are flabbergasted and outraged at how the Christians in Syria and Iraq are being ignored by the West. They are systematically suppressed, displaced and killed. Viciously slaughtered by ISIS. And largely ignored in favor of wall-to-wall attention on any inconvenience Muslims might suffer at the same time. The refugee camps are dangerous for Christian Arabs, since Muslim gangs do not want them in the same space.
hunter,
They’re not only ignored, Obama has specifically said that prioritizing Christians is un-American:
However, it appears that prioritizing Muslims is what’s actually going on. Christians are a much lower percentage of Syrian refugees admitted to the US than in the general population of Syria. So far in the fiscal year of 2016, only 5 Syrian Christians have been admitted to the US, or 1.6% of the total. Christians were 10% of the Syrian population. In addition, 27 Iraqi Christian refugees have recently been denied asylum.
I guess the concept of disparate impact only applies to certain groups.
DeWitt,
Immigration policy is at the end of the day “policy”.
It is not a right. It is not an unchangeable holy grail.
Immigration serves the policy purposes of those who write and implement it.
Many people are starting to think that an American immigration policy should serve American interests, not those of illegal immigrants, and not those of people who despise America.
The reactionary defenders of the status quo are using the typical tired arguments of reactionaries everywhere, as we see well represented here.
Niels:
I never said you needed a sponsor to enter the US. I said if you didn’t want to pay for your transportation costs you needed to. Sponsors will sometimes pay for the transportation (and other) costs for the immigrant. That’s what it means to be a “sponsor” in this case.
SteveF:
Well there’s technically a difference between inflammatory speech and dangerous speech. Yelling fire is dangerous speech. Inciting others to attack minorities is too.
Saying that there are no moderate Muslims, for example, would count as non-dangerous speech only if it were actually true there were factually no moderate Muslims.
That doesn’t make them right.
Andrew_KY:
I’ll just repeat the comment I made above.
Sorry dude, but it’s not a smear to honestly describe my perceptions about how other people are behaving. I would think that most people would recognize speech like “there is no such thing as a moderate _____” as bigotry.
I think the “if you don’t like how the shoe fits, stop wearing it” advice still applies here.
DeWitt:
Then he needs to butt out of the immigration process.
There are perfectly valid reasons for prioritizing non-Muslims (including Christians) for immigration because these minorities are being persecuted and in the case of the Yazhidis at least, extermination if they are forced to return to their former homelands.
I just watched the Frontline ‘The Rise of Isis’ again.
.
I recalled the US getting involved when the Yazidis were under siege, but the Frontline pointed out that it was at the same time that the oil interests in Kurdistan were being threatened so there’s genocide, and then there’s oil interests.
.
It reminded me again how Daesh arose as part of Sunni-Shia civil war more than fundamentalist revival.
.
BTW, I see that the group anonymous declared today ‘troll Daesh’ day. So if you want to do something about Daesh, you can join the public support activities of anonymous.
Re: Carrick (Comment #141495)
It isn’t clear that Syrian Christians are being systematically ignored. I did a bit of digging around and found this: Why Are There Only 53 Christians Among America’s 2,184 Syrian Refugees?
My initial instinct is to take the explanation given at face value, based on the assumption a Christian organization which is involved in resettling refugees in the U.S. is not biased against resettling Christians.
That being said, if there are refugees who can be shown to be at particularly high risk, then it seems reasonable to expedite their processing.
Of course, there’s also a distinction to be made between following that reasoning and expediting Christian relocation simply because “We like Christians more than we like Muslims.”
Carrick, I asked you more than once (actually three times) why you think it obvious that Syrian Refugees to the US have a different demography than European refugees based on the needed costs of immigration – which are exactly zero according to your link. Transportation costs are paid for and you get a 1000$ stipend upon arrival. If and when you get a job, you have to pay for the plane ticket.
.
Other than repeating that it is obvious, you have not answered my simple question. What is wrong with you? I’m serious.
.
.
I . didn’t. say. that.
What I said was:
.
And I believe it is factually true.
.
SteveF, you are absolutely right. In Denmark if you are accused of “hate speech” it doesn’t matter if what you said is true or not. In such court cases facts are not admissible as evidence. You are not allowed to yell fire even if there is one, so to say. That is not going to end well.
Regarding the threat of muslim terror in Britain, MI5 chief Andrew Parker recently gave a chilling interview. The intelligence service has averted 6 terror attacks in Britain this year only. Note the number of jihadis he gives:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3294234/Terror-threat-highest-ve-seen-says-MI5-chief-Britain-faces-unprecedented-risk-ISIS-Al-Qaeda-fanatics-warns-Andrew-Parker-rare-public-speech.html
.
You can listen to him here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p032qcgm
.
Of course this is “just some guys highly biased opinion”.
Carrick,
Your most recent comment (addressing me) contains “racism”, “xenophobia” and “bigotry” (twice).
I think you’re just another political internet drone who likes throw smears around.
Andrew
The Wall Street Journal offers up: How to Beat Islamic State. Good perspectives from a deradicalized former Islamist.
Niels:
What is wrong is you are serially misrepresenting my argument:
I never said that the demographics of refugees entering the United States versus Europe was never simply due to costs. Rather it was an argument about geographical barriers and it applied to all Syrian refugees considering entering the United States (legally or otherwise), not just the extremely small number selected for immigration by the US government.
The fact that these small numbers are arrived at through a selection process rather than through e.g. random lottery is what immediately informs me of the implausibility of your argument that the demographics for the two groups are the same.
Anyway, for reference here’s the link I gave you to the US News & World Reports has a lot of details besides the issue of travel. There’s a facts check article that has some further numbers. This article focussed on the fallacy of the Trojan Horse argument with respect to Syrian refugees entering the United States, but has additional numbers. Finally Here’s the link to the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) which provides more detailed and up to date numbers for refugees fleeing to Europe and for Syrians in refugee camps.
According to UNHCR, 4,400,000 Syrian refugees located predominantly in refugee camps in Turkey, Lebanon and Egypt. Of that latter group there is about 50% children and a 50% male/female ratio. The distribution of ages for males/females in these refugee camps is nearly the same.
To get to Europe, apparently, you need only the cost of a boat ride. According to the UNHCR, there have been about 945,000 refugees entering Europe (about 720,000 through Greece), with about 3200 dying in boats along the trip.
The UNHCR gives the population of the “boat refugees†entering Europe to be about 60% male, 24% are children and only 16% are women. The explanation for why there are so many men entering Europe is an interesting one: It appears they are attempting to escape conscription into the Syrian Army.
If you are selected for refugee status in the United States, it is true you receive a loan for your plane ticket. But that amounts to only about 1300 Syrian refugees in the US for the last fiscal year. According to US State Department numbers, this results in about 50% of the immigrants being children with about 50% male/female ratio and about 2% young males.
So the population distributions are similar between the US immigrants and Syrian refugee camps, but, as we see, vastly different between US and European immigrants, which is the claim I made.
And it’s not exactly rocket science to realize that they would be without fully delving into the numbers.
We would need access to other data to look at educational levels, which I haven’t found so far. I haven’t found much that discusses this. I would be surprised though if US numbers reflected the general Syrian refugee population.
Oliver:
I saw those figures too. It’s my understanding that these numbers only correspond to those entering the US with refugee status.
From the US News & World Reports article
Niels regarding this comment of yours ” What I said was […]And I believe it is factually true”, relating to the apparent impossibility for Muslims to be moderate, I did address this above directly to you.
I’ve seen nothing that approaches a valid rebuttal on this.
The closest I can come to agreeing with you is “true” Medina Muslims can not be moderate. But I wouldn’t even make that blanket statement without talking to Medina Muslims about their faith.
Niels:
I seem to recall all of those assurances by the intelligence service heads that Iraq had WMD.
If what Parker is saying publicly is now so much more reliable, I wonder what’s changed.
I’m going to echo Turbulent Edie on the WSJ article.
I think it frames these issues very well:
May I add that you could just as well argue that there is no such thing as a moderate Republican (or moderate Democrat) by appealing to the party’s lunatic fringe’s automatic disqualification of moderates. But we use words because we find them useful to describe things that actually exist, and not to please the lunatic fringes.
For example, here is Charles Krauthammer writing on this, just the other day:
One of the large problems for Western societies in dealing with and potentially assimilating Muslim people is the practical intrusive effect of Islam on economic matters. For instance, Riba, as generally interpreted, forbids the charging of interest on loans. You cannot have a modern, competitive economy without the presence of lending where interest is charged. The difficulty of doing this (along with other intrusive Islamic concepts dealing with commercial matters) in Muslim societies adds to the economic deprivation of many Muslims. That in turn fuels the resentment that many Muslims feel towards the West and adds to the danger that some Muslims pose to Western societies.
JD
Julio, In addition to the correct point that you bring up about Trump, the other mistake he makes is to demonize entrants indiscriminately. Instead of saying that the US gets too many criminals from Mexico, Trump should have said that the vast majority of Mexicans are good, hardworking people. He should have continued that the US can’t, and has no obligation to, take all of the people who want to come here. Therefore, although we greatly respect Mexicans, we can’t allow them to break our laws and if they come here illegally, they are responsible for their own actions.
…
Although Trump is very wrong, the left is equally wrong, to the extent, that in practice, it accedes to the policy that virtually anyone who can sneak in, can stay here and get most of the benefits of American citizenship.
…
JD
If nothing else, the left is probably responsible for much of the anger that fuels the Trump fan base. It’s ugly and it’s dumb, but it is also, in large part, a revolt against the tyranny of political correctness, that the left has been enforcing for decades now…
Re: JD Ohio
You can’t be serious about this. There are many countries with vast populations of Muslims coexisting with those practicing other religions where the presence of Muslims has nothing to do with the ability to charge interest on loans.
Many times, the act of labeling something as politically correct by the right is a way of transferring blame so as to minimize the grievances of the offended party.
JD Ohio,
There are ways around Riba. Basically, you just don’t call it interest. See the Types of Islamic lending section in this Wikipedia article.
For example:
RB “You can’t be serious about this. There are many countries with vast populations of Muslims coexisting with those practicing other religions where the presence of Muslims has nothing to do with the ability to charge interest on loans.”
My point was that Muslim countries, Iran, Pakistan, et cet. are handicapped by the concept of Riba. Not saying that Muslims where they are small minorities are influencing this practice. My comment was a suggestion for a partial explanation of why Muslim countries do not to appear to have advanced economies that produce cutting edge products and don’t appear to be making much progess in that regard, as opposed to, say, China.
JD
Dewitt: “JD Ohio,
There are ways around Riba.” I know that and in fact made what I would consider to be a loan to a Muslim about 2 years ago where this issue was avoided. However, Riba and other concepts, which are a part of much of Muslim society, to me, appear to be a reasonable explanation for the comparatively unsophisticated nature of most Muslim economies. The culture and the nature of the Quran seem to tend to make it more difficult to engage in sophisticated transactions and enterprises.
JD
RB,
Any time I see a phrase that starts out with ‘many times’ or ‘many people think’, I’m, to put it mildly, not impressed. Try citing some actual examples rather than just making an unsupported assertion.
So you think that the recent experiences at Yale and the University of Missouri are acceptable behavior and that real free speech on university campuses isn’t being threatened (not rhetorical)?
DeWitt,
Any number of Trump comments are labeled by the right as a way of saying it like it is, as opposed to the politically correct way of saying things. I’m sure you are aware of his many offensive statements recently. He is free to say what he wants, but he cannot use “politically correct” as a weapon to stifle blow-back from people who are on the receiving end.
Sorry, no idea what happened at Yale and Missouri (not well-informed), but it is not relevant since I said “Many times” but I did not say “Always.”
Here’s an essay by Ayaan Hirsi Ali from Foreign Affairs.
IMO, any Muslim who is unwilling to publicly acknowledge and repudiate the theological warrants for intolerance and violence embedded in their own religious texts, is NOT a moderate, regardless of their actions. Hence my original comment, which was a bit hyperbolic. Obviously there are indeed moderate Muslims, although Ayaan Hirsi Ali isn’t one because she is no longer a believer. The question is still whether there enough of them to be useful. I did expect, however, to see at least some reasoned argument rather than the shock and outrage that I didn’t accept the PC dogma.
JD Ohio,
I thought you were referring to the difficulty of assimilating Muslims because of its intrusive effect on economic matters. At the very least though, there are several mutual funds in the West compliant with Islamic investing (I recall Amana – AMAGX – for instance).
RB,
I don’t consider Trump to be a man of the right. He’s an opportunistic demagogue. That many people think he is a suitable Republican presidential candidate is probably more disturbing to me than it is to you.
Re: RB (Comment #141511)
…and other times, you have things like the Tim Hunt case:
https://reason.com/archives/2015/07/23/sexist-scientist-tim-hunt-the-real-story
Re:DeWitt Payne (Comment #141517)
I think you’re stretching the meaning of the word “moderate” to where it is no longer useful. To me, what matters is whether there are people you can work with, and reason with. I think there are plenty of those…
julio,
I think you are overly optimistic about how many there are that you or I can work with or reason with about their religious beliefs, since we’re not Muslims. It certainly doesn’t help, though, that Obama, for one, appears to be in denial about the nature of the problem. In pop-psych terms, he’s an enabler.
.
I think a lot of that comes from his understanding of his errors which enabled Daesh to begin with.
.
Of course, candidate Obama promised to exit Iraq.
.
So do we blame Obama for keeping his promise?
.
Or, do we blame ourselves ( Americans ) for electing him?
.
And of course, candidate Obama said Afghanistan was the right war, but one of the latest Frontlines is on Isis in Afghanistan which sadly displayed ‘schools’ with teaching 4 year olds how to hold a gun and how to kill infidels.
DeWitt,
Maybe. I tend towards optimism. But I do have Muslim acquaintances, I spent a month in Pakistan, years ago, working with graduate students there–and I have also worked over here with graduate students from Jordan, Iraq, and even Iran. I know a Muslim woman who not only has a Ph.D. in physics, but is actually the Chair of the Physics department at her university in Jordan. That all sounds pretty hopeful to me.
julio,
IMO, the vast majority of law abiding Muslims aren’t so much moderates as tacit enablers for the jihadists.
julio,
Have you heard of the psychological term ‘compartmentalization’? Humans are really good at internally denying that they hold conflicting beliefs.
Re: DeWitt Payne (Comment #141525)
Well, anybody can be considered a tacit enabler for anything! I shudder to think of all the things I’m tacitly enabling right now, myself… 🙂
But really, I think most Muslims do not even think about jihadists, or do so mainly in negative terms. To begin with, many of these “jihadists” are fighting other Muslims! I really don’t think Daesh, or whatever, can have many friends in Lebanon, or Jordan, or Iraq, or Iran–countries where either they have caused great disruption, or are actively fighting against.
But we keep going over and over the same ground and not getting anywhere, so we probably should stop this and talk about something else (the Paris agreement, maybe?)
Re: julio (Comment #141520)
Coming back to the specifics of the Trump base, a big part of Trump’s support seem to come from those in the working class who have been left behind in the ‘knowledge economy’ of the last couple of decades and who are seeing illegal immigrants compete for their jobs.
Now, regarding the Tim Hunt story, a story I did not participate in offering my opinion on the last time I think this blog also discussed it:
At the time this broke out, as I recall the story was along the lines of ‘women are not good for the lab because they cry’. And that when he had a chance to correct himself, he stood by his earlier comments – or doubled down, so to speak. I remember there was a discussion out here as well and as I recall – our host, who I’m sure wouldn’t associate herself with the left, was offended as well. A hypothetical politically incorrect ‘saying it like it is’ way would have been to say that women indeed don’t belong in the lab because they cry and reiterate it when asked to explain – which would have been a sexist thing to say worthy of stripping honorary posts for. From the article you link to, it appears that the events were reported falsely. So, this appears to fall into the ‘falsely being accused of misogyny’ category.
[About the Tim Hunt case]
Yes–by the “PC police.” And condemned by the “PC establishment,” who, even after the original story unraveled, chose to ignore the facts and stick to its guns. (After all, he should have known better than to try to crack a stupid joke in this day and age, right?)
More on that here:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/oct/10/tim-hunt-sexism-storm-reignited-scientist-quits-writers-group
julio,
It looks like the journalist group stuck up for one of their own – are they the PC establishment you refer to? A Trump-like statement in this context would be to exercise the right to voice one’s prejudices and absolve oneself of blame and transfer it to others for getting offended i.e., just another form of bullying. It seems like this is the form of leftist tyranny you think his base is protesting.
RB says “You can’t be serious about this. There are many countries with vast populations of Muslims coexisting with those practicing other religions….”
You need to start list these countries. So far as I have been able to determine, vast populations of Muslims, in a country, are not coexisting so well.
As to Muslims in large numbers living peaceably: Name the country.
It is Islam that has a specific second class citizen name for non-believers, and a specific name and tax: “Dhimi”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi
You guys are amazing. You even quote my statement and say something else.
Arctic Sea Ice nearly filling the whole basin except Russia, Norway way. A good result which brings good results, traffic on Arctic sea ice blog is way down.
Is Cruz the republican sleeper, with his senate inquiry to topple Trump?
“Senator Rafael Edward Cruz, the son of a former political prisoner of Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista”
Would either make the other vice president,
It would be good having Trump as an apprentice.
RB,
I’m curious. Did you bother to read either the article in today’s WSJ linked above or the essay by Ayaan Hirsi Ali that I also linked? The WSJ article was written by a former Islamist radical and AHA is an apostate Muslim.
The WSJ author was, by the way, radicalized not by Western intervention, but by the failure of the West to intervene in the Bosnian massacre. Non-intervention can have its price too.
Some things are too incredible. DeWitt Payne says:
He had said he questioned whether there was any such thing as a moderate Muslim, implying all Muslims are somehow extremist supporters of god knows what. I’m not even going to try to parse the exact implications because anyone with basic decency or simple reasoning skills would recognize it as a bigoted remark.
But not DeWitt Payne. He thinks people pointing out the bigotry of his remark are in the wrong. He says he expected “some reasoned argument” in response to his bigoted remark, which he now claims was meant to be hyperbolic, a claim he didn’t make until long after the bigotry was pointed out.
Yeah, no. That’s not how it works. It’s not accepting “PC dogma” to recognize the vast majority of Muslims are people who don’t like terrorism, don’t want people killed and just generally want to live lives free of these sorts of conflict like anyone else would. It’s not embracing “PC dogma” to recognize Donald Trump as a race-baiting fear monger whose inflammatory rhetoric and separatist ideology does more to promote hatred and terrorism than anything any Muslim entering this country could ever do.
I’m going to stop commenting here before I become too completely blunt, but before I do, I want to make one thing clear. Promoting this culture of hatred and fear encourages terrorism. It is the single greatest weapon terrorists could ever hope to have, and they can only have it if people choose to give in to bigotry and paranoia. People claiming to take a stand against things like “PC dogma” to try to protect the country against blah, blah, blah aren’t doing anything of the sort. They’re just being close-minded xenophobes who will help create the very problem they rail against so that they can justify their self-centered world views.
Another Original Comment From Brandon:
“bigoted”, “bigotry”, “bigoted”, “bigotry”, “race-baiting fear monger”, “hatred”, “hatred”, “bigoty”, “paranoia”, “xenophobes”…
Get some help. Seriously.
Andrew
I’ve read this entire thread today and am surprised by many of the opinions here. A bit of common sense seems in order.
One problem Americans and modern westerners have is the fact that we have all been taught to accept all religion as though all religion is equal. The comments by several comparing Christian evils to those of Islam are so fantastically deluded I can’t even begin. Yes there are bad people of all relgions, but the reality of Islam as it is practiced can be seen across the cultures of the middle east. The repression of women legally and physically is rather hard to miss, as is what happens to those who wish to leave Islam. Then there is the blatantly obvious cries of god is great while committing mass murder as is voiceferously advocated by their religious leaders. Which modern Christian religious leaders are calling for mass murder in exchange for going to heaven?
Almost to damned ignorant to discuss.
These are distinctly anti-western values. These values are things I want no part of in my country. Despite the demands of the intolerant left, I see no reason why I should accept these ignorant views as equal to my own. Like religion, or ridiculous political opinion, or Sharia law, all views are not created equal. There are many here who have already called this intolerance, I call it common sense.
There are plenty of muslims who act moderate and therefore see islam as good, but there are plenty of liberals who think what Obama has done to America is good too. I watched a video of a few guys with Jesus loves shirts be attacked physically and verbally by a crowd of hundreds of muslims in Dearborn Michigan. I was born in that area and much of my family grew up there. The influx of Muslims to that region has now almost fully displaced Christians and despite there being plenty of opportunities for the ‘peaceful’ muslims to speak out against intolerance, there was nothing but middle east style culture in evidence. Like the European no-go zones, the police refused to intervene.
No common sense moderate Muslims in sight. None of the outrage at how these Christians were being treated that you would expect from modern moderate muslims. I’m sure there was some outrage actually, but the religion as practiced doesn’t allow dissent and those who would speak out in that crowd would likely be punished.
Note that these United States muslims aren’t the ones being bombed. They aren’t the ones being persecuted. The only thing they have in common with the middle east muslims is their religion – and apparently their intolerance of any other religion.
We certainly don’t need more of that in the US or anywhere else in the world. I’m no fan of Trump either because it doesn’t make sense to me to trade one narcissist for another, but I certainly wouldn’t mind stopping all muslim immigration for a period of time. I’ve seen enough of it and want no part of their archaic lifestyle, belief system, repression of women, nor do we need to add another layer of nonsenical Sharia law. It certainly wouldn’t harm the US to say no to Syrian immigrants either. The very slight additional risk of bringing any of these people over is not worth it in my opinion, but compared to the rest of the nightmare this nonsenical world is, the issue barely makes the radar.
I don’t have any real answers to any of this but when faced with a group which behaves in a manner incompatible with freedom, we must see it with clear eyes. We cannot pretend that evils by individual Christians are equal to Imams demanding self-sacrifice against innocent people so their followers can go to heaven. It’s simply not a reasonable opinion to hold.
I’ll discuss what I believe happened, and also engage the accusations of bigottry.
As I recall, Hunt cracked a sexist joke while in acting in his capacity as a representative of a university. (He was not an employee, but had an honorary post making his position one that exists mostly to bring good publick relations to the University.) The joke was reported. He agreed that he’d said it and in an follow-on interview said things that made it sound like he meant the part about women crying. The joke was, in fact, sexist. Really, none of the attempts to whitewash it as being somehow ironic change that. Even “irony†can be sexist.
After the sexist joke was reported, a largely hilarious hubub ensued on social media.
At some point during the hubbub a representative of the university made a phone call and spoke to Hunts wife. (Whose phone the university actually dialed was not reported at the time. We merely know they dialed some number— possibly his home phone— and his wife spoke to them. This information was reported by the wife. Either she didn’t provide the detail of what number they called or the reporter didn’t think it important.) We don’t know what the university representative said to her— she didn’t report that. The wife evidently relayed whatever the university representative said to her to her husband and he resigned from his unpaid honorary PR position, the University accepted.
For what it’s worth: at the time, we had no idea whether the university asked him to resign or not.(I don’t recall whether we even know WHO the university representative was). Perhaps this was reported later— but I have no idea But if they as him to resign, that would not really change my judgement of them. They would have been justified to ask him to either (a) resign or (b) be careful to never make jokes that *sounded* denigrating to women while representing them— not even if these were light hearted nor even if he actually thinks the opposite of what his message seems to convey.
Meanwhile, a number of people were having fun making jokes about women
crying[being distractingly sexy] in labs. That was extremely funny— even if some people are unhappy that such light-hearted fun was made of Hunts joke, which was certainly in poor taste. None of those were accusations of bigotry. (It’s not clear whether these hilarious lighthearted jokes made mostly by women acting in their own private capacity and mostly poking fun at their own appearance are what the guardian characterizes as “intense, vitriolic online abuse in June over reports†in the article Julio linked. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/oct/10/tim-hunt-sexism-storm-reignited-scientist-quits-writers-group. But those tweets and the initial report itself seemed to be the bulk of social media content. Of course a few people also wrote a few blog posts expressing their opinions. )FWIW: On bigottry: I never said he was a bigot. I also didn’t say I was offended. Though, I think people should be cautious about denigrating jokes against anyone. Saying “I didn’t really mean it, it was just a joke.†afterwards doesn’t really fix the problem. Those who think it does are mistaken.
What I did say the University had a perfect right to want to discuss the issue with him; they were justified in placing a call.
They had every right to accept his resignation when he tendered it before the two side even had a chance to talk.
Moreover, it’s clear that Hunt is bad at PR and gives impressions that run counter to the image the University he represented wished to present . As his (entirely unpaid) position was pretty much PR at that point, it seems entirely right that he not continue to represent them. Breaking that association doesn’t render him unable to hold or enter other positions— perhaps with people who think he represents them well.
As for who exactly accused Hunt of being a bigot— I’m don’t recall who might have done that. Presumably someone did— the internet is large. It would be rather amazing if no one can any accusations It might be nice if those defending him from the charge linked to who actually made it. (I should also note articles defending Hunt often appear to be rather lax in their journalistic standards. For example, The guardian article Julion linked writes “Hunt was later sacked from key posts, including an honorary position at University College London.†I believe this is inaccurate as Hunt was not sacked. He resigned. This is a rather ironic mischaracterization in a Gaurdian article complaining that another reporter might have been inaccurate in her reports. But then the Guardian article seems to include rather a number of mischaracterizations. Hunt “Shamedâ€? Was he? He seems to be standing up rather well. He’s got plenty of friends and colleagues left. He merely no longer holds PR positions for groups who prefer their public relations people don’t tell lame sexist jokes while representing them. Is this a “shamingâ€? I don’t think so. )
Returning to accusations of bigotry against Hunt: I have read many people *defending* him as not a bigot. My guess is quite likely he is not a bigot— but then again, my impression is the brouhaha did not involve many suggesting it was. So it seems to be those defending him as ’not a bigot’ are either unaware of the actual details of what happened or are intentionally introducing a red herring. The defense isn’t necessary because whether he was or was not a bigot was not the issue.
Whether he is or is not a bigot is largely irrelevant to the entire brouhaha— and my impression is those criticizing him made its irrelevance rather clear. What is relevent is this: a University who wants to send a message of inclusion isn’t going to want people whose sole function is “public relations†to be giving the opposite impression during talks. In that light it’s fair for them to not want him to acting as their representative while making such jokes. Of course he has every right to make them in some *other* capacity. And people who want to invite him to give talks and so on have every right to do so; presumably some still are. But the University had every right to not want him to be doing that *as a representative of the university*. And he was right to resign his position so as to retain his right to make the sort of speeches and appearances that he prefers without involving their repuations by his actions.
Saying the university had every right to accept Hunts resignation when he tendered it is not accusing Tim Hunt of being a bigot. It also in no way suggests I think he shouldn’t be free continue to make any jokes he wishes anywhere he is invited.
It is simply the case that neither he nor UCL are forced to have their reputations shackled to each other. If he wished to resign — as it seemed he did— and they wished to accept the resignation, that seems fine with me. He is not their thrall; they are not his. Each can break the entirely voluntary association; Hung chose to do so. They didn’t try to bind him when he no longer wished to continue the association.
Meanwhile, if Hunt does wish to continue telling lame sexist jokes in public, those who wish to express their opinion about any future lame jokes will continue to have a right to express their opinion. That — as happened in the past— the jokes in reaction might be funnier and better appreciated than Hunt’s original lame joke might hurt Hunt’s feelings. But it’s not “a shaming”. And if Hunt can’t take jokes that happened to refer to his lame joke… Perhaps he ought to consider telling different funnier jokes.
Also: presumably those who insist women ought to suck it up when people make lame ironic jokes that at least sound like accusations that women are inferior ought to accept that men should have equally thick skins and also suck it up. After all: presumably if woman need to learn to take a joke, then men ought to as well.
RB – “You guys are amazing. You even quote my statement and say something else.”
Not sure who you are referring to directly, but I quoted a claim made by you and asked for the list to back up your claim.
Kan, you selectively quoted my statement which was made in response to JD Ohio to insert your own ideas which you now want me to respond to. It is not relevant to what I said, so I won’t be drawn into it.
“you selectively quoted my statement”
RB, please explain to us how you unselectively quote a statement.
Andrew
@ Jeff Id (Comment #141538)
+10
And for the fortitude to read this entire thread
+10
Hi Lucia,
It looks like I stepped into a wasp’s nest! 🙂 Never mind, then. Everybody, please ignore all my comments stemming from #141510 inclusive. I really have no strong desire to defend Dr. Hunt, much less Trump’s supporters.
(Actually, the former is slightly tempting, but not worth the time, or an argument with you!)
I think Trump could have saved himself a lot of trouble if he’d just said the US ought to deny immigration to anyone who is against gay rights, against equal rights for women, and against a woman’s right to choose.
That would have essentially targeted the same group and maybe even won him Time’s Man of the Year award. Heck, there may have even been some Democrats starting a Draft Trump movement.
Re: John M (Comment #141545)
/O
(Rimshot emoticon, for those who didn’t know.)
I’ve had a relationship that started in the lab. It got ugly later and was kind of embarrassing. I’ve seen women cry in the lab also. I’m not defending Hunt’s jokes, but those things do happen. Nevertheless, I don’t recommend separation of the sexes. It would be a lot less fun 🙂
And in other Paris news, COP21 has approved a deal with no legally binding reductions in emissions for anyone and no legally binding transfer of money to the less developed world. The delegates cheered.
jim2:
I’ve seen other men cry in a lab too. Yes, heterosexual ones.
I’m not sure what it proves.
I agree with Lucia that the statement was clearly sexist.
I think trying to say we shouldn’t ever use “bigot”, “racist” or “sexist” is every bit as much a form of political correctness as saying we shouldn’t ever use words that are themselves expressions of bigotry, racism, or sexism.
DeWitt:
Well, I cheered. Not because I was glad they didn’t come to an accord in itself, but because it should now be clear even to the starry-eyed ones that we can’t solve the AGW issue via direct government intervention in the market place.
With that out of the way, perhaps we can focus on solutions now that could actually work.
From the article:
…
Our founders, as I’ve reminded readers repeatedly over the years, asserted their concerns publicly and routinely about the effects of indiscriminate mass immigration. They made it clear that the purpose of allowing foreigners into our fledgling nation was not to recruit millions of new voters or to secure permanent ruling majorities for their political parties. It was to preserve, protect and enhance the republic they put their lives on the line to establish.
In a 1790 House debate on naturalization, James Madison opined: “It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours. But why is this desirable?â€
No, not because “diversity†is our greatest value. No, not because Big Business needed cheap labor. And no, Madison asserted, “Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of.â€
Madison argued plainly that America should welcome the immigrant who could assimilate, but exclude the immigrant who could not readily “incorporate himself into our society.â€
George Washington, in a letter to John Adams, similarly emphasized that immigrants should be absorbed into American life so that “by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, laws: in a word soon become one people.â€
Alexander Hamilton, relevant as ever today, wrote in 1802: “The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family.â€
Hamilton further warned that “The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another.â€
…
http://michellemalkin.com/2015/12/11/immigration-and-our-founding-fathers-values/
Carrick (Comment #141549)
December 13th, 2015 at 11:29 am
jim2:
. I’ve seen women cry in the lab also.
I’ve seen other men cry in a lab too. Yes, heterosexual ones.
I’m not sure what it proves.
*****
Carrick, anyone over 5 years old knows that women cry more than men. If you think that’s sexist or bigoted, more PC power to you. I can tolerate only so much fantasy in the name of PC.
Here’s a bit of good news, from the article:
…
Riyadh (AFP) – At least nine women won municipal council seats in Saudi Arabia’s first ever election open to female voters and candidates, officials said Sunday, in a milestone for the ultra-conservative Muslim kingdom.
Related Stories
Saudi holds first ever election open to women AFP
Saudi women vote for the first time, testing boundaries Associated Press
3 activists barred as Saudi women launch first vote bid AFP
Saudi Women Vote In Election For First Time Huffington Post
[$$] Saudi Women to Vote and Run for First Time in Nationwide Municipal Election The Wall Street Journal
“Even if it was only one woman, we’re really proud of that. Honestly, we weren’t expecting anyone to win,” said Sahar Hassan Nasief, a women’s rights activist in the Red Sea city of Jeddah.
…
http://news.yahoo.com/woman-wins-seat-mecca-municipal-council-saudi-polls-054406124.html;_ylt=AwrXgCMdg21WGCYAJhDQtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTByM3V1YTVuBGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMzBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg–
jim2:
Way to keep this conversation at an adult level.
If what Hunt had said “women cry more than men”, it wouldn’t have been a sexist remark.
What Hunt said was
Certainly “when you criticize [women] they cry” is a sexist remark.
The fact you’ve seen women cry in a lab tells us nothing unless what you are saying is “every time you’ve tried to criticize them, they’ve burst out in tears”.
Did any country stay home from COP21?
julio,
No problem. It’s just that I think some of those ‘defending’ Hunt are “defending” him against charges that were never made. In that regard, it is not fair to paint his critics as having leveled charges they did not make. So I think it is quite unfair to suggest his critics were all accusing him of being a bigot when generally speaking they did no such thing. I certainly never accused him of such.
lucia:
And I think some (not just jim2) are defending Hunt for saying things Hunt didn’t actually say.
I think the eyebrows were raised over the “when you criticise them they cry” remark. While I’m male, I can easily see how women would be offended by that remark.
It’s simply a disparaging thing to tell somebody.
jferguson:
I was going to wise crack “North Korea” and point to this image as proof they’re doing their part already, but even they attended.
With 190 countries, including the lunatics, I guess “not many” stayed home.
If you didn’t notice Jeff Id’s ray of common sense in this thread please read it.
.
DeWitt, in my opinion the most interesting part of Hirsis Alis essay that you linked to here is the part where she urges the West to start supporting the dissidents of Islam like we supported the dissidents of comunism:
.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali was Theo van Gogh’s friend, the film director who worked with Hirsi Ali to produce the film “Submission” (the meaning of Islam) about the mistreatment of women in the Islam. Theo van Gogh was shot by a muslim of moroccan origin on the street before the perpetrator slid van Goghs throat and tried to decapitate him.
He attached a note to the body with a knife containing a death threat to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who has lived in hiding since.
Carrick (Comment #141557)
December 13th, 2015 at 12:52 pm
…
And I think some (not just jim2) are defending Hunt for saying things Hunt didn’t actually say.
*****************
I was relating my own experience in the lab. I didn’t “defend” Hunt.
Neils,
Unfortunately, they are unrepresentative. It’s also exactly why they shouldn’t be dismissed. Their bravery should be honored. And, BS to the contrary, pointing this out is not prejudice or bigotry.
It is a bit perplexing that a lot of the rhetoric from the left is about the dangers of a backlash against Muslims instead of a self evident “frontlash” from Muslims against Christians. The media seeks evidence of this backlash out like a treasure hunt while ignoring and downplaying the opposite. It certainly isn’t hard to find people who would prefer an Islam structured society in America. That side of the story needs told as well.
I have tried to figure it out, maybe it is assumed we all agree on the frontlash and there is no reason to state it outright, or possibly there is some in group – out group psychology going on where the left sees the right as the real enemy that matters. I haven’t really figured it out. The left should probably re-calibrate how they respond to these events because it seems very tone deaf to me. I suppose Obama’s speech was an attempt to do that. There may be valid discussions to have on gun control, but this isn’t one of them.
We have a set of laws in place and the threat of Sharia law being implemented with honor killings being forgiven and oppression of women being validated in the US is exactly zero in my opinion. To be clear, you also have the freedom to be an oppressed Muslim woman if that is your wish in America. I do understand that a repressive culture may oppress those who are unable to fight for themselves, so there is that. I felt oppressed by my parents when I was 15 and it had nothing to do with religion, ha ha.
jim2,
I have never seen a woman cry in a lab. Also, I have never seen a woman cry because her scientific work was criticized.
I do cry more than my husband– in sad movies. I suspect this is not uncommon. I even suspect women are more likely to cry at weddings and so on. But this has nothing to do with how I behave in a lab where I honestly doubt women cry with any frequency worth mentioning. Trying to justify what Hunt actually said by suggesting that women cry more than men in general circumstances that might be observed by a 5 year old is a failed attempt at justification. It simply has nothing to do with what Hunt claimed.
DeWitt
It was difficult not to laugh reading news reports. Evidently negotiations were held up to change the language from “shall” to “should” on the theory that this means Obama can “agree” without sending it to the Senate. Maybe so– because he’s agreed to … what? …. Evidently he’s agreed that someone or another will hold an opinion about what one “should” do without any agreement that anyone will do it. Moreover, no-one in the United States is required to agree with that opinion and would be required to do so even if the agreement was sent to Congress.
So, in otherwords, to avoid “having” to sent it to Congress, the agreement is to do…. nothing. (And bear in mind: without sending it to Congress we would never have been legally bound to do anything.
But evidently, this is some sort of great ‘victory’ for making progress toward saving the planet.
I’m guessing Obama and the Dems will try to pick some sort of fight in Congress over some aspect of COP21, maybe funding for “developing countries” to fight climate change.
When a stalemate threatens a gov’t shutdown, the compliant media will beat Repubs with a stick, the public will blame them for the shutdown, the Repubs cave, US fulfils COP21 commitments, developing nations build more castles and buy more limos and Lear jets, then run out of money. COPxx says more money “should” be given.
Rinse and repeat…
Tom Scharf,
This blog and other on-consensus forums exists in no small part due to the resolute firmness of media and government to avoid dealing fairly and honestly with more than a few issues.
John M
Perhaps. Possibly they will want to rally the minority of people who really care and who want to do something.
If the gov’t actually shut down for this, that would likely be a losing proposition for the Democrats. There simply aren’t enough people who both want and care about COP21 for threatening a government shut down to pass a measure in support of it to do them any good.
The compliant media might try. But I suspect there is little the Dems or the media can do to make the public at large support the notion that any measure to support COP21 is worth a government shut down.
That said: prediction is hard. Especially about the future.
As for crying, the closest I can relate to this is that my daughter is involved in coordinating medical research at a large academic medical center and deals with tough areas- terminally ill infants and adults with genetic disorders or cancers among other areas of focus. Additionally there are more than a few egos on frequent display. She has been involved with some very stressful research situations and seems to handle them well. Hunt’s banishment and exile seems more a reflection on the intolerant times we live rather than some objectively egregious behavior. It is as if a virus has cut through large swaths of our population that has suppressed tolerance and humor laving extreme sensitivity to perceived slights.
hunter,
That’s an interesting diagnosis except for one pesky thing: He wasn’t banished nor was he exiled.
The reality is: Some people criticized him on twitter. Some people “retweeted” the criticims. A few blog posts were written. Some women made some hilarious tweets with images showing how “distractingly sexy” they were when working in the science lab. Someone from UCL phoned him and then he resigned of his own free will.
Hunt is still appearing in public. He can still talk to whoever he likes. He interacts with people. He makes public presentations. He doesn’t actively work in science– but he didn’t before the incident either. He had retired. So his not doing science now doesn’t constitute a change and is not due to the incident.
It’s very difficult to see how one can characterize this as Hunt being “banished” or “exiled”.
Huh? People are allowed to criticize others– they always have been allowed to do so. People are allowed to tweet their own very much funnier jokes in response to Hunt’s lame one. Women scientists tweeting very popular jokes hardly indicates any desire to suppress tolerance or humor. Out of curiosity, who do you think was having extreme sensitivity to percieved slights? Presumably not a reporter who merely posted what he said. Presumably not the women scientist who poked fun at his idiotic comments (whether they were funny or not.) So… who? (Real question.)
As far as I can tell, the people who are trying to suppress tolerance or humor are those characterizing the hilarious tweets by the women and some sort of enormous injury to Hunt. The person who seems to be having extreme sensitivty to slights is, perhaps, Hunt, who seems to have resigned at the drop of a hat but has, afterwards, complained about his treatment. That treatment seems to have been nothing more than:
1) A few not very powerful people criticized him.
2) The women who were the butt of his joke made him the butt of theirs.
3) Someone phoned him to discuss the issue with him.
lucia,
The spin put on in the article I read in the NYT made me dizzy. The Chinese will put forward a plan that actually is business as usual, i.e. their carbon emissions will continue to increase until 2030 or so, and we will hear how that’s great progress.
I believe somewhere in all the hoopla, the target for temperature rise was set to 1.5C or less. Considering that’s what seems to be actually happening in the real world, China probably doesn’t need to do anything besides business as usual anyway.
I saw somewhere that Bernie Sander’s climate change program is the German Energiewende redux. He not only wants to reduce fossil fuel use, he wants to shut down the nuclear power industry too.
DeWitt,
Fortunately, he is not the DEM front runner. Sadly, Hilary is.
I would say similar things about Trump. This election cycle is truly disheartening.
lucia:
I haven’t either.
The thing is, what this “women crying in labs” really is suggesting—and I don’t blame women for being insulted over this—is that women don’t know how to act professionally.
I know this was addressed to hunter, but I’d say it’s people like hunter.
Carrick,
I don’t think hunter is claiming he was slighted. So… no.
But I am interested in knowing who he thinks merely “perceived” the slight, whether he thinks the “perception” was false, and why he thinks anything about this incident suggests people want to suppress humor.
Carrick,
BTW: I knew a man’s response to criticism to be:
Jump up from the chair, flair his arms around, shouting, go over to a locker and kick it. The man was 6’4″ and heavy. Kinda scary.
This was in a lab and the criticism was about his research.
(The grad students all showed each other the big dent which remained for sometime.)
It hadn’t and still hasn’t occurred to me to generalize about men, their violent proclivities and how it unsuits them to science because of their emotional reactions to criticism of their scientific work. Among other things, most men don’t react this way. Also: even he calmed down.
lucia,
That sounds something like my daughter did while learning to play golf. I think she did severe damage to her club or something. Hissy fits aren’t limited to one sex or age. Although in children we call them tantrums.
Hey Lucia
We love it when the boys try to play tough with you. It’s like an episode of the Hulk
Tried to comment from the cell phone.
First thing, don’t mess with Lucia, you wouldn’t like her when she’s angry 😀
I’ve got that particular man disability. In my company, I’m known for tossing a cell phone – in a non hazardous direction of course. No tears and no other specific drama, but I found myself explaining to the ATT technician that the pieces of their phone had “suboptimal performance” after that event.
By “non-hazardous”, nobody was present when it happened at work so I told everyone ‘on myself’ and it has become a big joke for our company. Like tears and girls, us boys physically losing our temper is something we apparently do more often than women.
DeWitt,
Golf? Yeah. One day one of graduate students at UI (a red head) reported another (dark haired) one three his golf club after a bad hit The club got caught in a tree. I don’t know if the golf club was ever retrieved (or at least not in a way that permitted it to be returned to its owner.)
And they say it’s red heads who have fiery tempers….
Jeff Id
I’m too weak to dent lockers.
I once damaged the housing and motor on my electric lawn mower when I “didn’t notice” the spigot for the underground water supply. I took the mower in for repair. The guy asked me what happened… so I told him. He laughed and said I was the first person who hadn’t basically lied about how damage happened and checked “warranty” for the motor and housing. He told me he wouldn’t have done it if I’d lied. I did have to buy a new blade.
I have to say, it never occurred to me that the fact of “operator error” aspect of damage wasn’t absolutely freakin’ obvious. I felt prettey stoooopid. So of course I wasn’t going to pretend otherwise. Perhaps it was my sheepish demeanor that made the repair guy so indulgent.
Still I guess some people thought “damaged by impact with a massive iron valve the owner of the lawn mower should have known was there” wasn’t obvious. You should have seen the interior housing, the blade etc. There is absolutely no way it could have been anything but “operator error”.
OK, I’m sorry, I know I said I would stay out of it, but I have to say: have you actually read the link I posted about Hunt yesterday? The whole thing?
https://reason.com/archives/2015/07/23/sexist-scientist-tim-hunt-the-real-story
The guy was hung to dry over a joke, a self-deprecating joke at that. He was addressing women scientists, and they did not feel insulted, on the contrary (the testimonials are there; read them, please).
Lucia, you ask “who do you think was having extreme sensitivity to percieved slights?” The answer is obvious: the moronic journalist without a sense of humor and with, presumably, a huge chip on her shoulder whose tweet started the whole mess. (She has a name, too, Connie St. Louis. Oh, and she is black. Make that a chip on both shoulders.)
Sorry, I’ll shut up now.
julio,
Yes, I read it all of it. As you may have noticed, I highlighted some of its inaccuracies- like the claim he was sacked. He was absolutely not sacked; that article claiming so doesn’t make it true. He resigned.
I know Hunt claims to have been hung out to dry. But I don’t really see anything that happened as constituting his being hung out to dry.
My questions for you:
1) What specific action or actions toward him do you constitute “hanging him out to dry”?
2) What part of “when you criticize them they cry.” “self deprecating”? He reitterated this later and said their tendency to cry made science more difficult.
I find it impossible to read this as self-deprecating because it doesn’t deprecate the category in which he falls (male scientist) nor himself personally.
She reported what he said. He confirmed it. I don’t see how reporting what he said in public at a meeting is extremely or overly sensitive.
The comments she reported included the notion that women and men should have separate labs because (a) men and women fall in love and (b) women cry. And later when interviewed by Debra Blum, he doubled down on the notion that women’s crying was detrimental to the progress of science. So, that doesn’t seem to be either “self deprecating” nor intended as irony.
As far as I can see, the one who started this mess was Tim Hunt who made the lame joke. I strongly suspect one of the other 4 reporters present would have reported this had she not done so. Any one of the reporters has a suffiently large following the story would have been read. The same might not be true for other people attending the meeting.
I don’t see why one would presume this.
I know who was the first to tweet. I can’t know if that’s who hunter is referring too as he didn’t name her. Maybe he meant her; maybe he meant someone else. I don’t know how her blackness is relevant to anything here.
(sigh…)
OK, then, if you read the whole thing, I really have nothing more to say. We are apparently looking at the same thing and seeing two completely different ones.
But since this is clearly upsetting me, I think I should stop reading the blog for a little while now. It’s time to grade final exams anyway…
Julio,
Yes. I really read the whole thing. I note the inaccuracies and I note the vast omissions. I recognize that someone who doesn’t know that quite a few things are inaccurate and facts are omitted from that article would form an opinion that Hunt was mistreated. But that article is hardly balanced– or even accurate. So yes, we can both read it and come to different opinions. Because I know some of the claims are simply false.
These are, by the way, the Hunts later remarks about asked about his previous “women crying” remark:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/06/10/the-non-apology-of-the-year-award-goes-to-nobel-scientist-who-thinks-women-just-cry-all-the-time/
This does not appear to be a joke of any kind whatsoever. It does not appear to be self deprecating. In context it certainly appears to double down on the idea that women crying tend to diminish the progress of science. This suggests that whether he considers his earlier remarks about women crying to be a “joke” or somehow “light hearted” the butt of the joke was women scientists and he actually believes that women crying when criticized diminishes science. Moreover, he said so in public at a meeting hosted by women scientists.
Have fun grading. (Ok.. that’s not possible. But with luck your students will at least have done well which makes grading go better.)
RB “Kan, you selectively quoted my statement which was made in response to JD Ohio to insert your own ideas which you now want me to respond to.”
.
The statement I quoted must be able to stand on its own, or your entire response to JD fails.
Re: lucia (Comment #141583)
You know it. Thanks, anyway! 🙁
lucia,
You raise a good point. My choice of “exile” and “banishment” was derived from Hunt having had a position prior to his blunder and not having that position after. My choice may have been less than completely applicable. For me the virus metaphor is to speak to the lack of tolerance and the “pc” culture that most people seem to be annoyed with. Again, it may be a less than ideal metaphor.
Of course people are still free, in general, to criticize what others say. The people making fun of Hunt are totally in line and are free to do so. He squeezed that particular toothpaste out of the tube and is experiencing how difficult it is to put toothpaste back in a tube.
As for acting out. In my office we had a guy who by coincidence was red head and about 6’3″. He would get frustrated when his laptop did not work well and would treat as a hybrid hockey puck/frisbee until it was unserviceable and he could justify ordering a new one. He ended up in management, lol.
Your honesty with the lawnmower is admirable.
Re: Tim Hunt: The portion of the remarks giving rise to the issue was : “Now seriously, I’m impressed by the economic development of Korea. And women scientists played, without doubt, an important role in it. Science needs women and you should do science despite all the obstacles, and despite monsters like me.”
….
He obviously is not opposed to women in labs and supports their work. This should have been a minor kerfuffle and someone should have simply told him that some people might be offended by what he had stated and that he shouldn’t state it again. Instead a huge amount of attacks were focused on him. From my perspective he was probably forced to resign his position (not he just decided on his own with no pressure to leave) because of the immense pressure he faced and because he and his wife stated that they both broke down in tears after the severe attacks he faced. See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3123224/Nobel-Prize-winner-Sir-Tim-Hunt-wife-reveal-despair-sexist-remarks-ridiculed-online.html
….
To the extent that anyone makes jokes in labs about women crying I agree that they should face substantial discipline. I don’t see that here. He was not speaking in a workplace, where people’s work is being judged and actual jobs are on the line.
….
What I don’t like is the hypocrisy of the left in tearing Hunt to shreds and ignoring the lies of his accuser. Connie St. Louis had numerous false statements in her CV. See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3141158/A-flawed-accuser-Investigation-academic-hounded-Nobel-Prize-winning-scientist-job-reveals-troubling-questions-testimony.html Her lack of accuracy and honesty in an important document should be cause for substantial academic discipline — yet she received none. Her offense is greater than that of Hunt, yet she escapes unscathed — I believe she is given a pass by the left because the left believes those with her beliefs are good people who are entitled to more leeway than those on the right or in the middle.
….
Other liberal/left people escaping unscathed are Lena Dunham and Justice Sotomayor.
…
Dunham wrote a memoir which, in a thinly disguised way, she falsely accused an Oberlin conservative of rape. See http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/19679-lena-dunham-uva-and-false-rape-accusations Yet this lowlife continues her show business writing career with hardly a bump in the road and even is given a forum by Variety to discuss rape. See http://www.people.com/article/lena-dunham-relives-rape-variety-power-of-women-lunch
….
Sotomayor on multiple occasions made the bigoted remark that ““I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/05/sotomayor.speeches/ [Not clear how often she specifically added the term white male, but she did specifically use the term white male at least one time, and made the “wise latina” remark on multiple occasions.] Not only is the racist intent of the remark objectionable, but the fact that Sotomayor would feel free to make the remark on multiple occasions to academic audiences is disturbing. See http://web.archive.org/web/20090611162736/http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/legal_beat/2009/06/sotomayor-repeatedly-reference.html Academia and the left are not concerned with sexism or racism generally; they are only concerned with it when it comes from the non-left. If there was a sincere concern about racism or sexism, Sotomayor would never have been confirmed as a justice. Her remarks were definitely racist and sexist and intended to be so.
JD
hunter,
I think to some extent some people perceive that it’s not quite fair that someone who is not actually that bad was the one to say something stupid and sexist and generate all the criticism. Many people say stoooooopid things in life– and I’m sure there are many people who have said worse or done more sexist thing than Hunt did with no fall out at all. So it doesn’t seem quite fair that he was caught while others might not. But life isn’t always entirely fair– and he did say the things he did. And it appears he does hold the opinion about women crying.
Lucia (Comment #141574)
“BTW: I knew a man’s response to criticism to be:Jump up from the chair, flair his arms around, shouting.
It hadn’t and still hasn’t occurred to me to generalize about men, their violent proclivities and how it unsuits them to science because of their emotional reactions to criticism of their scientific work.”
From the Book of Eli [Rabbet] presumably.
He basically lost his position because of a politically incorrect joke about women. I would expect men to feel upset about this [I feel like crying] and women to take it as granted that he got the right punishment he deserved.
A different take on the same situation and only because of sexuality.
When you state he resigned it must be remembered that he may have been threatened with being sacked and took the more politically correct way out.
I know you said it was an honorary position as well but he may have lost some income, super etc..
Really he should have had a reprimand, been allowed to apologize and life should have gone on.
BTW my wife bought me a little pewter male piglet ornament 40 years ago with the initials MCP on the side.
I guess it means she thinks I have some chauvinist tendencies, for the life of me I have never understood why.
My comment #141587: Should have started my comment saying LAST portion
JD
What with the government spying on its citizens 24/7 here in the US and EU, I’ve wondered how terrorists get away with anything at all. This might be a piece of the puzzle. From the article:
…
Despite any firm evidence to suggest that the terrorist attackers in Paris, in San Bernardino, or at the Planned Parenthood center in Colorado used strong (or perhaps any) encryption to plan their killing sprees, government authorities around the planet — true to the long-standing predictions of myself and others that terrorist attacks would be exploited in this manner — are once again attempting to leverage these horrific events into arguments for requiring “backdoor” government access to the encryption systems that increasingly protect ordinary people everywhere.
This comes despite the virtual unanimity among reputable computer scientists and other encryption experts that such “master keys” to these encryption systems that protect our financial and ever more aspects of our personal lives would be fundamentally weakened by such a government access mechanism, exposing us all to exploits both via mistakes and purposeful abuse, potentially by governments and outside attacks on our data.
It’s difficult — one might say laughable — to take many of these government arguments seriously even in the first place, given the gross incompetence demonstrated by the U.S. government in breaches that exposed millions of citizens’ personal information and vast quantities of NSA secrets — and with similar events occurring around the world at the hands of other governments.
…
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/001137.html
JD Ohio,
Yes. I’d read he cried. Some people do cry when criticized.
Of course he wasn’t speaking in the workplace because he didn’t actually have a job or ‘workplace’. I don’t think there was any possibility of “discipline” because he didn’t actually work for UCL.
There seems to be a cloud over her and her CV. But that’s somewhat separate from whether Hunt actually said what he said. He admits having made that joke– and saying the things about women crying.
I think it’s perfectly fine for people to criticize Connie for whatever lapses she has. Whatever her personal and professional lapses assuming they exist don’t clear Hunt. (FWIW: it seems she may well have the lapses. I’m haven’t spent a whole lot of time investigating the story of Connie St. Louis. She could be an escaped axe murderer who made up everything about her CV and that still wouldn’t change the fact that the important parts of the Tim Hunt story are corroborated– and in fact admitted by Hunt.)
Sure. I also think that’s a stupid bigoted thing for Sotomayor to say and think. It is somewhat unfair there is no fall-out for Sotomayor but is for Hunt may be unfair.
But that doesn’t mean Hunt shoudn’t be criticized. It only means Sotomayor should be criticized as well. I’ve done so myself. Just not here in comments because we generally don’t discuss what we think of various SCOTUS justices here.
There is some truth to that. I’d even go to the extent of suggesting there is a certain “cottage industry” of people whose entire professional careers only exist to the extent that sexism and racism is perceived as a problem and that at least sometimes, this results in people wanting to expand programs to “correct” things– because to some extent, reduction of those programs would reduce their career prospects. The existence of these programs can also result in unfairness. (For example: University of Texas’s affirmative action program with it’s double system of admitting kids from the top 10% of all schools and then also using preference in the other batch seems a somewhat dicey. We’ll see how that goes when it hits SCOTUS.)
But once again: it doesn’t make Hunts comments not bigotted. It may mean he would have gotten away with actually slamming white males. In fact: I’m pretty certain he would have. But that doesn’t mean his jokes didn’t slam women scientists. They did.
Also: I do think racism and sexism does continue to exist in places and they have an impact– even on avearge. Often people aren’t aware of it in themselves. Heck, I probably harbor some. But I don’t think denying its existence or effect is helpful. Nor is exaggerating its existence or effects.
Also: I have no idea what the best remedy is– but silencing those who observe it and suggesting they aren’t allowed to complain about it doesn’t strike me as fair or appropriate. It certainly won’t result in any improvements.
angech
The reaction doesn’t seem to fall that strongly on male/female lines.
He may have been threatened. But he could have told them to “sack” him (or whatever the right term is for them severing the position.
My very strong impression is the position is entirely unpaid. My impression is based on this
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0615/100615-tim-hunt
So this is a “position” with no salary, no teaching, no research.
UCL also reports
With respect to this:
He would have had to return their call before resigning for them to make any such suggestion. But it appears he just quit.
On the pig gift: Maybe your wife just thinks pigs are cute. Or, perhaps she thinks pigs are a symbol of good fortune. See:
http://www.luckymojo.com/luckypig.html
Or… are you chubby? Or do you bring home the bacon? The pig charm could mean anything.
Lucia I believe we are in 80% agreement. However, I disagree with the general thought behind this comment: ” Of course he wasn’t speaking in the workplace because he didn’t actually have a job or ‘workplace’.”
…
That being the case, why should it matter much to anyone. It was just a talk at a conference that was not poorly received by most of the people there.
…
Lucia: “I’d even go to the extent of suggesting there is a certain “cottage industry†of people whose entire professional careers only exist to the extent that sexism and racism…” We definitely agree here. On the other hand, Sotomayor is supposed to at least, aspire to be an impartial judge, being fair to all. If that is the case, and minor jokes by people like Hunt are made to be a big deal, then when the shoe is on the other foot, people like Sotomayor should pay for their mistakes/bigotry. Particularly, when the racism and sexism is completely inimical with the job being considered.
….
If Sotomayor is not held accountable for her remarks and beliefs, the left, and society in general, should leave people like Hunt alone. Those people at Berkeley, and from what I can see, academics in general, who didn’t object to Sotomayor’s remarks have no basis to criticize people like Hunt. There needs to be one standard for everyone, but there isn’t. And, the left is making no effort stamp out racism/sexism by its partisans while relentlessly criticizing others based on standards that the left won’t apply to itself.
JD
JD Ohio,
UCL had an association with him that involved them “honoring” him in some sense– likewise but retaining the “honorary” position he was sort of “honoring them”. These things exist in academia.
UCL could wish to revoke the ongoing honor so as to not be associated with his statements. I don’t think there would be anything wrong with such a wish. Similarly, if one might quit a club or a club might want you to quit if you did something that embarrass a club. Depends on the club of course, but these sorts of associations exist and sometimes people want to sever social/honorary/etc ties.
So I can see why UCL or Hunt might have a preference about continuuing or not continuuing their association. Why anyone else cares if the association was severed I don’t know. But evidently some people care very much and feel UCL should somehow have been forced to “keep him on” in the non-job or be forced to take him back on in the non-job. And they think it’s some sort of horrible horrible thing that Hunt no longer has this non-job.
I don’t think we know how most people received it. I don’t think anyone has attempted to collect together the whole audience to take a poll. It’s generally the case that most people shrug off sexism or failing that say “sigh. Another guy making a jab at women”. After that people get on with their lives. It doesn’t make the jabs not sexism.
In this case, the remarks happened to be by a Nobel Laurete and someone happened to report them. The result was reaction was stronger than usual in this instance. It resulted in PR flak both for Hunt and for UCL.
Individuals each get to decide what matters to them. Some people care a lot about it.
FWIW I certainly never called for him to be sacked for telling a sexist joke. In fact, it wouldn’t have been possible– he’d already quit by the time I heard of the joke.
I’m sure some people did call for him to be sacked even before he resigned– but I’m not entirely sure who might have. He resigned so very, very quickly. The speed is a factor in my guess that he wasn’t strongly pressured. It seems UCL never even spoke to him and we don’t know what they said to his wife. But it does appear that despite his complaint they didn’t ask him his side of the story he never tried to engage them. Presumably he could have asked to speak to someone or for a meeting or something. But no. He resigned before anyone at UCL could speak to him directly. And bear in mind: they did try to contact him either through his wife or directly,
With respect to hunts decision to resign from the non-job:– my position is that there was nothing wrong with UCL having accepted the resignation when he tendered it.
All this happened quickly– the talk was on June 9, Hunt’s resignation was announced June 10. Given korea time vs. UK time, I’m not sure how many hours it was between the talk and the resignation. Hilda Bastain seems to have taken a stab at making a timeline
http://hildabastian.net/index.php/8-secondary/19-a-tim-hunt-timeline
Some people consider her too much on the “Hunt critic” side– but regardless of your view, she has seemed to have tried to collect together all the early posts and links.
JD Ohio
Well…. the UK incident is mostly a UK thing. I can’t quite get upset that people in the UK didn’t criticize Sotomayor. But I do agree its not quite right if people apply one standard to those who share their right/left leanings and other standards to those who don’t share their right/left leanings.
As for my self: I’ve criticize both Hunt and Sotomayor. I don’t see how I can criticize one while not criticizing the others. As I’d criticized Sotomayor before I criticized Hunt that would seem to oblige me to criticize Hunt.
Sotomayor’s statement is not only sexist and racist but flies in the face of what judges are supposed to do. Your personal life experiences shouldn’t be your guide to how you decide a case. Justice is depicted blindfolded for a reason. Besides, do we really know if she is wise? Her Supreme Court decisions are not particularly supportive of that conclusion, IMO.
I think the Republicans would go to the mat on any COP21 payments, including govt shutdowns, and the Democrats likely know this. I very much doubt not paying this will be contested by anybody. It’s just bad politics to demand lots of taxpayer money be sent overseas for a UN climate guilt payment.
The US made it clear it was a show stopper to have binding agreements in place for emissions or finances. I sure haven’t heard a single Democrat, Obama, Kerry, et. al. suggest making these payments binding was a good idea, or good politics. If they thought this would help them domestically, they would have signed up to it.
This agreement is another dose of symbolism somehow saving the planet. If I don’t have to pay the bill, I’m all for giving them as many symbolic victories as they want. The combination of no enforcement mechanisms, no carbon caps or taxes, leaving nuclear power and natural gas out like ugly stepchildren, and hilariously ratcheting down the target to 1.5C demonstrates how unserious this agreement was. The goal all along was to be able to declare victory at the end.
When climate sensitivity ends up being lower than scientists expected, and catastrophe does not occur, this agreement gives them cover to pretend they saved the day. At least they will be able to obfuscate it, which is why they so desperately needed an agreement.
Tom,
The only party that has succeeded in using government shutdowns as a tactic is not the Republicans.
The amazing symptom that tells me the climate obsessed are going to succeed is that we have an Administration that gets away with openly planning how to ignore Congress on this and other policy issues.
That most people do not agree we are in a climate crisis or think it is important is not relevant. *Every* significant media outlet in the world repeats the climate consensus. *Every* significant academic organization and most energy companies toe the climate consensus line. We are witnessing the establishment of a new political empire based on the idea that CO2 controls climate and that taxing carbon and forcing tax payers in wealthy countries to fund rich people in poor countries with that money will control CO2.
JD Ohio, Lucia,
.
That Supreme court judges are not impartial, and do not even try to be, should surprise no one. Sotomayor is just a bit more ‘up yours’ in her attitude and in her public statements than the others. The judges may actually try to be “impartial” on obscure cases with little or no social impact, but they are consistently advocates for their own political views when an “important” case, with policy/social implications, makes its way to the Court. In general, they don’t give a hoot about the Constitution as it was written, and are more than happy to subvert it via obtuse Orwellian interpretations to achieve their political goals. This goes for both sides of the political isle at different points in history, of course, but is more glaring over the last 75 years for the left, since the left is constantly clamoring for ‘progress’ which can only happen by ignoring the pain meaning of the words in the Constitution.
Re: DeWitt Payne (Comment #141597)
From the rest of Sotomayor’s speech, it seems to me that she is arguing that the impartiality of judges is imperfect, and hence the presence of diversity on the bench will make a (positive) difference.
Is your objection that saying an experienced (insert underrepresented minority here) is likely to reach a better conclusion than an inexperienced (insert overrepresented majority here) is a bigoted (i.e., sexist, racist) statement?
Oliver
I think you are misinterpreting the meaning of her words pretty badly. She isn’t posting an experienced person against an inexperienced person. Read what she actually said:
“that life” suggests there is something about the specific experience of being a Latina women vs. “white male that one “hopes” results in reaching better conclusions.
As “I would hope” is an idiom that often conveys “I firmly believe”, this conveys the impression that she thinks living life as a Latina woman makes one more likely to reach better conclusions. This was said in context of discussion legal rulings.
The fact is: not living the life as a Latina woman doesn’t make one inexperienced. Nor is there any reason to believe that living life as a Latina women results ‘better’ legal rulings or interpretations than living life as a white male. (What she means by ‘better’ is open for interpretation. It might be more faithful applications of the law. Or merely “one’s Latina women tend to prefer.” If it means the latter,t hen I concede that some Latina women may well be more likely to come to such conclusion that please themselves– though I would suggest the wise ones will not do so. They’ll apply the law and so come to conclusions that are not totally dissimilar to those white males come to.)
Her statement is also not suggesting that having a bench that reflects different backgrounds would result in discussions that permit people to view things from different perspectives and so avoid biases that can result in less accurate rulings. That might be a valid point. (Though, in such a case, perhaps the next pick should be an asian female Protestant to close the ‘religion/east v. west gap’.)
As far as I can tell her words are suggesting that living the life of a Latina women makes one come to better rulings than living life as a while male who did not live life as a Latina woman. Of course white males will not have the experience of living life as a Latina woman– just as Latina women will lack the experience of living life as a white male. Neither situation is the same as what one generally means by “inexperienced” and suggesting that all she is saying is that “experienced” people are better choices than “inexperienced” strikes me as a gross misreading of her words.
I hate to pick on Brandon because he’s such an easy target, but while he fires off “bigot” etc, I doubt he even realizes that Muslims are required to discriminate against other non-Muslim groups.
Andrew
lucia,
Justice Sotomayor comes across as an arrogant bigot no matter how she might dress up her words. Let’s just change her quote a bit and have, for instance, Justice Roberts say,
“I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Hispanic woman who hasn’t lived that life.â€
How would that go in any community?
With Ms, Sotomayor justice is not blind, weighing the law and the evidence.
Re: lucia (Comment #141602)
December 14th, 2015 at 9:06 am
lucia, I have to respectfully disagree. I did read Sotormayor’s statements, not just the part that’s ubiquitously quoted, but the following passages as well. Taken in context, Sotormayor seems to be talking about experience in matters of gender or race inequality, in which case it is reasonable to posit that a Latina woman is likely to have more life experience dealing with these matters than a white man.
Oliver,
ok… googled.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?_r=0
Yes. You are right. In context it’s not bigotted.
Lucia: “In context it’s not bigoted.”
Here is the whole paragraph in which the statement was made. In context, I believe it is bigoted.
…
“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
…
It is one thing to say that because of my experience as a Latina, I have useful Hispanic perspectives that white males may not have. That is perfectly fine. However, when she stated that she could reach better conclusions than white males, without any qualification, that was bigoted. Additionally, the fact that she stated that there could be no “universal definition of wise” makes her statement even worse. She is stating that in an overall general sense the Latina perspective is superior to the white male perspective considering that there are different definitions of wise. In fact, not being able to intellectually support her statement, she apologized for it during the confirmation process.
JD
In the Sotomayor world education is not the equalizer. Race is.
In her world a legal argument or evidence is apparently not as important as one’s background or gender.
The law or the Constitution will be applied based on race and gender by her proud wise assertion.
And she is held out as a hero of American Jurisprudence.
We are in deep trouble.
Lucia,
This statement is very interesting in light of the Larry Summers controversy. ““Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum” She is stating that there may be innate differences between the sexes. Summers was excoriated about the same suggestion, but there is no peep of criticism when it comes from her.
…
JD
JD Ohio
Of course there are some.
Summers problem was saying the difference in standard deviation of IQ might explain the gender imbalance at universities. Prominent people in the public live get in trouble any time they claim something about IQ even being heritable. Clearly some aspects must be; otherwise human IQ would not have risen through natural selection.
But one has to be very nuanced in claims to manage to explain any theories involving current populations without having people throw things at you. I have some notions, but I don’t know enough to back them up… so…
Lucia,
“Of course there are some. [innate differences in the sexes]”
…
I agree but that is not what a substantial portion of the left purports to believe. In fact, there was a recent article in the NYT’s supporting the idea of gender free toys. Also, from what I can see, it is virtually impossible for a male to discuss potential innate differences in academia without inviting a firestorm, unless the innate differences are all female. Women on the other hand, particularly, women of the left are free to discuss whatever they wish.
…
Summers made clear that he was talking hypothetically to work through an issue where he was trying to increase female participation. That didn’t stop the firestorm from the left and from a majority of Harvard’s faculty.
JD
I know I said I would stop commenting, and I did mean that. I just wanted to, as a matter of fairness, draw attention to the fact I’ve written a blog post about a bit of what has been said here, namely Jeff Id’s comment claiming to share “common sense.” Given I criticize him and anyone who agrees with him quite harshly, I thought I should let people know so they have a chance to respond.
For a short version, siding with Holocaust deniers might suggest there are problems with your worldview. For a longer version, see my post.
Huh. I suppose I should have realized that might trip moderation. Could I get my comment released?
JD Ohio,
I’m not sure what that even means. Lots of toys are gender free– teddy bears, trucks, legos, jump ropes, board games for instance. Different kids make different choices. Some seem to be more attractive to girls and to boys.
I guess I’ll hazard a guess: They were supporting the idea of not letting girls pick or be given toys mostly girls like and boys pick or be given toys mostly boys like? That’s ridiculous. Reminds me of a former boyfriend who gave me carob because he know I liked chocolate. . . Mind you, there is nothing wrong with making a range of toys available if you have storage space for many. But not letting a girl own a doll or a boy own a truck because that’s stereotyped would be odd.
I’m familiar with the Summer’s issue. But that’s what I mean about finding it difficult to not get things thrown at you.
BS,
Are you aware that holocaust denial is popular among some Muslims? Obviously not since you appear to be siding with them. See, for example, an essay “Why they deny the Holocaust” by Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the LA Times from 2006.
Irony increases yet again.
DeWitt Payne, I’m not sure why it would appear I am siding with Muslims who deny the Holocaust simply because I defend Muslims as a whole. I suspect it would say more about the people I appear that way to than it would about me. Similarly, I’m not sure why you would cite an article which says:
As proof Holocaust denial is popular with any group. I would think if one believes this article to be accurate, they would be less likely to conclude the idea Holocaust denial is popular.
Regardless, I don’t see any point in dwelling on such matters. I will, however, ask you to please not refer to me as “BS.” I find that abbreviation unpleasant due to the connotations it can have.
“For a short version, siding with Holocaust deniers might suggest there are problems with your worldview.”
.
Thanks Brandon, I might have wasted my time reading the long version.
BS,
I use it advisedly. If our host thinks it’s over the top, I’ll stop.
In case you don’t get the point, substitute ‘Holocaust deniers’ for Puppy Haters Association.
Or, I agreed with you about Donald Trump. That doesn’t mean I agree with you about anything else.
Did my comment go into moderation because I quoted Brandons tasteful comment on Holoc__t de__rs?
Re: DeWitt Payne (Comment #141535)
I read the article by Hirsi Ali and the rebuttal by William McCants who makes some of the same points made here, such as that scripture is not the problem and that violent people choose what they want to read in scripture.
If by intervention, you mean the Iraq 2003 effort, I think it was a failure and efforts to change a political culture by force have historically proven to be a failure.
McCants also makes the point that efforts to fund scriptural reformers by the West can also backfire by tainting the reformers.
There is at least one way though that the United States can fight the spread of extremism – which does not involve boots on the ground – which is to not play into the hands of the enemy by doing things that destroy the gray zone of coexistence.
“scripture is not the problem”
This argument can only be made by someone who doesn’t understand that religious writings have meaning for people. A lot of people.
I know a significant number of those who comment here are non-religious macamademic types who don’t see meaning in religion, but not everyone thinks and feels in the same ways you do.
Gotta open your eyes and your mind.
Andrew
RB,
Sidney Blumenthal, really? Hillary’s shadow assistant Secretary of State? Maybe I missed the actual policy recommendations, but all I saw was a critique of past policy.
As I remember, Hirsi Ali made specific mention of exactly that point and referenced McCants:
While one can make a case that intervention only strengthens the terrorists, a stronger case, IMO, can be made that non-intervention also plays into the hands of the radicals by making them look like winners. In fact, that’s exactly what’s happened since Obama pulled the troops out of Iraq.
DeWitt
Military intervention comes at a steep cost with uncertain (and historically poor) returns. The longer it drags on, there is only growing resentment from the locals. Doubling down on losses is usually not a good strategy. Bush Sr and his advisers were much wiser than Jr and his gang.
NIels,
I don’t see any comment by you in moderation.
RB,
Yes, military intervention is costly and can be managed poorly. But what you really don’t want to do is threaten to intervene if certain conditions are met and then back down after they are met. That makes you look both weak and foolish. Obama did that with Syria. JFK did something similar with the Bay of Pigs fiasco.
RB:
Passivism comes with steeps costs too—it only takes one side to fight a war after all.
Allowing Al Qaeda to set up training camps and to operate them essentially unfettered was a mistake WJCs presidency made that is still having ramifications today.
Similarly, withdrawing from Iraq and allowing Al Qaeda in Iraq to be reborn as ISIS is a mistake we’re going to be paying forward for a long time to come.
There were several wasted opportunities to nip WWII in Europe in the bud too.
Bush Sr and his advisers were much wiser than Jr and his gang.
When the Iraq invasion was imminent ( really when the resolution went to Congress ) I was truly perplexed.
What was the true motivation?
WMD?
Oil?
Vengeance on Saddam?
Complicity or proxy enabling Al Qaeda by Saddam?
Atoning for the genocide perpetrated on the Shia?
Removing and Israeli threat?
Numerous other?
Of course, removing Saddam was the official US policy back to the Clinton days. And Clinton and cabinet wanted to invade Iraq.
And those who voted for the authorization ( including Kerry and Hillary ) cited CIA intelligence as reason.
But much later I went back and read the ‘Greater Middle East Initiative’ and came to conclude that the motivation, by some at least, was this:
The middle east was dominated by either dictators or theocracies. The dictators suppressed dissent unless it was in the mosque and directed at the US. Enabling self determination and self rule would lead them toward constructive and civil government and less ( ‘why do they hate us’ ) anti US sentiment.
It may not have worked, but we were on the path to building a civil Iraq before leaving it do descend into chaos.
Turbulent Eddie, that was largely the reason. There was the added hope if the Iraq dictatorship could be replaced by a stable, strong government that granted its citizens freedoms like in “modern” countries, it would influence the Middle East as a whole in a positive way. People in other countries there would see what could be available to them, causing them to recognize the dictators who rule them as the oppressive tyrants they are. That could create pressure for those countries to reform, foster revolutions or just drive people to move to better areas. And if Iraq were successful, it could be used as a blueprint for other countries, both in how they could work and how oppressive governments in the Middle East could be overthrown if necessary.
The problem is it didn’t work. George Bush Jr. didn’t sell the war honestly, and as support for the war dropped, he failed to explain to the public what the strategy and purpose for the military action was. That lack of leadership, combined with a number of tactical failures, drove the United States population to want to abandon the plan. And now, that’s what happened.
If the invasion and occupation of Iraq had been a success, it would have been a major coup for which Bush (and/or his successor) would have been praised. As much as we might like to pretend otherwise, people love a winner. If things had gone well and the Middle East were dramatically changed for the better, nobody would have cared that much about what the pretenses for the war were.
I blame Colin Powell’s advice for some of that. But, as Truman said about the Presidency: “The buck stops here.” He picked Powell and took his advice. He also appointed Paul Bremer and gave him a medal to boot.
Of course there was also the problem of failing to provide adult supervision to Congress when the Republicans had control of both Houses. But that’s a different item.
For the Bush administration, there already was the opportunity to effect political change in Afghanistan where the US had the blessings of the world to intervene. Fourteen years later, the US is committed to an indefinite presence there.
The idea of civilizing the unwashed is not new. Military victory/stabilization is easier than effecting political change as seen from the example of Pakistan, still struggling to establish a civilian government. Rising Chinese labor costs might eventually do to Vietnam what American intervention could not.
The difference between the Obama plan and the Petraeus one seems to have been whether forces should have withdrawn in 16 months or 23 months. The U.S. could very well have been there for decades, in addition to the ongoing presence in Afghanistan.
Obama’s red-line was a mistake but rolling back the saber-rattling arrogance of the previous administration was a welcome change. There will be a more hawkish president in the White House at this time next year though.
George Bush did not take his own advice when he campaigned against nation building and then decided to do just that in Iraq and Afghanistan with the resulting major failures and costs.
Nation building is certainly not something that Democrats would shy away from and in fact is why Bush was against it in his campaign. Obama’s weak attempts to change things in the Middle East are a major waste of effort and money – but he is afraid to admit to those who might influence his legacy that he thinks it will have no effect and that he is just going through the motions. Being the consummate politician that he is, he might just declare victory just like he has with the failing Obamacare – and who in the MSM is going to complain.
Brandon – “If the invasion and occupation of Iraq had been a success, it would have been a major coup for which Bush (and/or his successor) would have been praised.”
A look at the actual history says that in 2009, when Obama assumed office Iraq, was a peaceful place.
RB – “The U.S. could very well have been there for decades…”
As we have been in Japan, Germany, and South Korea. If we had abandoned any of these after a decade, the world would look very different.
Kan:
Yep, remaining in Iraq would have been a lot cheaper than the cost of leaving.
Regardless of what happened before Obama “pulled the trigger”, he’s still responsible for the consequences of the choices he made, which in this case were nothing short of disastrous.
Carrick,
would not staying in Iraq have been over the objections of the locals?
Obama’s “Arab Spring” brought even more pain and suffering to the Middle East. He pledged to his supporters that he would pull out. It blew up in their collective face. He has a lot to answer for.
Re: Carrick (Comment #141715)
Would that depend, at least in part, on whether G.W. Bush had previous signed an agreement to remove the troops?
Oliver:
I’d say only if that agreement were fully binding, which it clearly wasn’t.
A new deal was being negotiated, but was not arrived at. There were issues that hadn’t been ironed out (the big one being parliamentary immunity for US troops), which were never resolved. Biden promised a deal, but it fell through.
One wonders if Obama were really serious about a deal, if he would have sent somebody as ham-handed as Biden to try and strike the deal. Certainly Obama claimed credit far and wide after the failure for keeping his promise to withdrawal troops.
The perception I have is that Obama and the DNC really didn’t want the US troops to stay, so the will for resolving the issues was weak.
The WaPo’s take on it is Obama took credit for the withdrawal, before he blamed the Bush administration.
Even had they left the troops in, I think they were only talking about maybe 3000 troops, instead of the 20,000 number that Bush had hoped we could keep in. 3,000 would probably have not been enough to have changed the course of history.
ferguson:
I think many of the locals really wanted us to stay. I think it was mostly Iran and its cronies that were pushing to get us out.
As I mentioned in my response to Oliver, I think the Iraqis were concerned about the parliamentary immunity the US wanted their troops to be been given. That was a resolvable issue, as it had to be resolved in 2014, before US advisors could return to Iraq.
Basically the troops don’t have immunity now.
That ended up being the worst case scenario. We could have gotten Malaki to give a presidential order granting US troops immunity (this was on the table), and while that might not have been technically binding in Iraq, it would have given the US the leverage it needed to insure that US troops who were accused of crimes were treated fairly (meaning court martial rather than civilian trials).
Carrick,
I thought, possibly in error, that the reluctance to give our folks immunity was intended to send us home maybe so they could get on with their internal suppression of each other.
Given the apparent ineptitude of Obama’s management of our activities over there, isn’t it also possible that with many more troops, the screw-ups might have been even more catastrophic? I’m arguing here that the tactical incompetence many of us see in WH micromanagement in the theaters where we now have troops might have produced even worse results with more troops to work with. Just because the present situation is lousy doesn’t mean it couldn’t have been lousier.
Maybe this is nuts.
“As we have been in Japan, Germany, and South Korea. If we had abandoned any of these after a decade, the world would look very different.”
And we still have a military presence in those places. Is the game plan to have a military presence – and at no small cost – in all the regions we have had or will have wars based on a hypothetical that that action is more economical than leaving?
The US would do better to promote true free trade and person to person communications with other nations of the world.
The troupe immunity issue was a leak by the Obama administration as additional justification for leaving. In the end they made the decision before Maliki had a chance to agree to it.
Whether things would have been worse…of course you can never prove that. Just as you can never prove that things might have been worse if Bush never went into Iraq
In 2006 , the Iraqis wanted the troops gone. They also substantially supported attacks on U.S. troops. As combat troops left in 2010, informal opinion showed anger at the U.S. for leaving after ruining the country, just as ISIS was starting to establish itself.
I think this falls under the general heading of: Be careful what you wish for.
Kenneth – “And we still have a military presence in those places. Is the game plan to have a military presence – and at no small cost – in all the regions we have had or will have wars based on a hypothetical that that action is more economical than leaving?”
The U.S. maintains a military presence in Japan and Germany today for vastly different reasons than we were for the decade that followed WWII.
Korea – we are there for the same reason we were there in 1953.
If you wish to dispute the economical benefits of what was accomplished by remaining in Japan, Korea and Germany – good luck.
RB – World history did not begin in 2000. I know that you ignore this, but in 1992 the U.S had to enact no-fly zones (an act of war) to prevent Saddam from gassing and bombing his own people in the north (Kurds) and the south (Shites).
So read the worldpublicopinion poll from 2006 very carefully, keeping in mind that the Shia and the Kurds make up around 70% of the Iraqi population and they are the ones Saddam was attacking starting in 1992 and were the beneficiaries of the U.S act of war.
Furthermore – if you will remember a major prompting of the surge in 2007 was to remove from the Shia communities in the south the Iranian influence. This greatly reduced the number of attacks (and the support for the attacks) on U.S troops amongst the Shia.
Examples of loose security and incompetence in terrorism, with minimal comments by me because busy:
…
1. Release of known terrorists: “A handful? Obama is woefully ill-informed or he’s being dishonest. According to the most recent report on Guantanamo recidivism, prepared in September 2015 by James Clapper’s office, Obama’s own Director of National Intelligence, 196 former detainees are either confirmed (117) or suspected (79) of returning to the fight. That’s a recidivism rate of more than 30 percent. Intelligence officials tell THE WEEKLY STANDARD that those numbers are almost certainly low, as they do not include jihadists the United States and its allies are no longer tracking.
(Obama’s formulation there is odd, too, using “embittered” as if the reason the jihadists would once again take up arms against the United States is their time in detention.)
Obama continued, describing the process officials use to determine whether a detainee can be released or transferred. “The judgment that we’re continually making is: Are there individuals who are significantly more dangerous than the people who are already out there who are fighting? What do they add? Do they have special skills? Do they have special knowledge that ends up making significant threat to the United States?” See http://www.weeklystandard.com/obama-releases-dangerous-jihadists-then-misleads-country-about-it/article/2000221
…
2. Granting bail to accused terrorist where there is significant evidence of his guilt. http://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/index.ssf/2015/12/tiny_city_seethes_over_bond_fo.html#incart_most-commented_osu_article [wish the reasons for and the terms of the bail were more explicitly described in article]
…
3. Large number of Syrians coming to US on visas: One quote: “”All civil order has collapsed, and meaningful background checks are impossible,†Mehlman said. “Instead, we rely on cross-checking databases. However, many people with ties to terrorist groups are not in any databases, which means there is no way we can identify them before they arrive here.”
A government official who expressed astonishment at such large immigration numbers from a relatively small country, said approximately half are legal permanent residents and the remainder came here on visas, the latter of which remains a point of contentious concern.” http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/16/as-lawmakers-clash-over-refugees-syrian-immigration-quietly-tops-100000-since/
3. Defense secretary used personal email for substantial part of work: “http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/17/defense-secretary-carter-used-personal-email-in-first-months-at-pentagon.html?intcmp=trending “The [NYT] Times reported that Carter was assigned a government email account when he assumed his office in February, but continued to conduct most of his business on his private account, often sending messages via his iPhone or iPad. According to the paper, a former aide to Carter said that his boss used his personal account so often during that period that staffers feared he would be hacked.
…
The bottom line is that the worst of the worst, the Department of Homeland Security is vetting Syrians and, we have to rely on the horrible incompetence of the Federal Government to protect us.
Partly off topic, but: Sheesh
Yesterday someone from NPR interviewed a physicist (almost certainly Kyle Cranmer — was in my car and heard middle part of interview) about the potential discovery of a new subatomic particle. One of the questions, spoken in terms of amazement, was [don’t remember exact words] “aren’t these possible particles so small that they can’t be seen by the naked eye?” — !!!!
…
If someone so incompetent [employed partially through government funds] is conducting a physics interview, we can see how climate coverage is so poor.
JD
Kan, Shias did benefit from the invasion. Pre-surge, in 2006 the Shia support for attacks on troops was 41% (above). Post-surge in 2008, this dropped to 35% . Yes, it dropped, but not greatly. About 75% overall still opposed the presence of coalition forces.
Much like polls here you have to see exactly how the question was phrased and what context was included.
An interesting perspective on why occupation will not achieve the self-determination of this world towards their own version of democracy.
RB, just a few points:
1) You don’t choose where to put troops based only on popularity of the action (you do so for national interests).
2) There’s no evidence that “democracy building by force works.”
3) However, there is evidence that destroying enemy assets cripples the ability of an enemy to attack us.
4) Retaining forces on the ground would have given us much more leverage over a rapidly evolving situation and would likely have prevent the spread of ISIS into Iraq (saving hundreds of thousands of lives that were lost as a result of ISIS expansionism and genocidal policies).
5) As chuckrr points out, a question like this is necessarily loaded—and so the precise way in which the question is asked matters.
Had we left the troops in Iraq, I think it’s a no-brainer that this would have benefited our interests. I also think it is a no-brainer that most Democrats did not want US force presence there (on the ground).
And I think it’s an easy political calculation to make that the troop withdrawal had as much to do with mid-term politics as it did with strategic US interests. Obama certainly took credit for the withdrawal a enormous number of times during the run-up to the elections. On this matter, I see no reason to doubt his stated word that he was keeping a campaign promise.
As long as Muslims continue to delude themselves that this historical narrative is an accurate representation of events, progress is going to be difficult. The Crusades were nominally about the Holy Lands, i.e. Israel, not about Islam. They also conveniently forget that Muslim armies imposed Islam by force of arms over a wide area of the world, including much of Spain and parts of Europe, not to mention drove out the Crusaders, who were never an actual threat to Islam.
The West did not cause the relatively high Muslim civilization of the Middle Ages to collapse. Muslims did it to themselves. The list of civil wars and revolts within Islam is long and started not long after the passing of the Prophet. The West had nothing whatsoever to do with the hostility between Sunni’s and Shiites.
The Ottoman Empire might still exist if it hadn’t picked the losing side in WWI. The losers were treated harshly by the winners. That turned out to be a mistake, but it had little to do with Islam per se. The Crusades and the supposed continuing hostility of the West to Islam are a convenient excuse to avoid dealing with reality.
RB (Comment #141739),
Well, yes, lots of Muslims in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the rest of the Middle East don’t want to have infidels around (seen it first hand). That can’t be a surprise to anyone (at least I hope it is not). Ditto the lack of inclination towards democracy in the same region. The personal liberties which are consistent with democracy and free individual choice are not consistent with the fundamentalist interpretation of Islam. If the last dozen years have taught anything, it is that trying to institute democracy in the Middle East is a fool’s errand. On the other hand, making terrorism against the west far too costly for the fundamentalists to consider is not a fool’s errand.
SteveF:
It’s not surprising regardless of what group you are talking about.
When they looked at the motivations for why Southerners fought against the North during the US Civil War, most of them did not fight to aid the slave owners (who were the nominal beneficiaries of the Southern war effort). Many of them were subsistence farmers and did not own slaves.
What was found was that they were fighting against perceived encroachment of Southern interests by the North. In his Civil War documentary, Ken Burns eloquently puts the answer to “why you are fighting” as:
If you are in somebody else’s land, driving a tank through his street, tearing them up in the process, chances are he’s going to view you as an invader regardless of whether you’re from the US or a neighboring Arab country.
SteveF:
As long as they continue to be funded by the purchase of oil by Turkey (and others) and as long as they continue to get “under the counter” aid from people in Saudi Arabia and other countries (as I’ve pointed out before, to a certain extent ISIS being in Syria benefits certain regional players, most prominently Iran), it will never be “too costly” for them.
We can make it impossible for them to be an effective fighting force. We can make it impossible for them to sell oil. We can make it unattractive for people to “invest” in them. And we can make it unglamorous for nuttards to leave the West to join their ranks or to commit acts of “lone wolf” terrorism in the name of the terrorists.
Carrick,
That’s, to put it mildly, overly simplistic. Major battles early in the US Civil War were fought in the North, not in defense in the South. Gettysburg is, after all, in Pennsylvania and Antietam is in Maryland. And the first shots were fired by the South at Fort Sumter.
Ditto the lack of inclination towards democracy in the same region. The personal liberties which are consistent with democracy and free individual choice are not consistent with the fundamentalist interpretation of Islam. If the last dozen years have taught anything, it is that trying to institute democracy in the Middle East is a fool’s errand.
Dunno if you saw this one or not, but an interesting perspective on the Arab Spring.
It’s at once disturbing ( all the missteps, blood, and gloom ), but also encouraging because the fledgling Tunisian government sought what sounds like true compromise.
Of course, we didn’t institute that, they did that on their own, so your statement still holds, I guess.
Carrick,
“It will never be “too costly†for them.”
.
I must disagree here. When dealing with savages, you have no option but to give them many times more of what they try to give to you. There is no reasoning, logic, or compromise possible with these people. You just make it too costly for them to continue supporting terror. Completely level every city and town they control? Obviously, yes. Eliminate all infrastructure (power, water, transportation, etc.)? Yes. Destroy all sources of income (oil sales, etc)? Yes. Targeted assignations of leaders by special forces or contracted killers? Yes, of course. Drone strikes at leadership targets? Yes. Freeze all funds through international banking systems? Yes.
.
This is a pretty simple problem. It is only Western sensibilities (and our idiot President) which make it more complicated than it really is.
DeWitt,
Yes, Carrick’s comment is terribly simplistic.
.
The fundamental objection in the South was the political forcing of ‘northern’ values on the southern states, which was in large part an economic issue. The South acted against what it saw as a combination of political and economic aggression from the North. Their decision was unwise, of course, but it had little to do with invasion from the North.
Kan (Comment #141734)
December 17th, 2015 at 11:06 am
“If you wish to dispute the economical benefits of what was accomplished by remaining in Japan, Korea and Germany – good luck.”
[An army of] a hundred thousand men, costing the taxpayers a hundred million of money, live and bring to the purveyors as much as a hundred million can supply. That is which is seen.
But, a hundred million taken from the pockets of the taxpayers, ceases to maintain these taxpayers and their purveyors as far as a hundred million reaches. This is that which is not seen. Now make your calculations. Add it all up, and tell me what profit there is for the masses?
-Frédéric Bastiat
I do not feel like adding it all up, but the amount of trade between the named countries since WWII dwarfs anything the world has ever seen before – in total.
It definitely is far, far more than Frédéric Bastiat, living in the 1800’s, could ever have imagined.
Rb – Trying to find where the 41% Shia number in 2006 became the 35% Shia number 2008 in the poll you presented.
Please give the question number you are referring to.
DeWitt:
Yes that is true, as far as it goes.
But do you really need an explanation for why those battles were fought in the North?
(The South sought to preempt a large scale Northern invasion.)
In any case, by the time Gettysburg was fought, there were Union forces surrounding Vicksburg, and of course there had been many battles fought in northern Virginia including the decisive victory by Robert E Lee at the Second Battle of Bull Run in 1862 over John Pope.
It was Lee’s victory here which in turn lead to his plans for an scale invasion of Maryland and Pennsylvania, to try and force the North to sue for peace. Prior to the defeat of Pope’s army and Lee’s invasion of Maryland, as it turns out, there were well over 300 significant battles with exactly zero fought on Northern soil.
(Had it not been for McClellan’s incompetence as a general, which allowed Lee’s forces to join Jackson’s forces against Pope, it’s likely that the South would not have won the day in the Shenandoah Valley, and there might never have been a battle on Northern soil.)
SteveF:
Based on the remainder of your response, it appears you misunderstood me. I was referring to economic costs. As long as terrorists have sources of income and those sources of income are not disrupted, you will have terrorism. Terrorism, Inc.
Wars of attrition will fail unless you can cut off the terrorists funding sources. (And prevent the resupply of new terrorists as the old ones are killed or captured.)
Kan:
Yes it is.
It is in fact the presence of US forces in the world since WWII that have lead to the most peaceful time in written human history.
(Measured I believe by number of causalities.)
Kan: I linked to the wrong poll. The survey question is on page 30 of Sep 2007 here
DeWitt Payne:
I’m confused by this comment. You talk about how early major battles were fought in the North, not in defense in the south. You then give two examples. You then refer to the Battle of Fort Sumter. Fort Sumter, of course, was located in South Carolina, the South.
I don’t see why the South trying to expel the North from its land would be viewed by southerners as anything other than defending their country. The South tried to get the North to leave without violence. Instead, the president of the North reinforced a fort within the South’s borders after tricking the South into thinking he wouldn’t via the use of… carefully chosen words.
When someone has forts within one’s territory and refuses to abandon them, choosing to instead send reinforcements to them, a lot of people will perceive that as an aggressive action. That the South fired the first shots, in order to try to expel the North from its territory before it gained too strong a hold to be forced out, wouldn’t likely make Southerns feel like they’re the aggressors.
So… yeah. I’m at a complete loss as to how you think Fort Sumter in any way supports what you’re saying. In fact, the situation at Fort Sumter seems to show the South was right in thinking the war started because it was trying to defend itself by expelling troops from another nation that were occupying its territory.
Before anyone writes a comment saying I’m just biased to defend the South or anything like that, I want to point out my previous comment doesn’t say the South was the “good guy” in this situation. All I am doing is pointing out the simple truth of how the Civil War started. Seven southern states seceded,, and they asked the northern states to withdraw its military from their land. This was part of the South’s attempt at having its secession be peaceful.
The Civil War happened because the North refused to reliquinsh its hold on the states which had seceded. When the North made it clear it wasn’t going to withdraw its military troops from the states which had seceded, but was instead going to reinforce those troops, the South reached the rational conclusion that the North would not allow a peaceful secession. Because of that, the South decided to try to forcefully expel the Northern troops. That is what formally triggered the Civil War.
But practically speaking, the Civil War began as soon as the North decided it was going to occupy territory in the states which had seceded on a permanent basis. It may not be a formally declared war, but when you occupy parts of another country with no intention of giving them back, you’ve pretty much put yourself at war with that country.
So… yeah. I’m not saying the South were the good guys. They just weren’t the guys who made the ultimate decision which led to the war. The Union had the choice of whether or not it would allow states to leave the union. It decided it would not. That’s what caused the Civil War.
None of that says who, if anybody, was the “good guy.” It just establishes the context of the situation with more detail than the common depiction of, “The South fired first.”
Kan and Carrick: Are you implying that the US having troops in Germany, Japan and Korea has lead to a more peaceful and trading world? If so you could have thrown in a higher life expectancy and a vaccine for polio and few other positive changes that you might want to attribute to US troops abroad without bothering with cause and effect.
Frederic Bastiat quote deals with that that is seen, i.e. what results from taxation versus that what is not seen, i.e. what could have been the result of that money taxed if it had stayed in the hands of those who were taxed. That observation is every bit as relevant today as it was when Bastiat stated it.
Not to forget that Soviet troops were stationed abroad until 20 years ago also.
Among other things :
Since intelligent life didn’t destroy itself, per the Fermi paradox, nuclear technology must not be a sufficiently advanced technology.
It’s not an implication, it’s a simple fact. US troops in Europe kept the Soviets on their side of the Iron Curtain. While the Soviet Union doesn’t exist any more, Russia is still a threat to peace because Putin is trying to establish a Russian Empire covering the same territory as the old Soviet Union. Your comment on the development of the polio vaccine and longer life expectancy is completely irrelevant to the subject.
Brandon,
That’s sophistry of the highest order. I doubt that you actually believe that the war was started by the North. The South never expected the North to withdraw peacefully. They expected to win the war that they started by seceding illegally and demanding the withdrawal of Northern troops.
As far as just peace is concerned, as I said earlier, it is hard not to start with the doctrine of mutually assured destruction . Or in other words, it was a peace, but of the most dangerous kind. American troops, or Soviet ones for that matter, could not have executed this peace if all they had were rifles and cannons.
The doctrine of MAD is a natural result of the evolution of technology. As humankind becomes more empowered it thus necessitates increased responsibility. My feeling is that when culture does not evolve in line with technology it spells problems. Terrorism is a symptom of stunted culture accessing advanced means. My libertarian philosophy stems from this thesis: Citizens sheltered from responsibility will have their culture stunted and will result in inevitable instances of abuse of tech. Substance abuse, computer hacking and gun violence are all symptoms of the same root.
DeWitt Payne:
You can suspect all you want, but unless you have some basis for your claims here, all you’ve got is hand-waving and personal bias.
Whether or not the South expected the North to withdraw peacefully, it did make a genuine attempt at seceding peacefully. It also did make a genuine attempt at negotiating regarding the situation at Fort Sumter, where it came to believe the North had agreed to not reinforce the fort while they tried to resolve things. This belief was caused by trickery by North, which intentionally used unclear wording to try to make the South believe it would not reinforce the fort while actually not saying it wouldn’t. While the South fell for this trick, the North ordered the fort be reinforced, showing the South their attempts at peaceful negotiation were worthless as the North would never abandon its claims on the South. That triggered the war.
All of what I’ve said here is easily verifiable, to the point you can find it all discussed on Wikipedia’s page about these events. It was also included in multiple textbooks I’ve used in history classes. It’s not secret or particularly unknown. If anyone had asked me for references, I would have been quick to provide them because people who actually know the history of the Civil War know what transpired just prior to it beginning, and they’ve discussed it a great deal. That makes it easy to find documentation of basic facts.
Whether or not the South believed any of its attempts at negiations could actually prevent the war, it engaged in a genuine effort to reach a peaceful settlement. The North chose to continue sending troops into the South (while trying to trick the South into not expecting it), making a peaceful resolution impossible. Given that, the North is the side which started the war. The South may have known the North would go to war when it seceded (though you’ve done nothing to show that’s the case), but even if it did, it was still the North’s decision to go to war rather than allow a peaceful secession.
Incidentally, when you say:
You sound rather biased to me. There was nothing at the time to indicate seceding was illegal. There is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting it, and the Tenth Amendment states any power not specifically granted to the federal government is reserved to the States or the people. A lot of people might naively assume that means the right to break up the union, which is neither directly forbidden nor reserved to the federal government, exists within the States and/or people.
In actuality the supposed illegality of secession is not based on any clear, indisputable statement. Debates over it generally wind up relying on semantic parsings between things like “revolting” and “seceding” or a “federal” government versus a “national” government. Ironically, the single strongest argument, on practical terms, for claiming secession is illegal is the “blood nose argument,” which basically holds that the Civil War proves secession is illegal because that’s how the country decided to act. One obviously couldn’t fault the South based on that argument as the argument basically says their act was illegal because it failed is.
Similarly, when the United States supported Texas’s right to secede from Mexico so that it could join the United States, people could reasonably have viewed that as saying a state has the right to secede. The idea Texas might legally be allowed to secede from one country yet not do the same from the country it then joined is one many people might not have understood. But of course, people could just argue Texas didn’t secede, it revolted. That justifies the apparent contradiction while bringings us back to semantic parsings.
My point is the South clearly felt they had the right to secede. There was no clearly legal guidance which said otherwise. Given that, unnecessarily referring to their secession as illegal when the issue of legality hadn’t been discussed seems to serve no purpose other than to bias discussions.
I wonder if a Constitutional amendment were ever considered, for example, allowing a state to secede on the second Tuesday of every fifth anniversary of their ratification? It seems reasonable enough. No leaving in a huff or flip-flopping back and forth in fair and foul weather.
Bias discussions? That’s funny coming from you.
It is quite necessary to call the secession illegal. Not doing so biases the discussion in the other direction. That was the, IMO correct, position of the North. Therefore the South had no right to call for removal of Northern troops. Doing so amounted to an act of war. They knew it. They thought, wrongly, that they could win the war they started.
The Vietnam War and Korean War, for that matter, we’re carried out during this period of peace. The USSR militarily spent itself into oblivion. We might think that is a good thing but it also shows what that type of spending can do to a nation. Even a lesser command economy like that of the US would have suffered consequences eventually that would have been difficult to ignore. The Soviets did not have to worry about voters and only had to keep the propaganda machine going to support it and avoid a revolt. The US used deficit spending to support the Cold War and thus it put the burden on future generations.
Ron Graf, interestingly, one of the arguments about the legality of secession comes from the Articles of Confederation, which the United States used prior to using the Constitution. People claiming secession is illegal would sometimes claim the Articles of Confederation referred to a “perpetual union” between the states. This actually creates a strange problem as the Constitution only required nine states ratify it, and at the time it were ratified, would only cover those states ratifying it.
In case the problem isn’t obvious, that means the United States, as we know it, could have been created by only nine of the thirteen states which formed the original coutnry under the Articles of Confederation despite it being said to be a “perpetual union.” That means nine states could have abandoned the old government while four refused to, effectively meaning those nine states would have seceded from the old government to create a new one.
Naturally, a number of people have seen this as justifying the idea states can secede from the United States as our country was founded on states doing exactly that. Other people argue that’s not true as the new government has different properties and those properties make it illegal to secede from it while it was legal to secede from the old one. And then some people argue the fact the original was supposed to be a “perpetual union” means the new one inherits that property, meaning our current nation must be a “perpetual union” between the states.
That’s one I’ve still not figured out. While I understand most of the arguments in the secession debate, whether I agree with them or not, that one baffles me. I don’t understand how the current nation could inheret a property (that it is a perpetual union between states) which wasn’t actually a property of the old one as states being able to secede from the old one was a fundmanental aspect of the Constitution as it was the only reason the new one could be created.
So… yeah. I think a formal process for secession would make more sense than the muddled mess that existed with the founding of the United States. Alternatively, I think if secession is going to be illegal, that needs to be clearly understood when states form a union. That people genuinely believed secession was, or at least might have been, legal at the time of the Civil War is something that could have been easily headed off just by making the nature of the country clear at the time the country was created.
(And actually, there are still many people who believe secession is legal. There’s never been any clear or convincing legal argument to show they’re wrong. It ultimately just comes down to the fact the United States won’t allow secession, and it will use whatever reasoning or force it needs to maintain that position.)
DeWitt Payne, I’m not sure why you’ve chosen to only respond to the portion of my comment that was least important – the part over your choice of words. I do think it’s interesting though, especially given you’re dropping the subject that I know what I say to be false, something you had previously suggested and is now completely untenable. Anyway:
Whether the South’s secession was legal or illegal has absolutely no bearing on people’s ability to accurately depict who and what started the war. The addition of the word “illegal” added no substance to your comment, and in fact, makes your sentence somewhat nonsensical. If a secession is illegal, it is, by most definitions, not a secession; it’s a rebellion/revolution.
That was the entire argument behind the North going to war. It refused to recognize the southern states’s new government, claiming the states had no authority to secede, and as such, hadn’t seceded. If the North had agreed the southern states had seceded, it would have had to agree they were then separate from the south.
So if you are going to argue specific semantic choices are necessary, you should at least get them right. If it was illegal to secede, then the South didn’t secede, and as such, it didn’t illegally secede like you claimed.
Or we could just ignore the topic of the legality or illegality of secession as it has no bearing on the points we were discussing. In that case, we can call it a secession because we’re not worried about semantics enough to care if it technically wasn’t one.
A secession clause was a constitutional oversight, perhaps an intentional one. But the 10th ammendent settles the question for any federal powers (or obligations of states to the union) not expressed.
.
However, if our founders who argued we could rely on this and thus did not need the bill of rights had one the argument America would be a very different place today. Things need to be expressed.
.
Therefore, I propose for the next constitutional congress to introduce an amendment allowing any state to secede given five years notice to the US Congress by the form of a 3/4 vote of the state’s legislature. And, to be executed by a popular vote majority of that state on the second Tuesday of November on the first non-federal election year following the five year notice.
.
There. Solved.
Brandon:
In case you didn’t know, SC had ceded Ft. Sumter to the US pursuant to the enclave clause in 1836.
Had I sold you property and then decided I wanted it back, would you consider my forcible denial of your access to said property an indicator of “a genuine effort to reach a peaceful settlement”?
I think not.
Not explicitly, but A1S10 does so implicitly by requiring consent of Congress for certain state actions and prohibiting others outright…
that certain powers are delegated to the federal government, which unilaterally seceding states must necessarily commandeer.
To be sure; but any such reserved power is only constitutionally cognizable if it is exercised within US jurisdiction, which is clearly not the case as regards secession.
As the DoI affirmed, any state has the moral right to secede when it finds itself subject to an unalterably unjust government; but it should be noted that neither the DoI nor the Declarations of Secession of four of the seceding states asserted the legal right to unilateral secession.
For that matter, twelve could have done so while one refused.
The phrase is meaningless. States can only secede from a nation, which is not a synonym for government. Bearing this in mind, along with the fact that the US never existed in a geopolitical vacuum, you would do well to question whether, had Rhode Island refused to ratify, it would have become the US, thus assuming all contractual obligations with other nations as the first nine states to ratify did in A6C1; and if you cannot answer in the affirmative, I daresay you need to rethink your position from the ground up.
yguy,
Beat me to it.
There’s also the point for those who think the attack on Fort Sumter was a preemptive defense. Lincoln didn’t start to mobilize the Northern armies until April 15, 1861, the day after Fort Sumter surrendered. You could also argue that the North was sending reinforcements not to prepare for an invasion, but in fear of attack, which turned out to be correct.
Assuming that the succession of the Southern states was constitution, it’s a plausible argument that the 1936 agreement would transfer to the new Confederate government. I believe that’s the interpretation that the South took. In that case, the Northern troops would represent an illegal occupation of Southern territory.
It’s a also completely ridiculous argument, which I hope nobody is actually making, that the reason the North invaded the South was in response to a provocation at Fort Sumter (though DeWitt seems to be insinuating it), rather than because they were trying to prevent the South from succeeding.
yguy:
This is obnoxious. If you wish to cite the selling of Fort Sumter to the United States government, you are obligated to note the South’s offer to buy Fort Sumter from the Union. The South fully recognized as part of seceding it would seize control of federal properties. Part of any negotion for the secession would have included payments for the properties seized.
You act like this is somehow proof the South entered negotiations in bad faith, but the reality is the issue of seizing property that belongs to another country in times of rebellion, secession or even outright war, has a long history of allowing for peaceful resolutions. The generally accepted approach for a government seizing property was to safely evacuate anyone located on the property (or allow them safe passage until such an evacuation happened) and to enter into negotiations with the previous owners of the property about providing some form of compensation for the property.
That’s exactly what the South did. It asked the North’s troops to leave unmolested, and when that wasn’t accepted, it instead offered to let them stay in the fort for the duration of the negotiations without any harm coming to them. It also contacted the North, offering terms for the purchase of the fort. Their offer was greatly undervalued, but that’s something which could have been settled at the negotiations table.
While one may dislike the idea of a government seizing property by force, it is a necessity that governments have resorted to time and time again. Not only had this exact process played out many times throughout history, similar practices in the form of eminent domain were well-recognized as legitimate government acts. Sometimes a government has a legitimate reason to seize property the owner may not wish to forfeit. So long as it does so in a reasonable manner and is willing to pay fair compensation, it’s okay.
So… yeah, no. You’re wrong about what I’d say in the hypothetical example you gave because you left out key details, creating a hugely misleading portrayal. If you want to try discussing things again, without resorting to trivial misrepresentations, you’re welcome to. Otherwise I’m going to have to just assume you’re either too biased or too uninformed to have anything resembling a real discussion here.
Carrick:
The reality is the North wanted the South to attack Fort Sumter so it could say the “South fired the first shots!” The South didn’t want to attack for the same reason. Both sides knew whoever “attacked” first would be painted as the bad guy. The South just decided it couldn’t allow the North to reinforce its holdings in the south, even if preventing that meant losing a huge PR battle.
Any fair reading of the facts shows the South was willing to secede peacefully. The North was not willing to allow that to happen. It was the North that decided there would have to be a war. If the North had been willing to negotiate a peaceful resolution, the Civil War would have never happened.
Brandon, I don’t mean this to be entirely silly, but what you’re saying above is a lot like saying that if the escapee from the penitentiary had simply been allowed to run, he would never have been caught.
Does anyone really think it might have been better if the North had let the South go. And had the South succeeded in seceding, would that country be better off today? Hard to be sure, but I tend to doubt it.
My family was northern, but none went to war as far as i can discover, the likely candidates all hired replacements, which I suppose should have been shameful.
Although there were two Ferguson boys who were there for the 60 census but not the 70 and are not buried with the others in the Portage Wisconsin plot.
Brandon
If the South had been willing to not secede the Civil War wouldn’t have happened. If they’d been willing to allow the federal government to put troops anywhere in the nation the feds wanted to the war wouldn’t have happened. If they had not seceded in the first place, it wouldn’t have happened.
But they weren’t willing to not secede.
Nonesense. The South equally decided there would be a war. They had just as much ability to decide to change their mind about secession as the North to change its mind about not letting them. Suggesting the fact the two disagreed on this issue means the North started the war is nonesense. Both sides took an equally non-negogiable stance on this.
The war started when the South fired on Fort Sumter. It doesn’t matter if they didn’t “want” to fire (but somehow magically fired anyway). It doesn’t matter if the North “wanted” them to fire nor whether both sides were considering “PR” (with…. someone?) It doesn’t matter whether from the South’s point of view the only way they could get what they wanted (secession) was to fire and start the war.
The South wanted to secede more than they didn’t want to fire and they wanted to secede more than they cared about the PR. They wanted to secede more than they wanted to continue to try to persuade the North to negotiate to permit secession.
The South fired thus precluding other options.
One can try to concoct all sorts of fuzzy lines for where wars ‘start’ placing it at any and any arbitrary disgruntlement for either side. But firing on Fort Sumter was a big huge bright line– the South did it. That was the start of the war. Other bits are starts of “disgruntlement”. That’s not war.
Brandon:
Indeed. The capture of Fort Sumpter should not have been enough of a provocation on its own to start a full scale invasion.
Students of history are aware of the considerable complexities surrounding the decision to continue the occupation of Fort Sumpter by the North. It wasn’t strictly a states versus federal rights as many other federally occupied forts were abandoned by the Union prior to the Battle of Fort Sumpter.
It appears that Lincoln hoped that, by provoking the South into engaging in the first hostilities, that the propaganda value of this could be exploited to get the “on the fence” states to side with the Union.
The most notable and of greatest strategic importance of these was Virginia. It’s important to realize that prior Lincoln’s call to arms, that Virginia joining the Southern cause was not a done deal. It’s plausible that had Lincoln taken no immediate provocative actions and let the Virginian Unionists continue their negotiations, that the succession of Virginia to the Confederacy could have been avoided.
In any case, Lincoln acted with undue haste and only two days after his call up of volunteers, Virginia joined the Southern cause. Within a few months, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee followed suite, and the strategic position of the North was much worse than it was prior to the Battle of the Fort Sumpter.
The loss of Virginia to the Southern cause would have left the Confederacy in an untenable position. The South’s best generals, Lee, Jackson and Stuart, all were Virginians. It’s hard to envision an effective Southern struggle against a Northern invasion without the presence of these key generals. Had Lincoln retained all four “on the fence states”, it’s even hard to imagine how the remaining Southern states could have effectively resisted a Northern invasion (which possibly means that a physical invasion would not have been necessary to restore the Union).
Brandon, I agree with your above comment in that the USA under Lincoln was not going to let the southern states secede regardless to Ft. Sumter. But we can see now that the south was not acting in their best interest, short or long-term. Perhaps if there had been a tough secession clause in the Constitution the south would have gone through the process but averted the final execution, just like Scotland recently.
.
Slavery would have ended within a decade or two regardless of the war because of the industrial revolution (lower need) and world pressure (higher costs). If the USA broken in two would have been a disaster from that point to the present. Lincoln was forced to make the toughest executive decision ever, but it was the correct one. I hope you agree.
Lucia:
I don’t think it’s nonsense at all. The North choose to keep troops in that Fort, but to withdraw them from surrounding forts. This appears to be a calculated act of provocation on their part.
As I pointed out historically “the South” prior to Fort Sumpter was in a very different strategic position than they found themselves a few months later. Remember that Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas and North Carolina had not succeeded yet, nor was it a shoe-in that they would.
The biggest event that decided the eventual course of war was not, as high school text books teach it, the fall of Fort Sumpter, but rather the call up of the 75,000 volunteers, an act that was made not in concert by Lincoln with other Unionist politicians, but rather in opposition to their advise.
So the argument that Lincoln was following the natural course of history here is also not a plausible one.
The problem with your argument here is course of history of the lead up to the invasion of the South by the North was much more nonlinear and much less straightforward than you are suggesting here.
The outcome was very definitely fuzzy in places, especially in the four border states, where active negotiations were in place prior to full blown hostilities to keep those states in the Union.
In any case, had Lincoln (or Buchanan before him) not wanted to provoke an attack, he could easily have pulled the troops from that one remaining fort, instead of leaving them as cannon fodder for the South.
Ron Graf:
I think that is not at all clear.
Remember: Without Virginia, the Confederacy was in a considerably weaker position.
The decision to attack Fort Sumpter was ordered by Andrew Jackson. It’s very plausible that Jackson gave the order to attack with the expectation that it would provoke a non-proportional response from Abraham Lincoln. And that this would precipitate the succession of Virginia from the North.
Carrick
So? Keeping troops in one fort while withdrawing them from others is not “starting a war”. The South could have accepted the North’s action and chosen to keep open the possibility of not seceding. They could have discussed whether they were going to secede or not. Then there would be no war at least until such time as one side or the other actually decided to fire on the other.
Sure. But firing on Fort Sumpter was still an act of war.
Sure. But leaving troops in the fort was not an act of war. Firing on them was.
There are all sorts of things that caused the South to decide to fire. Many of those things were intentional position and acts by the North. And many of the North’s intentional acts and positions were in response to intentional acts and positions of the South.
The factors that aren’t acts of war that influence one of the sides to actually initiate the war aren’t themselves the start of the war. The war started when the South fired on Fort Sumpter.
lucia:
Um, I think you’re missing the point here:
It’s not at all obvious that the secession of the Southern states was unconstitutional. The 10th Amendment seems to indicate that they were within their rights to do so. Assuming they had a constitutional right of secession (they obviously thought they did, because each state that seceded from the Union did so via an orderly, otherwise legal process), one needs to analyze the legality of the capture of Fort Sumpter from that presumptive framework.
South Carolina did not recognize the legitimacy of the Northern claim on Fort Sumpter: They in fact argued the rights of occupation had transferred to the Confederate government, and so notified the Union government of such.
From their perspective, the continued illegal occupation of Fort Sumpter was a hostile act. Remember that attack on Fort Sumpter was precipitated by the attempted resupply ordered by Abraham Lincoln. You don’t have to actually shoot at somebody before an act of hostility occurs.
Well, obviously.
But I think it’s fair to say that the Confederacy (as it existed before April 14, 1861) was no more interested in remaining in the Union than the Union was in allowing them to secede.
That does not address the point that there there need not have been a full scale war after the attack on Fort Sumpter either.
The capture of Fort Sumpter was a limited engagement. It did not represent an existential threat to undisputed Union territory that warranted an immediate full scale invasion of Southern territory.
That is, there was still plenty of time to negotiate with the remaining border states right up to the decision to call up the Union troops by Lincoln. Nor as I’ve pointed out, would Lincoln have suffered any significant political setbacks by waiting until the negotiations with Virginia had played out.
As I’ve pointed out above, four border states had not declared for the South. Chief of these was Virginia, which already had had one failed vote for secession. For these states, I think it is fair to say they viewed secession from the Union as the right of a state. So their view on the legality of the occupation of Fort Sumpter is very different than that viewed by many Northerners.
To them, it is clear that the Union response was not seen as proportional, and it is this act which led to the collapse of negotiations between the Union and the border states that could have prevented a much broader scale conflict.
Many countries exchange hostile fire without a full scale war being initiated.
So, more accurately, the war started in this case because both sides decided it started. I think the point of no return was the call up of the 75,000 troops not the capture of Fort Sumpter.
The North need not have engaged in full scale hostilities over the loss of one disputed piece of territory.
Carrick,
The Tenth Amendment does not confer or affirm any rights. It only precludes the argument that failure to mention a right in the Constitution does not, prima facia, preclude its existence.
Oh, puhleez. That makes about as much sense as saying that the US did not need to engage in full scale hostilities with Japan after Pearl Harbor. After all, they didn’t even try to invade Hawaii
DeWitt — That’s the Ninth Amendment you’re referring to. The Tenth Amendment is the one that says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” (It hasn’t got much use in recent times, mainly because the Supreme Court has so massively reinterpreted the legislative power to “regulate commerce between the states.”)
Article VI strongly suggests to me that unilateral secession was never lawful under the Constitution — if a state can’t nullify one federal law by an act of its legislature (which, under Article VI, it can’t), then it can’t nullify all of them at once by seceding.
btw, it was Jefferson Davis, not Andrew Jackson, who ordered the guns to fire. In fact, Jackson, though a Southerner, was famously anti-Nullification and anti-Secession several decades before the war:
“The Constitution of the United States, then, forms a government, not a league, and whether it be formed by compact between the States, or in any other manner, its character is the same. It is a government in which ale the people are represented, which operates directly on the people individually, not upon the States; they retained all the power they did not grant. But each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union. To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation…”
DeWitt:
Which is effectively the same thing as saying the North’s claim of the illegality of secession had ambiguous legal standing.
Oh, puhleez yourself.
The capture of a fort in a disputed territory is in no way similar to the attack on Pearl Harbor, so this is a terrible analogy.
The attack on Pearl Harbor was intended to destroy US naval capabilities is the Pacific and resulted in over 1100 American deaths. This is a very different thing with very different consequences.
It involved an attack on a military base in which the only fatalities occurred after the surrender of the fort. And this being a fort which you may not even have legal right to occupy, and whose only strategic value would be in the imposition of a blockade on Charleston Harbor (which itself would be an act of war, even if no shots were fired).
Joseph W:
Yes thanks for the correction. I was going from memory and I should have double checked here.
Carrick
The question is what event constitutes the start of the war. With respect to that question, my response to the point you are making is “Sure, but irrelevant to the question under consideration.”
It was also not obvious secession was constitutional. There was a disagreement on that point. The South could have conceded that their act might be illegal and been willing to negotiate the issue over time. Or find some way to submit the issue to the Supreme Court. They simply decreed their position was right. They considered their view on this non-negotiable. In the end, they decided to shoot before the Union decided to shoot.
I don’t see how it “seems” to do so. I know they viewed it so. Others didn’t. I don’t seen how it or anything else suggests secession is a “right” of any sort. If it’s not a right at all, that’s not a right left to a state.
But even if the 10th amendment did permit a state to secede, I don’t know how the 10th amendment would give a state the right to convert federal property to state ownership. Fort Sumter itself was a federal fort, and as such did not belong to So Carolina before secession. I don’t see how the 10th amendment changes that.
So what? We know that prior to the southern state’s declaration of secession it was a federal fort. So. Carolina was claiming property that had been considered to belong to the feds prior to the declaration of secession: Not only were they claiming to be able to seceded, but claiming ownership of property that previously did not belong to S. Carolina.
Washington had a different view. Even if So Carolina has a right to secede Fort Sumter had been federal property. Maintaining ownership of ones own property is not an act of war.
The South decided to enforce their position about both secession and the claim to the fort by opening fire. That was a warlike act and started the actual war. (The Fort surrendered and they took the Fort.)
The US need not have gone to war against Japan after they bombed Pearl Harbor either. But the fact is: opening fire is a bright line.
I never said it did. My position is the south engaged in an honest to goodness act of war to enforce their position vis a vis Fort Sumter and secession. That started the actual war.
Yes. But the fact that some states had not seceded or joined the rest of the south doesn’t make firing on Fort Sumter not an act of war. Those states who at that point constituted the Southern Confederacy started the war.
Once it started, it turned out additional states joined on the side of the Southern Confederacy. All that means is the war started before those states — including the very important Virginia–joined the rest of the south.
Sure. The South thought the Union’s response was not proportional. Perhaps if the North had decided to let the Southern Confederacy fire on them to enforce their decree to seceded, a truce could have been decreed. The firing on Ft. Sumter would the constitute a very, very brief war which the Southern Confederacy would have one. Less blood would have been shed and some southern states would have exited from the Unions.
But the fact that the conflict need not have expanded if the North simply conceded to the South when the South fired on Ft Sumter doesn’t mean that did happen did not start the moment the South fired on Fort Sumter. The fact that the side that started shooting thinks those being shot at should have calmed down and done less in response — and in fact, should have allowed them to secede, doesn’t mean the ones who started shooting didn’t start the war.
Sure. But if combatants attack a fort and war happens immediately afterwards with all negotiations collapsing, that attack is the start of the war and the ones who started the war that ensues were those who started firing on the fort.
And the Confererate artillery need not have been formed. And that Confederate artillery need not have fired on federal soldiers in that piece of territory.
Look: there are all sorts of things that need not have happened. Different decisions could have been made. Of course the South’s point of view is that they were in the right. But that doesn’t mean firing on federal soldiers stationed in a federal fort wasn’t the start of the war that actually ensued.
lucia:
I’m sorry lucia, but what you say is complete and utter nonsense. There is no question the South’s actions helped lead to the war, but that does nothing to address what I said. That two groups hold non-negotiable position which will lead to conflict does not mean both groups are equally responsible. That the South could have chosen not to secede in no way changes the fact it was the North who ultimately decided there would be a war.
The South chose to act in a peaceful manner. That it could have foreseen the North would respond in a non-peaceful manner no more makes them responsible than peaceful protesters are responsible for violence if the people they’re protesting against get mad and attack them. The foreseeableness of an event is not the sole arbiter of responsibility like you’re portraying.
Say what? The state had already seceded. How it could it have kept open the possibility of not seceding after it had already seceded?
As for firing the first shot, there is nothing which says the first act of a war must be firing a weapon. When the Mexican-American War started, it started because President Polk intentionally sent military troops into an area whose ownership was under dispute. This was done with the full knowledge it would likely provoke the Mexican government into declaring war as Mexicans would perceive this as an invasion of their territory. That Mexico “fired the first shot,” so to speak, doesn’t change the fact it was an act of aggression on the United States’ part which caused the war.
Provoking a person into attacking you with an act of aggression makes you the aggressor. That’s true even if your act of aggression isn’t firing a bullet, but is instead, sending military troops into an area.
Ron Graf:
I suspect if Abraham Lincoln had been willing to negotiate with the South the four states which hadn’t seceded prior to the events at Fort Sumter would have not seceded. The resulting Confederacy would have been too weak to pose any threat to the Union, and it would ultimately have been unable to survive on its own. I suspect this would have eventually led to the South rejoining the Union without any need for a war.
But there’s obviously no way to know what would have happened. What I do know is I do not believe Abraham Lincoln made the right decision in refusing to engage in any sort of negotiations with the South. While his reasoning may have made sense, in that he feared any negotiations would be perceived as legitimizing the secession of those states, I believe they were ultimately what caused a war that could have been avoided. Even if the war couldn’t have been avoided, I suspect the scale of the war could have been minimized, thus greatly reducing the number of casualties.
I don’t think there was any benefit to President Buchanan antagonizing the South by intentionally misrepresenting his plans for Fort Sumter so he could reinforce the fort without them expecting it. Similarly, I don’t think there was any benefit to President Lincoln deciding to order the military to hold that single fort when it had already been the source or great anatagonism, much less trying to resupply it when he knew the South would see that as continued aggression in the pattern begun by President Buchanan. I especially don’t see the benefit in that order when he knew the fort could not be held against the South’s forces.
While the Civil War may have been some necessary evil, I believe the way it came about was due to cynical and malicious intentions and actions. Given that the war started, I am certainly glad the North won rather than the South, but I think had better people been leading the nation at the time, the war could have been avoided and a better path could have been found.
Lucia:
If your only point is that the capture of Fort Sumter marked the start of the Civil War, that’s an obvious point of agreement. It’s a historical fact the war started then.
What I was discussing was something different, which is war wasn’t inevitable after the fall of Fort Sumter but before the call-up of troops by Lincoln the very next day and with little deliberation (being an act that he was advised against taking).
But if you don’t recognize the strategic implications of the loss of Virginia by the North due to the call up of the 75,000 troops, I don’t suppose that there’s much left here to discuss.
As with my conversation with DeWitt, this is a very bad analogy.
The attack on Pearl Harbor represented an existential threat to the United States. That attack itself started the war. Failure to respond would have had devastating strategic consequences to our nation.
The attack on Fort Sumter did not represent an existential threat to the Union. A full fledged war started after that because Lincoln used it as a pretext to call up the 75,000 volunteers. It was not forced on the Union. The only thing that was lost was the ability to blockage Charleston Harbor and that was of strategic value only if hostilities were engaged.
There was still time to continue negotiations. Given the failure of the first vote of secession by Virginia, it’s very possible that not pulling the trigger at that point might have lead to at least a promise of neutrality from Virginia if not more.
From the perspective of the North it was a federal fort. I agree that within the framework of the North, that it was right for them to consider the capture of the fort a hostile attack. But it was the capture of a fort whose only strategic value was a war against the South.
When you consider how history plays out (if you are to learn anything from it), it’s necessary to understand how people’s perceptions affect their response to what seem like justified actions by others.
This whole discussion ballooned out of a sentence I made in response to claims that (apparently) the only reason that Arabs have for not liking foreign speaking troops with large tanks driving down their streets is because they aren’t fellow Muslims.
“Because you are there” is plenty enough of a justification for most people.
Again, we’re in agreement here (it is a historical fact that the initiation of hostilities was the attack on Fort Sumter), so there’s no point in you continuing to repeat this.
Obviously that was the start of the war…as events played out.
One role of the historical perspective is to allow us to learn from history so not to continually repeat the same errors.
Saying that the attack on Fort Sumter was the start of the war tells us nothing of why it happened that way. Insisting it was the only course of action tells us nothing, unless you can argue that Lincoln calling up the troops, with Virginia in the balance, was the wisest course of action at that point.
I think in retrospect, whatever his reasoning, the outcome of Lincoln’s decision was disastrous. I happen to think this sort of thinking is informative in helping us prevent repeating similar mistakes now and in the future (e.g., ones that our country are repeating in the Middle East).
Hmmm…
I went to a climate blog last night, and a Civil War broke out!
I haven’t seen the re-fighting of the War of Northern Aggression since I lived near Kennesaw Mountain.
I agree, the north was the aggressor. Just like the colonies were the aggressor in the revolutionary war. So what.
The south was only internally aggressive against their human property, so for some of you, that gives them a pass.
Brandon
I made no such claim. I said the South started the war. They were more responsible.
What you claim is a “fact” is incorrect. The South almost immediately began demanding and taking Northern Forts. They decided to fight to claim them. They fired on Forth Sumter. That was their decision there would be war and they carried it out.
The South fired on Fort Sumter. That was the outbreak of hostilities. That doesn’t strike me as acting in a peaceful manner.
Simple: Write a declaration and unsecede. I don’t see any reason they couldn’t do so. Your writing a rhetorical question isn’t the same as providing one.
They could have conceded the north was right about secession. The North isn’t required to deem their secession lawful just because they didn’t.
Well, if you see it this way: The south provoked the North into attacking them when the South fired on military troop in a federal fort. It’s rather amazing they North stood the south converting forts to Confederate property. But Buchannan not doing anything doesn’t make not a provocation.
Interesting discussion here on the Civil War. As libertarian I take a major interest in the economic consideration of a federal government at that time that was becoming more interventionist under Lincoln. Proctective tariffs, for example, that favored business interest in the North were at the disadvantage of the South. I cannot take a favorable view of any of these government actions be they the major anathema of slavery and even with historic perspective, the Reconstruction Period, the Jim Crow laws and the hypocritical views of Blacks in the North that went all the way to the political statements from Lincoln. Seccession was unfortunately answered with the killing and maiming of hundreds of thousands and the governments failed miserably in resolving it.
Howard:
Wut?
Can you name a single person here who gives the South a pass on slavery?
War is diplomacy by other means….
There were big differences of opinion, and it is difficult for me to imagine war could have been avoided. Maybe if Lincoln had much more political experience before becoming President? Maybe if the South had not directly attacked Ft Sumter? Sure, there are lots of hypothetical outcomes. But the truth is that there was a fundamental disagreement (on slavery) which was not going to be easily finessed without bloodshed. Hindsight allows us to speculate, but my guess is that around 1860, there was little inclination toward compromise on slavery by either side.
.
Sort of reminds one of global warming in 2015…. not much inclination toward compromise either. Fortunately, there is little chance of civil war breaking out over GHG driven warming…. well, no time soon at least.
Carrick
Yes. That’s my point. That’s what I meant by
Their action: firing on Ft. Sumter started the war itself. They started it. By that act.
Note: I originally responded to Brandon. I didn’t correct the points you made.
Howard, I don’t know why you ask, “So what?” Carrick responded to a remark about how many people in the Middle East perceive westerners negatively because they view them as foreigners invading their land (more or less). He provided a quote on the subject, to which DeWitt Payne replied:
I commented say this response confused me as Fort Sumter was in the South, so I didn’t understand what point he was making in mentioning it after his remarks about battles being fought in the North. I then further discussed why I thought southerners would viewe the events at Fort Sumter as being in defense of their territory – pointing out the original act of aggression at Fort Sumter (using deception in order to send more military troops to it) was committed by the North.
There was nothing further to it. I didn’t call the North the bad guys. I didn’t say the Civil War was immoral, or that the North had no right to begin it. I certainly didn’t, as you claim:
In fact, I wrote an entire, somewhat lengthy, comment to preempt comments like yours, one which you somehow managed to ignore:
I think the North’s tactics in using bad faith negotiations to try to disguise an act of aggression prior to a formally declared war was distasteful, and I don’t support that, but that’s not a comment on the war as a whole. It’s certainly not a defense of slavery. If I were going to try to defend slavery, I’d talk about the hypocrisy of the North as it was content to allow slavery to continue if doing so would have been convenient in putting down the South’s rebellion. Which kind of shows the lie of saying the Civil War was “fought over slavery.” In reality, slavery was just one of many issues in a complex situation, one which neither side had a claim to morality with which to base their actions.
lucia, I apologize about saying you thought both sides were equally responsible for starting the war when you meant the South was more responsible. However, you say:
While conveniently leaving out the fact, and yes, it’s a fact, the North sent reinforcements to Fort Sumter after seven southern states declared their secession. Sending military troops into a sovereign state without their permission is a common act of war. A sovereign state cannot allow troops to be sent to occupy territory within its borders if it wants to maintain control of its land.
Of course, one could argue the South wasn’t a sovereign state, but it perceived itself to be one. As such, when it informed the North it was seizing property which had belonged to the North and would be willing to give compensation for it, it believed itself to be establishing the borders of a sovereign state. When the North sent troops across those borders to occupy territory within them, that was an act of war.
Aside from taking sentences out of context to offer responses that completely misrepresent what was being said in the comment, do you have any response to what I said? Serious question. The paragraph you took the sentence you chose to respond to, in context, had a clear timeline to it which made it should have made it obvious I was referring to the events leading up to the South firing on Fort Sumter.
Removing the context which indicated I was referring to the events leading up to the firing upon Fort Sumter and responding by portraying my comment as wrong becaue of the firing on Fort Sumter does nothing but create a cheap strawman anyone who reads my comment will see through.
And if by some chance that wasn’t done on purpose, then please try reading what my comments say before responding to them in the future. The sentences I wrote were not complex or difficult to understand. Coming up with a nonsensical interpretation (i.e. that I believe firing upon a fort is behaving peacefully) rather than taking the obvious alternative that stresses the point I’d been making all along (i.e. the first act of aggression was the North reinforcing Fort Sumter) is just bizarre.
That wasn’t a rhetorical question. I was seriously confused and had no idea what in the world you were saying. Your current response does nothing to help because it makes absolutely no sense in context. Even if one could un-secede, as you suggest here, that in no way means they could have “chosen to keep open the possibility of not seceding” like you suggested. Undoing an action, such as a secession, is not the same as choosing not to do it in the first place.
Even more clearly, the South could not possibly “have discussed whether they were going to secede or not.” They had already seceded. That they could perhaps discuss the possibility of un-seceding doesn’t mean they could discuss whether or not they were going to secede – something they had already done.
If you meant what you suggest now, then you misworded your previous comment quite severely. Which is fine. Mistakes happen. But the correct response to having them pointed out is to acknowledge and correct the mistakes, not respond by pretending you said something other than what you did say.
Once the South seceded, it could not keep open the possibility of not seceding. It could not, at least coherently, discuss whether or not it was going to secede. The appropriate response to someone claiming otherwise is to say, “Say what?”
Carrick,
The secession from the Union and formation of the CSA did constitute an existential threat to the United States. Allow secession and other states would do the same any time they felt it was in their interest. IIRC, every state in the Union has, at one time or another, filed a petition to secede.
One can argue that the Japanese were probably not interested in nor capable of conquering the US on their own, so the existence of the US may not have been at stake. The war in the Pacific was primarily a holding action in the early years while the US concentrated its efforts in Europe. The Japanese would only be part of an existential threat if Hitler won in Europe. War was declared on Germany at the same time as Japan.
Some people blogging here don’t have a problem with indiscriminate bombing in the middle east, so I don’t know where such people draw the line on depravity. The leading republican candidates want to carpet bomb the shit out of them and turn the sandbox to glass.
Does that answer you question Carrick?
Brandon: The whole middle east/US civil war comparison and contrast is a big “so what”. In the US Civil war, both sides were spoiling for a fight, they got it. In the middle east, the west has been exploiting this region for the last century, 911 happens and some folks who don’t care where their easy lifestyle comes from or realizes how many slaughtered and tortured Muslims are required to sustain it are wondering why “they hate us”.
Why bother, when there is no argument to that effect that I can’t make mincemeat out of?
You don’t say. 🙂
Alas, I’m no more cognizant of such an obligation than I am of any obligation on the part of the US to give such an offer a picosecond’s consideration.
If “this” refers to the seizing of Ft. Sumter by the Confederacy, of course it is.
I’m sure it does, when the owner is willing to part with the property, or has a legal claim to it that is not ironclad; but of course no such case is under discussion.
This has nothing to do with anything I said.
I suppose I could be accused of overestimating your intelligence, but any appearance to that effect is merely a byproduct of my employment of your preposterous position as a foil for the truth of the matter.
I think that had the Confederacy and slavery both survived through the 1930’s, there’d have been Soviet air bases all over the Confederacy by the 60’s.
No, evidence to that effect would consist of a legal argument based on Constitutional provisions.
Really? I’ve never come across any argument to that effect presented circa 1860.
Brandon
I’m not “leaving it out”. It’s irrelevant to observing that when push came to shove, the South initiated the war. They did so by firing on troops.
I think anyone who knows anything about the war knows whether the confederacy was a sovereign state was a huge matter of dispute. From the North’s point of view, the federal troops were in their own territory. Sending your own troops to your own fort in your own territory is not an act of war. The South perfectly well knew this was the view of the North.
It’s all well and good for you to explain how the South viewed the North’s acts– which is they dang well didn’t like them. But suggesting that somehow the North is the aggressor and the South is not because the North didn’t share the South’s view is a bit odd.
The South was forcibly ejecting the North from territory the Federal government considered federal. The North wanted to retain territory they considered theirs.
WRT to why the North might consider keeping a particular fort important: The south had already taken other forts. See ((https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_Conference_of_1861).
As for states wanting peace: The states of the deep south did not attend the Peace Conference of 1861 choosing to secede instead. They were demanding the North leave Sumter, which the North refused to do. So: the South had been ‘granted’ (if you can call it that) quite a bit without the North firing shots and so on.
If all you mean is the South was willing to avoid war provided it was granted everything it wanted: secession, federal forts (with offers to enter negotiations to possibly pay some unknown about (which may have turned out to be bubkiss) and only offering after seizing them…well… I don’t doubt that. I’m pretty sure the North would have been willing to avoid war if the South had given up secession, been willing to hand back the forts and so on. Not seeing how this is Northern aggression but not Southern aggression.
You’ve said a lot of things. What thing that you said are you looking for a specific response to>? (Serious question.)
Seizing the property that belonged to the north is an aggression on the part South even if the South is willing to pay for it. Hypothetically, if Japan trundled in and seized some county of Korea, decreed it theres and then offerred to pay for it (but not– mind you– return it), you can bet Korea would consider that an aggression!
The South seized territory the North considered federal before Sumter. They didn’t negotiate the seizure before later expressing willingness to pay for it.
Oh. Heavens. Who said they could undo an act? Not me!
FWIW: You write of yourself
Me too. In the events leading to the firing upon the fort, with respect to secession itself:
(a) Earlier in this situation, the states of the deep south could have chose to defer seceding and attend the peace conference of 1861 (Feb) rather than seceding rather than attending.
(b) Politicians are perfectly able to decree inconsistent systems exist simultaneously. The states of the deep south could have decreed that what their ‘secession’ really meant was that they “resolved to seceded”. They could have continued sending people to Congress and had parallel governments in place — submitting things to Congress and working to push things up to a SCOTUS decision. This would mean continuuing to discuss whether they really were or had seceding (not withstanding anything they’d said before.)
(c) And yes, they could have decreed their own convention non-binding and deemed the previous ‘secesion’ not binding. This would be “unseceded”. It is not “undoing” the act. It is decreeing the act null and void. (Sort of like an annulment of a Roman Catholic marriage. It is a decree the marriage never took place. No one claims the ceremony didn’t take place or that anyone “undid” and “action”.
You may think none of these things “make sense”– but they are the sorts of things politicians can, do, and have done. With respect to other acts: There were many things the South could have done. They didn’t want to do them. (Likewise for the North.)
Not if the context is– as you claim it was “the events leading up to the firing”. Events leading up to that firing include the secession itself.
A monckton.
A monckton.
Similar to a nutmeg
“Kicking the ball through an opponents legs in order to get past them is a dribbling skill commonly used among football players, with some of the most notable exponents in the modern game including Ronaldo, Ronaldinho, Lionel Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo, Dele Alli, Neymar, Rob Brydon, and Luis Suárez.”
While the reference to Suarez is unfortunate [He could bite as well]
The skill of dissecting opponents a la Lucia could be given the name of a Monckton in honor of one of your previous opponents
[I was on the sidelines on his side being a skeptic].
Mind you the Monty Python Black Knight opponents are difficult as they are often are not aware when you have won [guilty].
lucia, I’m done. I’m tired of dealing with you constantly misrepresenting things in disagreements as you’ve done the last umpteen times we’ve had them. When you go so far as to say:
I did not claim that was the context for your statement. The context for your statement was given clearly by what you were responding to when you made it. That exchange was:
Carrick clearly referred to actions that happened after the states seceded. You responded to that. That means the context of your remarks was what Carrick had said. When I disagreed with those remarks, I was clearly disagreeing with them in the context you had made them in – which was regarding events that took place after the secession.
This is not difficult. You made your remarks within a specific context. There is no reason for you to be unaware of that context. To suddenly claim I am saying the context for one set of remarks is the context being used in another fork when I’ve said nothing of the sort is ridiculous. And of course, it lets you create yet another ridiculous strawman you can shoot at.
Half of your latest comment either misrepresents what you’re responding to or simply ignores things I say that already address what you’re saying now. Your example of Japan invading Korea and seizing property is a perfect example, as not only is the falsity of that analogy glaring, I already discussed the exact issue at play upthread without any response.
But hey, it’s good to know you say seizing property within one’s borders with a minimal amount of force is an act of aggression but sending military troops into another’s territory is not, meaning it is irrelevant. I’m not sure how that works out, but I think that’s a clear breaking point between the two of us.
The more important breaking point is just that I think people should actually try to represent what each other say fairly. It really seems you don’t. Maybe I’m wrong though. Maybe you just really suck at reading simple sentences.
Howard:
I largely agree. I don’t think the issue of who was the aggressor in the Civil War is particularly important. I just think it’s worth acknowledging the South was willing to have a peaceful resolution. Their only demands were they be allowed to exist as a sovereign state with peaceful relations toward their neighbors and no foreign entities maintaining a formal presence within their borders. The South held this position while exerting the minimal amount of force necessary to achieve it. The North responded with an over act of aggression by sending military reinforcements into the South.
Some people seem to believe seizing federal property in the South was an act of aggression, but that is a legitimate means by which a government can gain control of property/territory important to it. So long as it is done in a (reasonably) peaceful manner and the government is willing to compensate anyone whose property was taken, there is no overt act of aggression to those whose property was taken. This has been seen and held true in dozens of rebellions/revolutions/wars where winners chose not to uphold property obligations of previous governments, offering compensation instead to those who’s property was taken while not being part of the conflicts. (Of course, the refusal to provide such compensation has been the source of a number of wars.)
yguy:
I can’t help it if you can’t recognize the importance of honesty and fairness when presenting the facts of a situation. If you want to only presents facts supporting one view, that’s your decision. It’s my decision to call you disingenous and a waste of time.
Quite simply, the Union did own certain property within the South. The South, as part of its attempt to become a new nation, seized that property while indicating it was willing to provide compensation. Such actions have been common with changes of rulerships, and they have been successfully resolved without violence on many occasions.
A government’s use of force to seize property it does not own but has a strong interest in has a long historical precedent. There is nothing inherently violent or hostile to it. You can try to sweep that under the rug if you want.
On the question of whether Lincoln was trying to provoke the attack on Fort Sumter (as Carrick suggests above), it may be useful to reread his First Inaugural. (Which is worth rereading for its own sake anyway; its comments on secession are a good complement to Andrew Jackson’s that I quoted above.)
So, for pretty sound legal reasons (which he listed before that) he didn’t think secession was lawful; but he plainly announced his view on backing up those reasons with force and on holding places like Sumter: “Don’t attack us and we won’t attack you.” Someone who was hoping to provoke a war would not lay out his terms so specifically. He would instead act as if he were going to invade, frighten the other side into striking preemptively, and then act surprised and horrified when they did so.
Brandon
I don’t believe I have done this. Certainly, in this case, I have no idea why you believe what I wrote when responding to you was not in the context you tell us the discussion was nestled in.
It was the context of the conversation which had already been established. My comment remained in that context but you want to somehow interpret it as not being in that context.
As you have decreed an end, that can be all for now. On to my coffee.
Oh. Lord. I guess this “being willing” while “seizing” in the context of made months after seizures. Those seizures of federal property (gold, forts, federal offices and so on ) commenced pretty much immediately after declarations of secession. “Offers” to “pay” were are described as happening months later when delegates went to Washington to request having their secession recognized by the Feds. Possibly, these rather late day offers of payment were intended to persuade the Feds to get a tiny something in exchange for the Confederates getting recognized as another country. Worth a try– but I think characterizing that as “seized that property while indicating it was willing to provide compensation.” Uhm. No. They weren’t making any such indications while seizing.
Brandon
Sweep under a rug? The idea there is nothing inherently hostile or violent about seizing property– gold, territory, buildings etc. is nonesense. My telling you that is not “sweeping under a rug”. I’m telling you straight out standing well above the rug.
It is certainly true that there is precedent for governments to use force to seize other countries stuff. There is precedent for the country whose stuff was seized to surrender; there is precedent for the country whose stuff was seized to not surrender. Yes: Sometimes a country takes a kick in the groin– that doesn’t make the kick in the groin not aggression. It generally means the country that got kicked in the groin was not in a position to enforce their own rights and hold their own property. So, for example, a major general like Anderson might fall back from the indefensible Fort Moutrie to the less indefensible Fort Sumter to consolidate troops and permit the country to hold one of the Forts rather than lose both. His falling back doesn’t make the South taking the other one “not aggression”.
You have a lot of very strange ideas of what is or is not ‘hostile’.
“Brandon: The whole middle east/US civil war comparison and contrast is a big “so whatâ€. In the US Civil war, both sides were spoiling for a fight, they got it. In the middle east, the west has been exploiting this region for the last century, 911 happens and some folks who don’t care where their easy lifestyle comes from or realizes how many slaughtered and tortured Muslims are required to sustain it are wondering why “they hate usâ€.
Howard, it appears that you are single-minded in attributing the problems in the Middle East to the West. I agree that western governments have created problems in the Middle East over past 200 years, but statist regimes created in that region have been a major factor in Muslims being slaughtered and deprrived of individual rights. The Syrian war and the Iraq and Iran war are recent examples.
The use of Middle East oil by the West to the extent the statist regimes allow the economic benefits to filter down to private individuals has to be a positive for both regions. There is also the question of Muslim hate for other Muslims that cannot be ignored if we use warring as a criteria.
Perhaps more details would help your arguments.
Heard that one before.
Howard,
Muslims have been killing each other en masse in the Middle East since the first Fitna in 656. Assigning sole blame for the current unrest to the developed world’s need for oil is disingenuous.
I suppose that if we get right down to it we could talk about Christian hate of Christians if a predominant religious group on one side of the warring issue is the same as the predominant group on the other side. I think we have to consider the governing bodies involved in the warring activities if we want to get a detailed look at the causes of these conflicts. Religion could and probably does play a role as sectarianism comes into play, but I am sure it is not the sole issues in these battles and violence.
DeWitt: They are pikers in mass killing compared to the White man. In any event, what do Muslim civil wars have to do with our right to install strong men to oppress them, arbitrarily divide up their region and exploit their natural resources?
Kenneth: As the most technologically, militarily, economically, administratively powerful nation on earth that happens to stand for individual freedom and justice, we have a much larger responsibility for our actions.
Luke 12-48
But he who did not know and did something worthy of blows shall be beaten with few blows, for from everyone to whom much is given, much shall be required, and of him to whom they commit much, they shall require more.
Howard,
You are just being selectively outraged about Muslims because they are the PC group of the day. The White Man does the same oppressing, dividing, and exploiting in Western countries. The citizens therein just don’t get as violent responding to it all the time.
Andrew
Howard, I thought we were discussing the Middle East. I was asking for more details and do not think quoting the scriptures will provide it – probably does much the opposite as a nod to the obtuse.
Many people would think that confederate soldiers were slave owners. The truth was that only 6% of any, southerners were slave owners and as few as 2% in confederate regiments. Hostilities came down mostly to a matter of pride and identity formation.
.
For example, many here agree on 99% of science and political issues but yet we combat out of pride and independence.
.
I would be interested to see if GOP is worse in this regard that Dems.
No Kenneth, you were wondering why I blame the US for much of the current problem with terror and the Middle Eastern strife. Quoting scripture just shows that there is a level of universality to the notion that when you are big and strong, you have more responsibility in this world.
No AndrewKY, I went through the looking glass when 220 of my brothers were ordered to be defenseless so they could be slaughtered in Beirut for nothing, then we pulled out, then we gave missiles to the sponsors of the Beirut bombers. Betrayal like that is hard to forgive or forget.
Howard,
I beg to differ: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/05/the_greatest_murder_machine_in_history.html
I don’t vouch for the accuracy of the article, but it should make you think about your position, unless you consider the conquering Arab armies of Islam to be White men too.
The West didn’t install the ruling Shah in 1908 when oil was first discovered in Persia. I’d also like to see your evidence of Western involvement in the conquest by Abdulaziz al Saud of what is now Saudi Arabia, which started in 1902.
We were allied with Stalin’s Soviet Union in WWII also, but we didn’t install him in his position.
“220 of my brothers were ordered to be defenseless so they could be slaughtered in Beirut”
Howard,
Then you have an issue with those specific people who gave the order. “The White Man” nonsense doesn’t apply.
Andrew
DeWitt… That was 500-years ago. You are spot on about the Shah. We handled that perfectly, but he didn’t listen. He got soft and didn’t assassinate, torture and murder enough like CIA recommended. Saddam followed the playbook too well, especially the chemical gassing of Iranian troops. However, like most of those savages whom we should carpet bomb into glass, he got too big for his britches thinking he could horn in on the Saudi play. The highway of death worked out well for us too… a real Texas-sized bar-b-que. Then we sold out the Kurds, again. I’m sure Iraq is now eternally grateful for supporting Saddam, then throwing him out, then the debathification making the Iranians more powerful in the region while planting the seeds for ISIS.
We Rock!
OK, we don’t take the blame for the Stalin purges. I think we get a pass on Hitler as well, so there’s that.
AndrewKY: when you were in the service, how were you debriefed on the Beirut massacre? I’d be interested to hear whom you were told to give the order to disarm our guards?
“how were you debriefed on the Beirut massacre?”
Howard, you just told me,
“220 of my brothers were ordered to be defenseless”
That’s what I’m going by.
Andrew
Howard,
The slave trade wasn’t that long ago. It may well still be going on at a much smaller scale.
The Crusades were over 700 years ago and yet they’re still a sore point to Muslims and far fewer died. If they can have long memories, so can we. Besides, show me any evidence that Muslims in general regret that slaughter.
You’re talking about the wrong Shah. The CIA did have a hand in throwing out the elected Prime Minister, Mohammed Mossadegh, and installing Mohammed Reza Pahlavi as ruler of Iran. The center piece was the books of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (which shortly thereafter became British Petroleum) the direct descendant of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company formed in 1908 when Mozaffar al-Din Shah Qajar was the ruler of Persia. That’s the Shah to whom I was referring, not Pahlavi.
The Armies of the Potomac and of Northern Virginia are licking their wounds.
However attractive it is to install a regime it always backfires because the political Achilles heel of the new regime will be that they could be viewed as external puppets. Of course, the only way to shake this accusation is by acting opposite to the interests of the old friends. But, if they are honorable and loyal, like the Shah, and they get toppled, then the new regime and people of the nation get to call you Satan for eternity.
.
Neocons were persuaded by Ahmed Chalabi that Iraq was ready for full democracy. They weren’t. Neither was Libya. If we are going to kick out a strong man we need to go in with a large, strong force and provide a starter constitution and election process that can be adopted and evolve after we leave. Although we can’t imagine a circumstance of “going in,” it will happen again. If we don’t engage in the world then ISIS, Iran and Russia will.
Howard, pardon me for looking at the Middle East from the perspective that the issues might not be Western (capitalism?) greed and complacency all the way down. I would suppose you are allowed to simplify without being simplistic.
My simplistic view is that statist regimes mostly from internal makings have been the bane of the people of the Middle East and those regimes require the enemy of the West to placate those people and redirect their anger – and much in the terms you have used in this thread. Like you say no wonder they hate the West. And this not to say that politicians in the West are above such tactics.
If I couldn’t, you and I would be spiritual brethren.
More to the point, in an environment where the presentation of opposing views is a reasonable expectation, there isn’t a damn thing wrong with it.
Actually, given my website hacking skills, trying to delete your diversionary drivel would make about as much sense as trying to levitate. Happily, it suffices, having demonstrated its irrelevance, to merely affix to it the proper label.
Kenneth:
.
Ken, externalizing popular anger (scapegoating) as a recognized tactic seems to have faded from understanding. I wonder if progressive ideology has removed it from text books. One certainly does not hear it much in America’s liberal media. Our president, for example, does not understand or even buy into the possibility of your analysis. Why else would validate all the anti-American regime’s propaganda, vilifying America, especially when he tours the world attacking America’s history and attacking current opposition party as “the same thing as Iranian mullahs.”
.
I am pretty sure President Obama sees American conservatives as a greater evil than the most brutal statist regime. That is even true for Rand Paul libertarians who support anti-interventionism. He certainly would not remember or believe that Arab regimes would have ever stooped to taking advantage of Israel’s presence to whip up anti-Jewish sentiment for the sake of domestic nationalism.
Could this blindness to the phenomena of scapegoating be tied to his use of the tactic? After all, his rhetoric has been to portray half of America as villains, the successful, chiding “You didn’t build that,” implying exploitation and corruption to be the means of capitalism. All this in order to have the cohesive loyalty of the other half (the victims).
.
I think the President was thinking of people like me when he shared his belief last weekend that much of his presidency’s criticism is personalized against him due to his skin color. Yet, he is mistaken. I would not even blink an eye in warmly receiving a child of any race into my family. I have supported Dr. Ben Carson, not because he is an African-American, but because he is the least ego-inflated, potentially psychotic candidate to be hold the most powerful public office. Brilliance is an add-on but Ronald Reagan was 10X the man of any president since and he was half senile.
Ron Graf, I am very much in the libertarian camp of non intervention and that includes the Middle East. Some libertarians in my view wrongly judge the tactics of statist regimes in the Middle East and thus tend to legitimize it as a valid reaction against the West. Those libertarians should be better able to recognize the power politics to which these regimes or any statist regime will stoop to remain in power. If it were not for some mistakes the West has made in the Middle East by intervention these regimes would find other “enemies” in attempts to distract its citizens from the real problems created by the statist regimes.
“If it were not for some mistakes the West has made in the Middle East by intervention these regimes would find other “enemies†in attempts to distract its citizens from the real problems created by the statist regimes.”
.
Exactly.
.
In line with that IMO is the accusation that Trump, or anyone else, is a recruiting tool for ISIS suicide murderers.
Kenneth: I agree that the problems are a two-way street, but think that we have more of a responsibility not to do or sponsor evil things. The US did much and in some cases more of the same thing in Latin America starting with the Banana Wars and beyond sponsoring dictators, etc. For the most part, this has not spawned terrorism like the middle east. Perhaps our sponsorship of Mexican Oligarchs combined with the drug war has played a significant role in narco-terrorism, but that is mostly confined south of the border.
DeWitt: Yes, I see that I assumed the wrong Shah. Also, Persia is a completely different animal, not being Arab and also being able to defend the remaining core of their empire from the Ottomans and Russians. I’m sure we disagree on Obama’s latest nuclear agreement with Iran, but lets not go there!
Joseph W.:
What do you base this claim on? If I were trying to provoke the South into a war, I wouldn’t do what you say a person would do. I’d consider it a stupid approach. I’d actually do exactly what Abraham Lincoln did.
While people can disagree with one another on what strategies would be preferable, I can’t see anything about this situation which would justify claiming anyone with a particular goal would act in this one particular way. Especially not when we see the tactic you say wouldn’t be used would have actually accomplished the goal.
yguy
Beyond one might suggest Brandon left out numerous facts that would cut against his view:
* The Deep South did not attend the Peace Conference of 1861 which was organized in an attempt to come up withe a peaceful resolution to their gripes. Instead, they seceded. (Could they have waited? yes.)
* The new confederacy authorized calls for 100,000 men on March 6 of 1861 two days after Lincoln was inaugurated and more than a month before they fired on Fort Sumter. At the time the North’s army of regulars was approximately 16,000. A few pages suggest the number was about 20,000.
*Whatever “peace” the Confederacy was willing to negotiate with Lincoln’s administration before Sumter, it’s pretty clear they were willing to go to war. They’d started calls to raise an army that would dwarf the current standing army of regulars.
* I’m not sure what ‘confusing’ language Brandon thinks the North used to communicate with the South, who supposedly used it nor when the used it nor why whatever was said might have made them think he was going to give up Sumter. (The reason I don’t know is he doesn’t seem to have told us.) But it seems to me Lincoln was pretty clear. In his March 4, 1861 inauguration Lincoln was very clear. said he would use federal power only to “hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and collect duties and imports.†They knew he thought Ft Sumter was federal even if they thought otherwise. He was pretty clear that he would not accept secession. He outright refused to engage in the South’s “peace” negotiations when the only acceptable outcome from the POV of the southern delegates was that the north must accept secession. (In my view: offers to “negotiate” that take a non-negotiable position on the main point of contention — here secession itself– are by definition not made in good faith. So: make what he will about these “offers”, they weren’t in good faith because they secession itself was not going to be negotiated.) He also made it clear he was willing to go forward slowly and was not going to fire first. (Which he did not.)
* Andersen in Ft. Sumter extended a conditional offer of surrender which the South did not accept. Could they have waited until April 15 to see if the conditions were met? Of course. But they didn’t.
I don’t know whether Brandon omits all these points because he is unaware of them, because he knows they weaken his case about the south’s peacableness, whether he thinks they are irrelevant or for some other reason. But he might want to consider the possiblity that other people don’t bring forward every single detail about what happened in the months leading up to the war for reasons similar to those Brandon would permit himself.
lucia:
It is generally not the belief of people who have misrepresented people that they have, in fact, misrepresented those people. Nonetheless, people who believe they have not misrepresented others often do. This is such a case, and the paltry attempt to made to address what I said does nothing to address, much less rebut, the explanation I provided.
Hence why I said I am finished. I see no point of a discussion when a person misrepresents what I say in a clear and obvious manner, on multiple occasions, but convinces themselves they have not. This view is reinforced by the fact your subsequent comments have continued to misrepresent things I’ve said, to the point you’ve portrayed responses to other people as being addressed to you. I wouldn’t bother to point any of this out, but I feel I should do so to explain why I won’t be addressing what you’ve said to or about me in this comment.
I am writing this comment simply to point out a glaring factual inaccuracy you have posted. Namely:
I don’t know if, “‘Offers’ to ‘pay’ were are described as happening months later” by somebody. It’s not clear when you think these “were are” described as such, or by whom, but… it wasn’t by me. I have consistently described the offers as coming alongside the South seizing property because that is what happened. Despite what you claim, the South talked to the North about such negotiations long before Fort Sumter was seized.
In fact, while I’m not sure just what you think this was happening months later then, it’s clear you’re wrong because South Carolina seceded on December 20th, 1860, and it contacted the President a week later with the stated hope of resolving things peacefully, desiring their secession be accepted and including an acknowledgement they would have to pay for property they were seizing.
And actually, South Carolina had talked to the President prior to even seceding, during which time it acknowledged it would be willing to pay for (amongst other things) Fort Sumter. I, perhaps, should have pointed that out before when you said:
The fact I didn’t is the reason I’m making this comment now. Before I said I was leaving this discussion, I should have, perhaps, made it clear this idea of yours is completely and utterly false. I have no idea where you got the ideas on this matter you believe are true, but they fly in the face of readily available evidence and basic facts anyone knowledgeable of the Civil War should know.
I don’t really care to continue discussing things with you, but I’d feel wrong leaving such glaring untruths unchallenged. I might continue to point out obvious factual errors, but as a matter of fairness given what I said before, I won’t address further comments toward you.
Hrm. I hadn’t seen lucia’s latest comment at the time I wrote my last one, so let me provide a bit of additional information that might help clarify things she has further muddled. lucia says:
If anyone had asked me for details about the facts I had given, I’d have been happy to provide such. The reason I didn’t is, as I said above, the factual matters I had been discussing were not obscure details that require some significant amount of research to be aware of. They were all well-known facts which could be readily verified, to the point they are discussed in the Wikipedia article on Battle of Fort Sumter. When I point out things I say are easily verifiable and commonly discussed, I assume nobody needs me to help them verify things unless someone says otherwise.
This comment of lucia’s seems to suggest I may have been wrong. I’m not sure though as I’ve said things like:
Which makes her comment rather strange. Saying Abraham Lincoln was clear about his intentions when I had referenced the previous president’s actions does nothing to address… well, anything. Similarly, the reinforcements in question happened before Lincoln took office, something anyone familiar with the timeline of events would know.
I actually made something of a mistake in my remarks though, as I said Buchanan sent reinforcements to Fort Sumter. In reality, what happened is an officer under his command chose to move to Fort Sumter, believing that to be abiding by the orders he had received. Buchanan then refused to order the officer to withdraw his troops. So technically, he didn’t send the reinforcements to Fort Sumter. He just allowed them to stay after he found out they had gone there. He gave reasons for this, but it was perceived as a contradiction of what he had promised would happen (though his carefully crafted language meant he hadn’t actually promised what they though), and that’s what caused further hostilities. For instance, South Carolina had not seized property within the area around Fort Sumter until Buchanan was perceived as having broken his word. That perception is what caused that property to be seized.
Any clarity from Abraham Lincoln’s after he took office, months later, obviously has nothing to do with any of that. Incidentally, it is interesting lucia says:
The attack on Fort Sumter happened in April. Lincoln refused a delegation which attempted to find a peaceful solution in March. This delegation wanted to discuss terms under which it could purchase the fort and offer compensation for the property the South had already seized.
South Carolina had attempted to negotiate a purchase of the forts in December, acknowledging it would have to pay for the various properties it had seized. That was a week after the state had seceded. Three months later, the South contacted a new president with similar hopes, again offering to for the property it had seized. There were other discussions as well. The South had made it abundantly clear it was willing to negotiate for federal property it was seizing.
Here is an article on the practice of Sharia law in the US – picking up a thread from earlier here. I present it for your consideration on the impact of Muslim immigration.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/23/haters-gonna-hate-houston-chronicle-attacks-accurate-breitbart-report-texas-islamic-tribunal/
It’s simple. Lincoln was telling them explicitly how far they could go without being attacked…and given his legal position as stated in the First Inaugural, that was pretty far. The South was in a perfect position to preserve the peace, simply by leaving Sumter alone…as a matter of simple geography, Sumter itself wasn’t a great threat. (As the war proved, if the North wanted to cut off Southern commerce, they could do it with a sea blockade and no forts at all.) It would then have been in a position similar to Taiwan or Iraqi Kurdistan later on….technically claimed by a stronger sovereign, but de facto independent, and enclaves like that can stay at peace a long time.
If you want to provoke a war, you make extreme demands, and immediately cut off negotiations if not every last one of them is met…as Austria did to Serbia in 1914. Or you mass troops on the border in the hopes that the other side will fear invasion and attack, as some say the U.S. did at the start of the Mexican War. Create an ambiguity and hope they’ll take a step that leads to war. That’s not “stupid”; it has the desired effect, though whether the “desired effect” is itself a good idea is a separate question.
Lincoln himself, in opposing the Mexican War, showed how little he thought of such tactics: “…trusting to escape scrutiny by fixing the public gaze upon the exceeding brightness of military glory, that attractive rainbow that rises in showers of blood—that serpent’s eye that charms to destroy…”
Your description of the North as the aggressors seems based on the idea that Lincoln could’ve adopted a “peace at any price” platform…simply give up the Constitutional doctrine that the states can’t take full sovereign power unto themselves, and meet the South’s demands in toto. But wars traditionally begin with demands, and almost any war can be avoided if you’re willing to give in to the other side’s. On that theory, Serbia was the aggressor against Austria, since it could have avoided war by giving in to every last term right away.
Under the Constitution, as Lincoln read it (and as I do), the Southern state governments were demanding and seizing both powers and things they had no right to at all (to include “forts, lighthouses, mints, post offices, ships and arsenals”…seized while Buchanan was still President). Instead of taking the position that they’d already taken too much and the time to invade was now, he gave them a “red line”….which they didn’t have to cross, but they did.
(Attempted to delete a follow-up comment as I decided I did not like it, but I couldn’t delete, so I edited like this.)
I’ll tell you this, reading Blackboard Civil War related comments is infinitely more interesting and meaningful than having to endure the same Climate Blah Blah Blah that’s been making the rounds for the past decade or two.
Just my opinion.
Andrew
Howard,
I’m fine with that.
Brandon,
And it is the belief of those who claim to have been misrepresented to think they have been misrepresented. That doesn’t mean they have been misrepresented.
I am on my way out to Salsa class. Ciao.
Brandon,
Before I go out, questions for you based on your claims:
1) Where at wikipedia do we learn the South Carolina offered to pay for federal property they’d seized. For example: when and where does it tell us they offered to pay for Fort Moultrie which they actually had seized?
2) If it’s not at wikipedia, what source do you have to indicate they offered to pay for property South Carolina had seized. (For example, Fort Moultrie or anything else they actually had seized?
3) Even in wikipedia where do we learn what properties the Confederates oferred to pay for when they met with Seward? For example: Where does it tell us they offered to pay for things they’d actually seized– for example the garrison in Texas? Or gold they’d seized? Or what?
I am aware they offered to pay for Fort Sumter after seizing other property but before seizing Sumter. But the Jan 21, 1861 letter to Prez. Buchanan I’ve seen makes absolutely no mention of paying for federal property they actually had seized. But perhaps you are familiar with some other letter to support your claim they offered to pay for property they’d actually while seizing it. Otherwise, it appears they might be willing to pay for things they had failed to seize– which is not the same as offering to pay for things while they were seizing them.
Real questions. Of course you are not required to answer them.
“For instance, South Carolina had not seized property within the area around Fort Sumter until Buchanan was perceived as having broken his word. That perception is what caused that property to be seized.”
Dec 26 there was a misunderstanding.. on the 27th they start to seize property.
##########################################
Looking at the confederate history, it’s a bit more nuanced than Brandon describes. go figure.
rather than Buchanon breaking his word, you have Anderson, saying he knows of no such agreement.
“An understanding had been established between the authorities in Washington and the members of Congress from South Carolina, that the forts would not be attacked, or seized as an act of war, until proper negotiations for their cession to the State had been made and had failed; provided that they were not reinforced, and their military status should remain as it was at the time of this understanding, viz., on December 9, 1860.
Fort Sumter, in the very mouth of the harbor, was in an unfinished state and without a garrison. On the night of the 26th of December, 1860, Maj. Robert Anderson dismantled Fort Moultrie and removed his command by boats over to Fort Sumter. The following account of the effect of this removal of Major Anderson upon the people, and the action of the government, is taken from Brevet Major-General Crawford’s “Genesis of the Civil War.” General Crawford was at the time on the medical staff and one of Anderson’s officers. His book is a clear and admirable narrative of the events of those most eventful days, and is written in the spirit of the utmost candor and fairness. In the conclusion of the chapter describing the removal, he says:
The fact of the evacuation of Fort Moultrie by Major Anderson was soon communicated to the authorities and people of Charleston, creating intense excitement. Crowds collected in streets and open places of the city, and loud and violent were the expressions of feeling against Major Anderson and his action … [The governor of the State was ready to act in accordance with the feeling displayed.] On the morning of the 27th, he dispatched his aide-de-camp, Col. Johnston Pettigrew, of the First South Carolina Rifles, to Major Anderson. He was accompanied by Maj. Ellison Capers, of his regiment. Arriving at Fort Sumter, Colonel Pettigrew sent a card inscribed, “Colonel Pettigrew, First Regiment Rifles, S.C. M., Aide-de-Camp to the Governor, Commissioner to Major Anderson. Ellison Capers, Major First Regiment Rifles, S.C. M.” . . . Colonel Pettigrew and his companion were ushered into the room. The feeling was reserved and formal, when, after declining seats, Colonel Pettigrew immediately opened his mission: “Major Anderson,” said he, “can I communicate with you now, sir, before these officers, on the subject for which I am here?” “Certainly, sir,” replied Major Anderson, “these are all my officers; I have no secrets from them, sir.” The commissioner then informed Major Anderson that he was directed to say to him that the governor was much surprised that he had reinforced “this work.” Major Anderson promptly responded that there had been no reinforcement of the work; that he had removed his command from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter, as he had a right to do, being in command of all the forts in the harbor. To this Colonel Pettigrew replied that when the present governor (Pickens) came into office, he found an understanding existing between the previous governor (Gist) and the President of the United States, by which all property Within the limits of the State was to remain as it was; that no reinforcements were to be sent here, particularly to this post; that there was to be no attempt made against the public property by the State, and that the status in the harbor should remain unchanged. He was directed also to say to Major Anderson that it had been hoped by the governor that a peaceful solution of the difficulties could. have been reached, and a resort to arms and bloodshed might have been avoided; but that the governor thought the action of Major Anderson had greatly complicated matters, and that he did not now see how bloodshed could be avoided; that he had desired and intended that the whole matter might be fought out politically and without the arbitration of the sword, but that now it was uncertain, if not impossible.
To this Major Anderson replied, that as far as any understanding between the President and the governor was concerned, he had not been informed; that he knew nothing of it; that he could get no information or positive orders from Washington, and that his position was threatened every night by the troops of the State. He was then asked by Major Capers, who accompanied Colonel Pettigrew, “How?” when he replied, “By sending out steamers armed and conveying troops on board ;” that these steamers passed the fort going north, and that he feared a landing on the island and the occupation of the sand-hills just north of the fort; that 100 riflemen on these hills, which commanded his fort, would make it impossible for his men to serve their guns; and that any man with a military head must see this. “To prevent this,” said he earnestly, “I removed on my own responsibility, my sole object being to prevent bloodshed.” Major Capers replied that the steamer was sent out for patrol purposes, and as much to prevent disorder among his own people as to ascertain whether any irregular attempt was being made to reinforce the fort, and that the idea of attacking him was never.. entertained by the little squad who patroled the harbor.
Major Anderson replied to this that he was wholly in the dark as to the intentions of the State troops, but that he had reason to believe that they meant to land and attack him from the north; that the desire of the governor to have the matter settled peacefully and without bloodshed was precisely his object in removing his command from Moultrie to Sumter; that he did it upon his own responsibility alone, because he considered that the safety of his command required it, as he had a right to do. “In this controversy,” said he, “between the North and the South, my sympathies are entirely with the South. These gentlemen,” said he (turning to the officers of the post who stood about him), “know it perfectly well.” Colonel Pettigrew replied, “Well, sir, however that may be, the governor of the State directs me to say to you courteously but peremptorily, to return to Fort Moultrie.” “Make my compliments to the governor (said Anderson) and say to him that I decline to accede to his request; I cannot and will not go back.” “Then, sir,” said Pettigrew, “my business is done,” when both officers, without further ceremony or leavetaking, left the fort.
Colonel Pettigrew and Major Capers returned to the city and made their report to the governor and council who were in session in the council chamber of the city hall. That afternoon Major Anderson raised the flag of his country over Sumter, and went vigorously to work mounting his guns and putting the fort in military order. The same afternoon the governor issued orders to Colonel Pettigrew, First regiment of rifles, and to Col. W. G. De Saussure, First regiment artillery, commanding them to take immediate possession of Castle Pinckney and Fort Moultrie. Neither fort was garrisoned, and the officers in charge, after making a verbal protest, left and went to Fort Sumter, and the Palmetto flag was raised over Moultrie and Pinckney. In the same manner the arsenal in Charleston was taken possession of by a detachment of the Seventeenth regiment, South Carolina militia, Col. John Cunningham, and Fort Johnson on James island, by Capt. Joseph Johnson, commanding the Charleston Riflemen. The governor also ordered a battery to be built for two 24-pounders on Morris island, bearing on Ship channel, and his order was speedily put into execution by Maj. P. F. Stevens, superintendent of the South Carolina military academy, with a detachment of the cadets, supported by the Vigilant Rifles, Captain Tupper. This battery was destined soon to fire the first gun of the war. In taking possession of the forts and the arsenal, every courtesy was shown the officers in charge, Captain Humphreys, commanding the arsenal, saluting his flag before surrendering the property.
By the possession of Forts Moultrie and Pinckney and the arsenal in Charleston, their military stores fell into the hands of the State of South Carolina, and by the governor’s orders a careful inventory was made at once of all the property and duly reported to him. At Moultrie there were sixteen 24-pounders, nineteen 32-pounders, ten 8-inch columbiads, one I o-inch seacoast mortar, four 6-pounders, two 12-pounders and four 24-pounderhowitzers and a large supply of ammunition. At Castle Pinckney the armament was nearly complete and the magazine well filled with powder. At the arsenal there was a large supply of military stores, heavy ordnance and small-arms. These exciting events were followed by the attempt of the government to succor Major Anderson with supplies and reinforce his garrison. ”
So ya..
in December they deliver an ultimatum to a lame duck president
and
“http://www.tulane.edu/~sumter/Dilemmas/DDec26Comm.html
“When Anderson moved to Fort Sumter, he disrupted one of a series of fragile agreements, sometimes called “truces,” established between the Buchanan administration and South Carolina. On December 10, before Anderson’s move and before South Carolina seceded, a group of South Carolina congressmen called upon the President for a “pledge” that he would not reinforce or in any way change the military situation at Charleston pending anticipated negotiations between the state and the federal government. In return, South Carolina would not attack the forts. Buchanan refused to sign such a statement, but he offered verbal assurances that he did not intend to reinforce the forts under present circumstances. The congressmen understood Buchanan also to say that they would be informed if the President changed his policy.
This “truce” was subject to different interpretations. The South Carolinians considered Buchanan pledged as a gentleman not to change the status of the forts, including a move by Anderson from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter, and to inform them of any change in policy. The President, however, did not think he had made a firm commitment with a group who had no authority to enter into reciprocal agreements. Instead, he considered that they had arrived at something like a mutual understanding of present intentions. Wha tever the ambiguity, two things are clear. Buchanan, who had initially considered reinforcing Anderson, had changed his mind. He adopted, at least for the moment, a policy of maintaining the status quo. In addition, Buchanan refused to consider abandoning Sumter or other forts still under government control.
After South Carolina seceded (December 20, 1861) and Anderson moved to Fort Sumter, Buchanan was pressured to order Anderson to return to Fort Moultrie as well as to remove federal forces from all its forts in South Carolina. But encouraged by pro-Union cabinet members, especially fellow Pennsylvanian, Secretary of State Jeremiah S. Black, and irritated by the badgering of pro-secessionist southerners, the President refused to do either. As for the “truce,” Buchanan explained that Anderson had acted on his own responsibility, that his move was not aggressive, and that South Carolina’s subsequent takeover of the forts abandoned by Anderson made his return impossible. Most significantly, Buchanan announced his determination to maintain Sumter and to defend it against attack. On December 31, the President had sufficiently stiffened his resolve to hold Sumter and he initiated measures to reinforce it. On January 5, 1861, the Star of the West sailed from New York with troops and supplies to relieve the fort.
The failure of this expedition led to another arrangement, or “truce,” at Fort Sumter.”
#######################
interesting stuff.
Joseph W.:
Or you publicly act as though you won’t take any aggressive actions then take provocative actions so as to maintain the appearance of being the innocent party. I consider what James Polk did stupid as it was obvious ploy to start a war people had no difficulty seeing through. If he had run for reelection, that would have almost certainly ruined his chances. As it was, it remained a stain on the country’s reputation for decades, and it hurt the nation’s relations with Mexico for some time. Even if it worked to whatever extent, I’d still consider it “stupid.”
People wanting to maintain their credibility generally will not use tactics like you describe due to how overt and obvious they are. It worked to some extent for Polk due to how unpopulated it was and how much the nation benefitted from his actions, and it has worked for other people like Putin due to the effectiveness of his propaganda machine and the (relative) smallness of his actions, but someone in Lincoln’s position would probably not get away with it. It’s certainly unlikely he’d be able to keep four slave states within the Union if he used such a cheap ploy.
There was no need for a strategy of “peace at any price.” If Abraham Lincoln had been willing to accept the South’s (claimed) right to secede, there would have been no war. That is not “any price.” That’s simply recognizing people whose view of the Constitution is different from yours may have a point.
But even if Lincoln wasn’t willing to go that far, he could have certainly allowed the South to take the disputed fort. There was no strategic benefit to it. His opposition to it was purely political. He didn’t want to give the impression of conceding to the South’s demands as he felt it would lend credibility to their attempt to secede.
This is made clear by the fact Lincoln said he was willing to give up the forts if it meant keeping a state out of the war. I believe his statement was something like, “A fort for a state is a small price to pay.” If he was willing to give up the fort to ensure one state would stay in the Union, he clearly didn’t feel holding onto the state was necessary. The only question was what price he would have to demand for it.
That’s not peace at any price. That’s peace at a very specific price. Lincoln wasn’t willing to accept the political loss which would have come with sacrificing ownership of Fort Sumter without some clear tangible gain. He was willing to sacrifice ownership of Fort Sumter, just not without a better “price” than was being offered.
That’s why I consider the North the aggressor. The South sincerely tried to sue for peace. The North rejected their every effort, choosing to instead take actions which made war inevitable. When one side spends months trying to get the other side to accept peace and the other side constantly says, “No,” I consider the side refusing to even talk about things the aggressor.
But again, that doesn’t make the North wrong. If one feels the South had no right to secede, then refusing to accept peace under any circumstances may be the right thing to do.
By the way Joseph W., one thing I should mention is even if one believes the South lacked the authority to secede, that does not resolve things. It is quite common for there to be legal disputes where one side is wrong but acts in good faith, having legitimate reason to believe they have acted appropriately. One could reasonably believe the South lacked the actual authority to secede but had the (to them) apparent authority to secede.
In such a case, the President of the United States would have no clear authority to act to prevent the secession. This dilemma is a large part of why President Buchanan was so reluctant to act. He felt the president didn’t have the authority to make determinations about whether or not states could secede.
In a situation where both sides may have legitimate views even though they contradict one another, I think refusing to have discussions is a bad thing. I think whatever his faults, Buchanan deserves credit for sitting down and talking with the South. He made it clear he didn’t feel such discussions could reflect any official negotiations (as he didn’t recognize the other side’s right to engage in such), but I think it is much more difficult to go to war with someone who is willing to at least sit down and talk to you.
Steven Mosher, I’m sure many things are more nuanced:than I’ve described, on this subject and many others. That tends to happen when one tries to describe things in a few sentences rather than quote lengthy excerpts from what other people have written. I try to capture the relevant nuances, but I’m well aware I could do more to do so. I just figure my comments are long enough already people would prefer I ignore some nuances rather than make them even longer 😛
The issue is the nuances changed everything.
The argument that the North was the aggressor reminds me of the wife-beaters claim that it wasn’t his fault because she made him do it.
Steven Mosher
Interestingly, I thought that was what you meant and I thought that meaning was fairly obvious. But I thought best to wait and let you say so.
The shelling of Ft. Sumter by the Confederacy made the war inevitable. Growing up in the South as a descendant of an old Southern family that was part of the secession movement I find these rehashings and revisions to be annoying and childish. they were almost understandable when I was a child and the sweet old ladies talking about the glorious lost cause were the children or grand children of the fighters and politicians. It is less so now.
The Confederacy was a ridiculous doomed movement from the start.
Wise Southerners of the time, like Governor Sam Houston, refused to take an oath to the Confederacy at great personal cost. He knew the United States should not be divided over the perceived hurts and insults the South was receiving. And as a former successful General recognized the strategic weaknesses the Confederacy faced and would not be able to overcome.
The rest of this, as we so well demonstrated here, is just (very) long winded contrived arguments.
Interestingly, Pickens, the governor of So. Carolina was sending letters that could be read as menacing even before So. Carolina seceded:
http://www.teachingushistory.org/pdfs/PickensTranscript.pdf
He:
* “requests” Buchannan fill Ft. Sumter with So Carolina troops.
* Near the close says “If something of the kind be not done, I cannot answer for the consequences.”
The latter sort of statement is often taken as threatening. It looks like what one calls a “thinly veiled threat” to me.
It is worth noting: Pickens makes absolutely no offer to pay for Sumter when making this demand.
Further aggressiveness is exhibited by Pickens after having sanctioning his forces firing on Federal forces on Jan 9, 1861, (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Wilkinson_Pickens) We have some clue what So. Carolina’s position was. A man named Hayne’s was given instructions to ‘negotiate” with Buchannan. Among the things instructions given to Haynes. (Note: these were modified and an actual letter to Buchannan was delivered later.)
” You are further instructed to say to the President of the United States that the Governor regards the attempt of the President of the United States, if avowed, to continue
[pg. 5] the possession of Fort Sumter, as inevitably lead
ing to a bloody issue; a question which in the Judgement of the Governor can have but one conc
lusion, reconcileable with a due regard to the State of South Carolina, the welfare of the other States which now constitute the United States,
and that humanity which teaches all men, but particularly those who in authority control the lives of others, to regard a resort to arms as the last which should be considered.”
and later
see
http://www.teachingushistory.org/lessons/magrath-hayneletter1861.htm
Note that those items one might interpret as possible offers payment are so conditional as to be potentially meaningless
There is nothing here to reveal Picken’s notions about whether any matters were ‘susceptible to valuations in money” or whether the principles of Justice and Equaty would indicate any payment whatsoever. Quite plausibly his notion was there were no matters so susceptible, and no payment was indicated.
Note well: the allusions to bloody.
On Jan 30, Haynes (who had delayed delivery mostly at the request of other southern states) did deliver a Jan 12 letter. It’s contents are on page 180 here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=v5E9AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA178#v=onepage&q&f=false
In that letter:
*Pickens threatens bloodshed.
* Pickens makes a highly conditional offer to pay for Sumter (which he has not yet seized.) That is: this issue can be “adjudicated” later (by whom is not remotely clear. ) This is so conditional foor all we know he believed the outcome of the adjudication would be to deem no payment was required.
* Pickens makes no offer to pay for properties they had seized and which had certainly formerly belonged to the Feds and which were no under control of so. (Fort Moultrie, and the arsenal in Charleston count among these. Likely other things did — but I don’t know.)
I still have no idea where at wikipedia I might learn of the offers by Confederates or So. Carolina to for items they had seized and so on might be.
We might debate whether Pickens was justified in firing Union personel on Jan 9. But he did so. So there can be no doubt that his threats to use force would certainly be taken as real threats. (They were taken as such.)
Steven Mosher, you may feel so, but I don’t. Especially not given the text you quoted overlooked nuances. I revisited the issue to expand on what I had initially said because I felt my initial description didn’t do matters justice, but I don’t see anything in the quotes you offered which add information contradicting anything I said. And if one were to add information from other sources, I think my more recent description would turn out to be rather fair.
Now, perhaps you could convince me otherwise if you did something beyond copy extensive quotations from other people, including ones you don’t provide citations for. I generally find it easier to be convinced by people who actually state their points/case. Maybe that’s just me though.
Interestingly though, if one looks at the sources underlying some of the text you use, they see references to South Carolina offering receipts for the property it was seizing from the United States. So again, we see what I said – the South offering to negotiate compensation for the things it seized while it was seizing them. lucia’s idea such compensation was only offered months after the fact, much less that they only offered compensation for property they hadn’t successfully seized, is again shown to fly in the face of readily available evidence.
Incidentally, I would be inherently suspicious of any account given by Samuel Crawford. The guy was a well-known braggart who… distorted the truth on many occasions. I’m not offering that as an argument for anything. I’m just pointing it out because it seems like relevant information people should have.
Mosher,
I had to laugh at Brandon’s response to you!
You will see that Brandon does not cite these underlying sources on which he bases this claim. In contrast, I have linked to underlying sources — letters from Pickens to Buchannan and such. Those sources contain no such authers.
And one again, Brandon provides no evidence to support your claim.
Perhaps people would believe Brandon’s claims about what the south oferred if he provided any citations himself even got in the habit of directly stating which events at what times he claims happened so we could figure out what they are. But possibly, that’s only a requirement he has for you but not himself.
Ugh. I was just reading over a bit of what I’ve written before heading out. I don’t have the time to write much detail, but it looks like I have allowed myself to conflate two things.
To try to clarify things quickly, while Anderson’s move to Fort Sumter wasn’t an ordered attempt to reinforce the fort, the sending of troops on the Star of the West (a ship) a short time after clearly was. That was actually when the first “shots” of the war were fired, as the South fired upon the vessel to prevent it from delivering more troops to a fort in their territory.
Anderson moving to Fort Sumter gave the impression to many people in the South President Buchanan had broken his word. People trying to negotiate matters, however, recognized that he may have acted without direct orders and tried to discuss things with Buchanan. Not too long after, Buchanan tried to send military troops to the fort to reinforce it. That last bit is the part I consider to be the North’s clear act of aggression, not the muddled mess which came with Anderson going to the fort. And yes, I feel the South acted perfectly reasonable in firing upon the ship to prevent the reinforcements from arriving.
Sorry about any times I’ve conflated these things in my previous comments. The reinforcements being sent to Fort Sumter were a consequence of Anderson moving his troops to the fort, and I failed to keep the two troop movements separate.
No, it’s a great deal more than that. It’s giving up a huge chunk of your sovereign territory — and encouraging other parts to leave anytime they wish — based on a perverse view of the law that leaves your Union weak and subject to further dissolution. Accepting that for the sake of peace is as close to “peace at any price” as you could wish for….and a refusal to take that step is no kind of aggression.
…nor if he showed them that secession was a consequence-free choice, by meeting the seizure of a huge part of his country’s territory with further concessions. Now that would have been stupid….given Lincoln’s determination to preserve the union, which after all is what he was elected to do. (See article 3 of the Republican Platform of 1860.)
If you agree that Lincoln’s tactics were not “overtly and obviously” designed to provoke a war, as were Polk’s or Franz-Joseph’s, then maybe you should doubt whether they were so designed at all.
Offering a receipt for something taken by force is not an offer to pay for it, but rather an attempt to get the party who had claim to the property to acquiesce to the taking.
NONE of the so called nuances can hide the basic reality that the Confederacy decided to take Ft. Sumter by military force of arms, triggering an inevitable military confrontation with the Federal Government of the United States.
No nation is going to submit to an act of war, which the shelling and occupation and laying claim to Ft. Sumter was, without response in (at least) kind.
Joseph W,
There was a move a foot to form a second confederacy of border states. So a chain reaction of secession was not unrealistic.
And of course, the response to “If Abraham Lincoln had been willing to accept the South’s (claimed) right to secede, there would have been no war. ” is the obvious “If the South had not seceded or given up on secession, there would have been no war.”
It’s is trivially true that if the two sides had not had different views on issues, there would never have been a war. This hardly makes the North the aggressor.
lucia makes a remark which amuses me:
Steven Mosher extensively copied text from at least one source he didn’t cite, reference or link to. lucia responded to him without asking for any additional information. I went out and found the source he had used, looked at the source it was quoting and commented on what the two said. It was then remarked on how I didn’t provide citations, but not on the fact Mosher had quoted them without provided any citations himself.
I can’t say I get that. If a person is going to make claims or quote a source, I would think they would be the ones expected to cite it, not the person responding to them to discuss their source(s). I mean, they’re trivially easy to find, and I’d have provided citations if I had been asked, but… still. At least some remark on the fact I’m discussing the source someone else quoted but didn’t cite seems relevant.
But hey, I’m just thoroughly confused. It doesn’t help when comments include things like this:
Referring to me in both the third and second person seems strange 😀
South Carolina had threatened to secede from the Union before the 1860 crisis. The sentiment was strong to the point of fervor in the leadership class of that state.
If one is going to go down the rabbit hole of nuance over 150 years after the events, and edit the offer of receipt into an offer for payment, one should not forget that S Carolina’s secession was happening in a decades old context where they fancied themselves as sovereign stand alone nations that were confederated into a union of convenience.
One last thought: The US Constitution forms a nation under “We the People”, NOT “The several sovereign states assembled”. You might review the Nullification crisis of 1832-1833 for instance.
It was so remarked because
(a) you compalined Mosher provided none and provided none yourself. (And you have consistently provided none.)
(b) Mosher at least provided an extensive quote which makes the material traceable. You have not been doing even that.
Whether you “get” this or not, those who consistently fail to provided citations (like you in this thread) don’t have much of a leg to stand on when criticizing someone like Mosher who– at least– posted enough to make it possible to google and find his source.
Joseph W.:
You’re going to have to run this by me again. I’ve never said I believe Abraham Lincoln’s actions were designed to provoke a war. My actual belief is Lincoln felt a war was inevitable and didn’t need to be provoked. The only provocation I see was in trying to ensure the South “fired the first shot,” so to speak.
I mean, the reasoning you offer is correct. That is a good reason to doubt Lincoln’s actions were taken with the intent of provoking a war. If anyone had asked me, I’d have said so from the beginning. I’ve never thought he any more attempted to provoke the war than the South did.
hunter:
Huh? I don’t get this remark. The South seized property, and in the process, they offered receipts showing what property was taken so it could be documented and detailed at a later point. Are you suggesting they attempted to make detailed lists of what they had seized purely to get people to acquiesce to them taking things those people couldn’t possibly prevent? Or is there some other idea at play here?
I mean, it’s trivially easy to find evidence showing the South (and/or South Carolina) did offer to negotiate compensation, so I’m not sure what point your claim is making. Still, I’m baffled at the idea people would make detailed lists of what they were seizing, offering receipts as acknowledgment of what they had seized… without intending to ever pay for things. Why do you think they would do that?
Hunter,
I note in his reply to you, Brandon states
Note: the “for what” and “when” is left off this statement.
Brandon continues to not bring forward the evidence to required to support his actual claims especially those under dispute.
Hmm
“To try to clarify things quickly, while Anderson’s move to Fort Sumter wasn’t an ordered attempt to reinforce the fort, the sending of troops on the Star of the West (a ship) a short time after clearly was. That was actually when the first “shots†of the war were fired, as the South fired upon the vessel to prevent it from delivering more troops to a fort in their territory.”
1. You made it sound like Buchanan broke an agreement.
2. The day after Anderson took his action, Carolina siezed
property.
3. “Their” territory assumes the legtimacy of their attempt to
leave the Union.
I will just say this. Reading what you wrote I expected to find documents supporting your claims. Like an agreement to pay, etc.
Instead I found a story that had much more nuance , all of which, undermined the clear story you were trying to spin.
Sorry I didnt link. I thought you had set a standard of just claiming shit with zero back up..
“Interestingly, I thought that was what you meant and I thought that meaning was fairly obvious. But I thought best to wait and let you say so.”
Ya, well a few things. I know brandon tends to be very careful about the things he claims. And I know he has eclectic interests, so I figured he would be representing the facts correctly. But I also know he has a tendency to read situations involving “intentions” or what other people are thinking and feeling, in very odd almost inept ways. And I know he has a contrarian personality.
Still, I wanted to given him the benefit of the doubt. I went through a large number of sources and tried to focus on “confederate” versions of things. So, when Brandon describes it as Buchanan breaking his word, and the conferate history has Anderson saying he knew nothing about any agreement.. I kinda went “huh?” And so I looked some more to see if I could find an actual document showing what Buchanan had promised.. Or copies of orders to Anderson. Something, anything.
Still I think a case could be made about who the agressor was, and the taking of 2 forts on dec 27th seems pretty hard to beat as an aggressive act.
Anyway, I figured by saying there was nuance I would give brandon a chance to clarify or show up with some evidence.. or give him a chance to say… “there are two good sides to this story” but hey..
I make no claims about who was right. I’ll just say I was shocked to see the obvious nuance left out from someone who is so meticulous.
Well yes, it could be argued that the refusal of the federal government to assiduously enforce the fugitive slave clause amounted to a breach of contract; but of course that poses a problem for apologists for the Confederacy, seeing it highlights preservation of the institution of slavery as the primary Confederate motivation.
here Lucia
more “nuance”
http://www.jfepperson.org/sumter.htm
You did provide a link for the second quote.
A link for the first one can be found here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=nwE0AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=%22An+understanding+had+been+established+between+the+authorities+in+Washington+and+the+members+of+Congress+from+South+Carolina%22&source=bl&ots=xHQKKFRDuq&sig=iPCSkLeBL9_xnZ4MGYfLCwPlnHc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwju9aTynvXJAhXLOCYKHQ1cCJsQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=%22An%20understanding%20had%20been%20established%20between%20the%20authorities%20in%20Washington%20and%20the%20members%20of%20Congress%20from%20South%20Carolina%22&f=false
“Under orders from Secretary of War John Floyd, General Don Carlos Buell visits Robert Anderson at Fort Sumter. Buell tells Anderson he may occupy any fort that he wants to if he is attacked or feels he is about to be attacked.”
Dec 11.
https://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/did-robert-anderson-violate-his-orders/
pretty cool reading.
Nothing like Brandon’s story about how Buchanan broke his word, so we get to take shit and promise to pay you.
lucia responds to my amusement:
This conveniently ignores the nuance that I have never quoted a source without citing it, as Mosher did. It also fails to note if Mosher made his material traceable, me referring to that same material… would be equally traceable.
Ultimately, the claim I’ve consistently failed to provide citations rests solely on the fact I’ve not cited sources for what is common knowledge. I’ve referenced a great deal of facts on this thread, and providing citations for each would have made discussion impossible. And while lucia claims I have consistently failed to provide citations, I didn’t say anything that would require one, and I wasn’t even asked to provide any until after I said I was leaving the discussion.
But… fine. I just finished lunch so I have a bit of time to spare. Let’s see what claims I might need to provide reference for? The first I can think of is I had said:
I would think this would be relatively easy to verify for anyone interested. For the first, all they have to do is look at South Carolina said to President Buchanan in the week or so following its secession. Obviously,when South Carolina seceded, it contacted Buchanan to inform him. Here is a letter from December 28th, which said:
It then goes on to explain how Anderson’s move to Fort Sumter makes such negotiations impossible until that issue is resolved. However, the fact South Carolina would be “ready to negotiate with [Buchanan] upon all such questions as are necessarily raised by” seceding if matters with Fort Sumter could be resolved first shows they would be willing to negotiate regarding things like, seizing federal property. They don’t explicitly refer to it, but seizing some property would obviously be necessary for the state to be able to secede, so it would have been understood to be covered. Buchanan’s response shows this:
By specifically referring to the dollar value of property being seized, it is clear he knew monetary value was an issue at play. That would clearly have been something the South would want to involve in negotiations. In case there is any doubt, we can look at other letters from around that time, such as the letter sent to the person handling attempts at negotiations with Buchanan. On January 12th, he was instructed:
Citing the long historical precedent I’ve referred to of countries resolving similar matters in a peaceful manner. In following that precedent, negotiations were stated to be possible for “all matters which may be” susceptible for compensation. More letters showing a similar attitude exist, but I hope I’ll be forgiven for not citing more as I think three links is all I can post without tripping the spam filter.
I should, however, give mention to the fact I discussed South Carolina’s willingness to give compensation for Fort Sumter even prior to seceding. I said this in reference to the meeting he had with a South Carolina Congressional delegation on December 8th, which he had commit their views to paper. That’s hopefully enough of a traceable reference even without a link.
lucia cites the book Mosher had quoted above. Here is a relevant quote I hadn’t noticed in his quotation from it before:
That obviously doesn’t spell out the details of the intended negotiations, but I’m curious if anyone would actually believe South Carolina would demand property without considering paying for it. Regardless, the more interesting issue is what we find when we look at the source Mosher’s source quotes for this account. A few pages after the account Mosher’s source quoted, this book says:
South Carolina was giving receipts for property it seized and on multiple occasions told Buchanan it would be willing to negotiate for all matters arising from its secession, specifically considering the monetary value of things as one matter to be resolved via negotiations.
Nothing about that is remarkable or difficult to find evidence for. I could find citations for dozens of other sources which mention things like this in passing because basically nobody thinks it is remarkable the South would be willing to negotiate terms of compensation for property it had seized. There had been a long historical precedent of that exact sort of behavior, and matters between the South and North representatives were remarkable civil during the lead up to the war, for two groups about to go to war. There was tons of civil communication between people involved in these incidents, and some were even on friendly terms.
That there would need to be compensation for property seized for any secession to be remotely reasonable is something people from the South were well aware of. The idea they wanted to take everything and not give a dime in compensation just seems bizarre to me.
“Quite simply, the Union did own certain property within the South. The South, as part of its attempt to become a new nation, seized that property while indicating it was willing to provide compensation. Such actions have been common with changes of rulerships, and they have been successfully resolved without violence on many occasions.”
err no.
First they seized it.
Then the offered compensation.
We took your shit, next day… oh, here is dollar.
” We want our shit back”
The key word is “while”
When I first read that from brandon I thought “that’s weird, how does one seize a fort and while doing it make an offer?”
Then there is this
““For instance, South Carolina had not seized property within the area around Fort Sumter until Buchanan was perceived as having broken his word. That perception is what caused that property to be seized.â€
On Dec 26th, Anderson, explains he knows of no order requiring
him to stay put in one of 3 locations. On the 27th property is seized. On the 28th they send a Letter that DOESN’T accuse buchanan of breaking his word.
And they DONT actually offer to negotiate
“But the events of the last twenty-four hours render such an assurance impossible. We came here the
representatives of an authority which could, at any time within the past sixty days, have taken possession of the
forts in Charleston harbor, but which, upon pledges given in a manner that, we cannot doubt, determined to trust
to your honor rather than to its own power. Since our arrival here an officer of the United States, acting, as we
are assured, not only without but against your orders, has dismantled one fort and occupied another, thus
altering, to a most important extent, the condition of affairs under which we came.
Until these circumstances are explained in a manner which relieves us of all doubt as to the spirit in
which these negotiations shall be conducted, we are forced to suspend all discussion as to any arrangements by
which our mutual interests might be amicably adjusted.
And, in conclusion, we would urge upon you the immediate withdrawal of the troops from the harbor of
Charleston. Under present circumstances, they are a standing menace which renders negotiation impossible,
and, as our recent experience shows, threatens speedily to bring to a bloody issue questions which ought to be
settled with temperance and judgment. ”
######################
So.
1. They seize property
2. They offer to “negotitate”
3. They cut off negotiations, until the Feds leave completely.
Again, they did not seize property as Brandon asserted because they believed Buchanan had broke his word. they adopt Floyd’s argument that Anderson had violated orders. They dont make an offer to pay “while” they are seizing property. They seize two of the three forts and and demand the 3rd be vacated, and make that a condition of negotiation. hardly good faith negotiation.
Lot’s of nuance.
Steven Mosher:
Indeed. That’s why I later clarified things by acknowleding my earlier portrayal was mistaken:
My mistake arose from the issue I mentioned above where I pointed out I had conflated Anderson’s move to Fort Sumter with the reinforcements Buchanan sent there a couple weeks later. It had been some time since I had thought much on the Civil War, and my quick brush up before commenting wasn’t enough to make me remember all the specifics.
Buchanan had sent reinforcements, but not until a couple weeks later. Prior to that, he had given people the impression things with the forts wouldn’t change without them being notified. When Anderson moved to Fort Sumter, many people viewed that as a breach of their trust. That caused hostilities to rise, leading to further actions which culiminated in the reinforcements I had been thinking of actually being sent.
My confusion caused me to inaccurately describe things. When I realized this, before you pointed anything out to me, I commented to try to clarify matters. When, after I tried to clarify things, you referred to matters being more nuanced, those nuances seemed to match my clarifications. As such, I didn’t consider them remarkable. I didn’t think you intended to write a comment to criticize me for what I had said prior to trying to correct it. People really shouldn’t wait until a person has acknowledged their mistake then go, “Hah, you’re wrong!” while not acknowledging the correction that was posted. They certainly shouldn’t say things like:
As though no correction was ever posted. Because that’s silly. I did exactly what you say I should have done, but I did it before you even commented. Seriously, I posted a correction/clarification 2:56 pm on December 23rd. You posted your comment saying there was more nuance at 8:48 pm.
That’s why I responded indicating I didn’t think the additional nuance you posted changed anything. Because I had (as far as I could see) acknowledged all the relevant changes six hours before you said anything.
Steven Mosher says:
He somehow fails to note the details I’ve provided just a little above his. I had no referred solely to the seizing of forts like he seems to suggest, but rather, had said the South seized property while offering to negotiate compensation. As I showed just above, the South offered receipts for the property it seized. That was a clear indication they were taking note of what they were seizing with the intent of allowing for compensation to be claimed.
Mosher perceives some issue with my use of the word “while,” but I think most people would giving a person a receipt while in the process of seizing property is in fact doing something… while in the process of seizing property. Additionally, as I indicated above, South Carolina had indicated it was willing to consider negotiating matters such as compensation prior to seceding and during the discussions of how matters at Fort Sumter should be resolved. Combined with the fact they were giving receipts for property seized, I think most people would consider it reasonable to say it indicated it was willing to negotiate “while” seizing property.
Mosher then says:
While quoting the same letter I quoted showing the South was willing to provide compensation as part of negotiating. Mosher’s point seems to merely be that they were not willing to negotiate at that particular moment, but that doesn’t contradict what I said in any substantial way.
I had said the South “seized that property while indicating it was willing to provide compensation.” That is largely true. There is a little nuance involved as South Carolina wasn’t willing to negotiate compensation until after the military concerns were resolved, but that is basically saying, “We came here in the hopes of negotiating compensation and other things, but until matters with the military issue are resolved, we can’t deal with issues like that.” I think it still clearly indicates they are willing to negotiate compensation. They just required a different issue be resolved first.
Then Mosher says:
Again, failing to acknowledge the clarification I had posted on this matter. While the people sent to negotiate with Buchanan did not blame him for Anderson’s actions (acknowledging he may have acted without authorization), many people in the South did. That perception caused hostilities to grow and emotions to run hot. Hence why I said many people believed Buchanan broke his word, and that led to the property being seized.
Finally, Mosher says:
Which is just more of the same. The quote he provided from me clearly states the South indicated it was willing to negotiate on matters of compensation, not that it offered to negotiate on them. That is because I was acknowledging the nuances of the situation, many of which Mosher now completely fails to highlight or even acknowledge
Anyway, my free time is about up for now, so I’m going to have to take a break from commenting. I have family over, and there’s silly responsibilities like cooking food to tend to. As a last thought for the moment though, I want to ask a question about a quote in one of the letters. On January 11th, the Governor of South Carolina told Anderson, who was controlling Fort Sumter:
Am I understanding this correctly as a promise to provide compensation if things go well? I think that’s what Pickens means when he says to “give you the pledge of the State” in relation to public property, but I’m not positive. The change in language between then and now makes me hesitant on interpreting sentences like this.
Interestingly, On the 28th anderson sent the commanding officer at Moultrie a letter asking if he could have the property, public and private, at the fort that had been seized.
you know,, “give us our shit”.. no need to make an offer to buy it, just a simple request ” you took the fort, can we have our shit?”
And of course the response was basically, you can have the private shit, but not the Public stuff.
Anderson rightly saw this as an indication that south carolina regarded them as an enemy.
Lastly,
The “agreement” South carolina ( Mcqueen and others) offered to Buchanan was precious. We promise not to attack or molest
you, provided you dont send re inforcements to the forts. and that their “miltary status shall remain as present”.. whatever the hell that means.
Still it was fun reading through all the letters back and forth.
I expected to find a stronger case for brandons position.
maybe? who knows
“Again, failing to acknowledge the clarification I had posted on this matter. While the people sent to negotiate with Buchanan did not blame him for Anderson’s actions (acknowledging he may have acted without authorization), many people in the South did. That perception caused hostilities to grow and emotions to run hot. Hence why I said many people believed Buchanan broke his word, and that led to the property being seized.”
Brandon.
Anderson moved on the 26th
on the 27th property was seized.
on the 28th those in charge said they thought anderson violated his orders.
The seizing of property on the 27th was NOT due to “many people” in the south believing buchanan had broken his word.
This was cool
Brandon,
Uhhm… you make claims while neither quoting nor citing sources. I don’t see how this is better than what Mosher did.
Wrong. You failed to cite sources for things that are not common knowledge and in fact contradict common knowledge.
Merry Christmas Lucia.
Brandon,
Thank you for finally citing something. Of course it doesn’t support your contention that So. Ca was offering to pay for anytyig.
First, the letter you site was preceded by a demand the federal government give up Fort Sumter. whose transcription is here demands
“ Government of the United States for the delivery of the forts, magazines, light-houses and other real estate, with their appurtenances, within the limits of South Carolina,“.
Notably, it doesn’t mention any offer to pay for these properties.
What does it kinda sort of suggestion? A general offer to “negotiate with you upon all such questions as are necessarily rais
ed by the adoption of this ordinance [of secession]’. Even if this offer were open (which further reading shows it was not) vague allusions to being willing to “negotiate†“questions†is not and offer to pay for property— not Sumter, not Moutrie, not the Arsenal, not anything.
And even if it were such an offer, the fact the letter cuts off the possibility of even these negotiations with “But the events of thelast twenty-four hours render such an assurance impossible†suggests that So. Carolina was not offering negotiations at this point. Perhaps you have evidnece they had before— but they aren’t in this letter.
The letter writer then makes a demand: leave fort sumter. Offers for something in exchange: Nothing other than allusions to the possibility that the Union not doing what So Carolina wants would “threatens speedily to bring to a bloody issue questions which ought to be
settled with temperance and judgmentâ€. This reads like an aggressive threat to… well… attack. The one making the threat? So. Carolina.
Offers of to pay for federal properties in this document you finally actually cite: None.
brandon
We are all fairly familiar with people saying something is “not inconsistent with”. Something not being inconsistent with paying is also not saying So. Ca is offering to pay. As far as I can see there is no offer to pay anything there.
This is not also not an offer to pay for the fort.
The reference is sufficiently vague to leave open the possibility that the “principles of Justice and Equity” might indicate that the Feds get nothing from So. Carolina because all the rights fall with So Carolina and all the obligations with the Union.
I continue to await evidence So. Carolina offerred to pay up. It appears your claim rests on mis-reading what So. Carolina was saying.
And yet the stuff you have cited does [not] provide evidence to support your claims. But perhaps the dozens of others you could cite would. I wait.
SteveF,
Merry Christmas!
I do not not comment often, but always enjoy reading everybody.
Merry Christmas all.
Merry Christmas all.
Happy Christmas , all.
thanks to every one for the input, entertainment and education, especially the host who is most tolerant.
sorry to all those I was intemperate with.
This is a non echo chamber site where most views get a fair run.
2016 could be very interesting….
Lucia,
Had the Federal government wanted compensation for Federal property in the Southern States, I suspect that they would have asked for it. That the South did not make any clear offer of payment is not very important, I think, because the financial value of those assets was not central to the dispute. People in the South believed (correctly I think) that the far more populous North would ultimately force them to eliminate slavery, and that they would not accept, because the economy of the South was (in part) dependent on slavery. There is no succession clause in the Constitution; the Civil War acted as a de facto clause: ‘No State shall have the right to separate itself from the United States’.
SteveF,
I agree the Federal government didn’t want compensation– they wanted to retain ownership. From their view that was their right. ( The South had a different view, but I think Union view the more reasonable one.) But Brandon seems to want to insist all sorts of things about the South. In fact:
1) South Ca was immediately threatening and began making unreasonable demands even before seceding. (e.g. Pickens asking to send his forces to Sumter before seceding.)
2) They began organizing troops immediately.
3) Firing on others when there was no need.
4) Sending ships with armed men prowling around Moultrie before Anderson decamp for fear he and his men were vulnerable. (And doing this while some claim they had an “agreement” to allow the forts to be as they were while they “negotiated”.)
That they someimes tagged on vaguely worded offers to ‘negotiate’ the possibility of paying for unnamed things of unnamed value with conditionals that suggest the outcome of those negotiations would be that they think the items belonged to So. Ca all along is hardly helpful to any claim that somehow the North was the more aggressive of the two. But as someone is trying to claim these are actual offers of payment for what had been seized. (It’s also worth noting only offers sent to the Federal Government itself could even be offers. There is an ‘offer’ to Buchannan in the Jan 12 letter. That does specifically mention for what: Sumter. The one property they had failed so far to seize. There is no mention of other properties either explicitly nor implicitly. But we know they’d seized at least the Arsenal in Charleston, Moultrie and Castle P. That the letter written to Buchannan does mention Sumter and fails to mention the other properties in any way at all is telling. It strongly suggests the less explicit, vague and so on offers did not mean to include the other properties they’d managed to seize and were holding. They were willing to buy properties they had failed to seize. Meanwhile, they would threaten to take those by force if the Federals wouldn’t sell. The threats of force are quite strong– and it’s clear they meant it because they had already fired once. )
Lucia,
Well, South Carolina had long before (Dec 20, 1860) officially declared itself separated from the United States, and so did not recognize any authority of the United States within South Carolina. The argument for succession was at bottom the logic of the Declaration of Independence (which asserts a natural right to throw off unjust government). After their declared succession, Federal troops stationed in South Carolina represented (in South Carolinian minds) the presence of foreign, and likely hostile, troops in their country. So it seems to me the actions of South Carolinians WRT Ft Sumter are perfectly consistent with their understanding of their natural rights, even while those actions (and actions taken by other Southern States) turned out ultimately catastrophic for the South (and very damaging for the North).
.
I had not thought about the causes for the Civil War in a long time. I think it is useful to consider that the civil War took place very shortly after the revolutionary war, and that the ‘natural right’ to armed revolt was still taken very seriously by lots of people. Both sides in the Civil War (indeed in the Revolutionary and most other wars) were convinced they were morally/philosophically ‘right’ in their positions. That is what usually leads to war; morality is hard to compromise on.
SteveF,
I agree that So. Carolina thought secession justified and they thought Federal troops a hostility. Meanwhile the North thought the reverse. I merely reject suggestions that we diagnose whether actions were hostile on not by only considering the Southern view and ignoring the Northern. (As far as I am aware, you haven’t made such a suggestion.) Viewed from the North’s side, the south was hostile, aggressive, demading often rattling sabers rather quickly. (So. Gov. Pickens inauguration speech contains some saber rattling.)
Moreover, from any view, firing guns at people is hostile. They could have waited– just as Anderson waited.
BTW: More evidence of the South’s intent with regard to “paying”:
http://www.civilwar-online.com/2011/03/march-24-1861-governor-pickens-writes.html
He suggests that if Andersen evacauted, they should be willing to take an inventory if Anderson insisted (so as to get them out, out, out) but:
In otherwords: Do your best to avoid paying or promising payment. These are not the instructions of someone truly willing to pay for what they take. They are the instructions of someone who might grudgingly pay something if absolutely necessary.
Oh… and about Moultry which they took? He wasn’t going to pay anything for that. Bubkiss.
SteveF,
If the early scenes of Gone With the Wind are reasonably correct about the attitude of the Southern aristocracy before the war, they were not only convinced of their moral superiority, but that they were fully capable of defeating the North in a shooting war because of it. You generally don’t start a war you don’t think you can win. Sure they would have been happy if the North had capitulated without a fight, but the election of Lincoln guaranteed that wasn’t going to happen.
lucia seems somewhat bad at writing comments. The HTML of her paragraph:
And even the wording, makes it impossible for me to tell just what she was saying as the links don’t work and paragraph is… somewhat incomprehensible. Regardless, she claims the letter I cited “demands” something, yet here is the quotation she provided bolded with additional context provided:
The portion lucia quoted in no way was making demands. It was part a statement of the scope of authority the delegates had for their negotiations. They were saying what they hoped to talk about during negoatiations to try to resolve things. I have no idea how lucia has misrepresented this in such a glaring way, but the letter didn’t make any demands. Nor did it do:
As lucia claims. It clearly says:
Saying negotiations can’t continue until an explanation for why troops moved to Fort Sumter has been provided is in no way a demand those troops leave Fort Sumter. lucia is just wildly making things up about what this letter says, even though she quotes the letter so she has clearly seen it.
Ultimately, the substance of the disagreement between lucia and myself comes down to the fact she holds things like:
Because the South offered to negotiate all issues arising from its secession, often without explicitly referring to monetary compensation. She apparently holds that means the South wasn’t offering to compensate anyone for the property it seized. I hold anyone of the time would understand financial compensation would have been a part of such negotiations, noting circumstantial evidence such as receipts given for seized property and discussion of financial matters during discussions of negotiations. I further hold the matter would have inevitably came up in the face-to-face discussions that were held between the people.
I don’t feel the lack of explicit reference to a particular item which would need to be negotiated does anything to suggest people of the time thought it would not have been something the South was willing to negotiate. This is particularly true given there is substantial circumstantial evidence indicating the South was willing to negotiate on this matter while none hsa been offered to suggest it was not. Were the South unwilling to offer compensation, one could certainly expect to find remarks to that effect.
Anyway, this sort of thing shows why I gave up trying to treat with lucia, so to speak. She portrayed a letter where people basically said, “We came here authoritzed to have a formal discussion with you to try to reach an agreement about the delivery of stuff” was them saying, “You must give us that stuff.” She further claimed them saying, “We can’t have a negotiation until you explain what’s going on with Fort Sumter” as them saying, “You must abandon Fort Sumter.” It’s ridiculous, especially since she went so far as to quote the letter in a way which furthers her misrepresentations.
I get lucia may feel she doesn’t misrepresent things, but… she does. Very badly.
Brandon
Sorry my comments don’t live up to your standards for comments. It is true that I am writing hurriedly between cooking, leaving for parties and such.
I didn’t say the portion quoted made demands.
No one said they did.
Wrong. Because the explicit wording in letter actually conveyed to Buchannan only offers to negotiate afterwards– and even that only for Ft. Sumter and that offer is worded to leave open the possibility that nothing would be paid.
That Pickens was advising his officers on practices to avoid paying tends to support my view that the language to Buchannan was not an offer to pay.
No. It is the lack of any language explicitly stating they would pay for things that makes it not an offer to pay. Suggesting one would be willing to consider negotiations about “X” in the future worded in ways that are not inconsistent with never agreeing to do “X” is not an offer to actually do “X”. That is true whether “X” is an offer to pay for something or something else.
And yet here you are!
Lulz. I was about to write a comment wishing everyone a merry Christmas and saying I likely won’t be commenting again for today due to famiily considerations, but then I saw lucia’s last comment which says:
lucia’s interpretation of this document is… interesting, to say the least. Compare what she says to what the link she provides says in its description of the document:
That’s right. lucia provides a link which specifically says South Carolina wanted to pay for the fort as proof South Carolina didn’t plan to pay for the fort. How? By selectively quoting a portion of the underlying document which refers to damages to the fort caused by the conflict as though they referred to the fort as a whole.
Read in its entirety, the underlying document refers to the expenses caused by the conflict, not the fort as a whole. For anyone who might not understand the document, the link lucia provided clearly summarizes it. Despite this, lucia somehow came to a completely unsupportable conclusion, one that can only be reached via cherry-picking a quotation and stripping it of all context.
I’m sorry, but this is too hilarious. You’d practically have to try to be this willfully blind.
Brandon,
Lulz.
Those who click the link can see that the preface which suggests the person writing it can read Picken’s mind so as to guess what Picken’s “imagined” is followed by a letter in which Pickens:
1) Explicitly provides reasons not to pay for Moutrie (which he had seized.)
2) Instructs his officer how to act to avoid paying anything is possible.
3) Gives him permission to hand over receipts if absolutely necessary to achieve the goal of getting Andersen out.
4) Instructions him to protest that the State of So. Carolina would not be obligated to pay for these things.
And in short: do everything to avoid paying for things in the fort.
That the person writing the preface might believe all these things meant Pickens was offering to pay– uhhmmm no. That PIckens might imagine that someone would may a case that he ought to? Plausible. That Pickens might imagine that public pressure (possibly from other states whose opinion he values) might result in demand that he ought to pay? Likely.
But with respect to Pickens actual written instructions we are left in no doubt. His instructions were go act in a way as to avoid paying for these things.
That someone who is not Pickens could later write a preface which suggests that author could read Pickens’ mind to figure out what Pickens “imagine[d]” something does not transform Pickens’s overt actions to avoid paying into offers to pay!
(I have to laugh at the thought that you are not “treating” with me. Heh.)
For those interested, this is what Pickens actually wrote, which I think is a better guide to what he thought than someone’s guess what he “imagined”. (Now note: what he might have “imagined” is not a offer.)
This sure reads like a suggestion that the south not offer to take the inventory. The motivation for not making the offer is that it would imply the Government of South Carolina might be obligated to pay. This strongly suggests Pickens did not “offer” to pay.
This is an explanation why the US is not entitled to be paid by So Ca.
More reasons why the North is not entitled to be paid.
Here, he will agree to an inventory if Anderson asks for it.
They are to sign any inventory requested– but make sure it is undertsood this is not an offer to pay.
Well… unless you really have to.
Anyway, he doesn’t know if Anderson has the authority to evacuate and so on.. but Beauregard can go ahead and send the sort of letter Beauregard wants.
Suggesting one would be willing to make a record of the contents of the fort provided while insisting this is not to be interpreted as meaning So Carolina pay is not an offer to pay. No. Not even if Pickens may have “imagined” that at some point in the future he might or would have to pay.
The link to the full letter is here:
http://www.civilwar-online.com/2011/03/march-24-1861-governor-pickens-writes.html
Brandon,
I do not attack you Brandoon my brother. In fact, for some obscure reason I like and respect you. I write in a spirit of amity.
Were I in your shoes, and if I came to these conclusions about Lucia, I would start error checking myself.
Best regards and Merry Christmas my friend.
DeWitt,
“Sure they would have been happy if the North had capitulated without a fight, but the election of Lincoln guaranteed that wasn’t going to happen.”
.
I agree that Lincoln’s election made war far more likely, but I would stop short of ‘guaranteed’. There are other countries where slavery ended without civil war; the dependence of the South on slavery more difficult, but I don’t think impossible. Had the potential toll of the Civil War been understood before it started, my guess is that both the South and the North would have been much more inclined to compromise. The era of need for slavery to support an agrarian economy was going to end anyway as farming technology improved.
.
Sort of like how the demands for draconian reductions fossil fuel use (NOW! NOW! NOW!!!) will decline when warming continues half or less of model projections for the next couple of decades. 😉
Mark Bofill:
Believe me, I have. Many times. You might note I’ve corrected myself on several points in this thread, without any provocation, as I caught my own mistakes. (If you do, you may also note Steven Mosher then came along and lambasted me for what I had already corrected.) Similarly, you might note I’ve tried to get lucia to address things I’ve said that she has chosen not to address, without success.
I did not rush to those conclusions. I considered it regrettable that I reached those conclusions. Still, that I regret something is necessary does not prevent me from doing it. lucia has misrepresented numerous things in this thread in obvious ways. She has done this in several past disagreements. If it were necessary for me to make a case demonstrating this, it would be easy for me to do so.
The sad reality is lucia has exhibited a strong tendency to ignore certain things that have been said while addressing others, sometimes to the extent of selectively quoting things in ways which distort the meaning of what has been said. That makes it impossible to have any sort of meaningful discussion because any point of disagreement may simply be ignored or discarded whenever it is inconvenient despite it not having been resolved. If somebody wishes to dispute or simply discuss what I’ve said about lucia’s behavior or anything else on this page, I’d be happy to as long as they can avoid such pathetic behavior.
In the meantime, people who behave like Steven Mosher and lucia can keep behaving like they do. People can criticize me for mistakes only after I’ve corrected them while not acknolwedging I’ve correted them. People can say things then simply drop the subject when I show what they say is completely false. So forth and so on. It’s clear to me I know this subject far better than anyone else discussing it, with nobody thus far having provided a single fact I was unaware of (while the opposite is certainly untrue, with lucia and Mosher having previously been unaware of much of what’s been discussed here). I don’t feel any need to prove that or make people like me, so… yeah, people can behave however they want.
In the meantime, I’m going to just continue to be amused by all this. Well that, and maybe throw out some random factoids. For instance, prior to Fort Sumter being fired upon, Abraham Lincoln asked his advisors what they thought of resupplying the fort given it was running out of supplies. Do you know what William Seward said? I think his answer is interesting, especially:
Also interesting is the Lincoln’s inauguration speech. lucia cites it above, discussing how clear it is regarding Lincoln’s intentions. What makes that interesting is an earlier draft of his inauguration speech actually said he planned to go into southern states to retake property they had seized.
These sort of details are things people knowledgeable of the subject are familiar with, and they add interesting context. While Lincoln’s inauguration speech may have been clear about him not planning to invade the south, an earlier draft said he was going to do exactly that. When Lincoln asked for advice about what to do regarding Fort Sumter, one person told him trying to resupply it would likely start a civil war. He tried to resupply Fort Sumter, and that started a civil war.
Details like that are why I find the subject interesting. I could write an essay on how Lincoln’s plans for Fort Sumter tried to avoid the outcome Seward predicted and why they were doomed to fail. lucia could… Google a few things and studiously misinterpret them.
I just really noticed Mosher’s comment where he said:
And I wanted to point out he’s… kind of full of it. I’ve been letting this issue go for a while, but with the constant cries for “nuance” and such, I’m going to do what I wanted to do from the start about this.
Now, one could quibble about what qualifies as “many people” or just how much of the South would have to be covered for my statement to be true, but Mosher clearly says “those in charge said they thought anderson violated his orders.” That’s not true. At all. Mosher is basing this claim on the fact delegates sent to Washington said this in a letter to President Buchanan:
The first thing to note is delegates handling negotiations are not the people in charge. These delegates haven’t spoken as to the beliefs of the people in charge, so one can’t actually know their beliefs are the same as those of the people in charge.
More importantly, however, is the fact there’s no indication what Mosher said is even true for these delegates. You’ll note, they never said they assumed Anderson’s actions were taken without orders. I was willing to gloss over this fact before because I didn’t want to have to delve into details of yet another issue, but come on, it’s obvious. They clearly said Anderson acted contrary to orders “as we are assured.” That’s not a statement of assumption; that’s a statement of what they’ve been told.
The reality is they arrived in Washington to talk to Buchanan. After their arrival, news of Anderson’s actions reached Washington. That caused their scheduled meeting to be pushed back. During the time they waited for the meeting to take place, Buchanan had several meetings with advisors about what to do, failing to take any action for over twelve hours even though he could have, as far as he knew, ordered Anderson to withdraw as he had no information the fort Anderson had left had been seized.
Similarly, the people in Charleston had no way to know Anderson acted without orders, much less to know he acted contrary to orders. They certainly had no way to know Anderson acted contrary to orders then the president spent 12 hours choosing to not take any action in response. In this light, they assumed Anderson’s actions were ordered. They had no reason to assume otherwise. In fact, such an assumption would fly in the face of all apparent reason. Despite that, Mosher says they did based on… absolutely nothing.
Unless you count him flagrantly misrepresenting sources. It does sort of seem that counts here. I’m not sure why. I mean, it’s so often trivially easy to see through the misrepresentations. Even if one couldn’t read what Mosher quoted and recognize it didn’t support what he claims, it’s easy to find the South giving their side of things where they say exactly what I just said.
I’m breaking this off because the last comment was already getting a little long, and I’m going to quote a fair bit of a letter the South wrote to President Buchanan on January 1st, following his response to their contact of him a week after South Carolina seceded, both of which I’ve referenced and quoted earlier.
People can agree or disagree with their views, but it’s clear Anderson’s actions were perceived as President Buchanan breaking his word like I had claimed. It is clear that perception caused many people to get angry, like I had claimed. It is clear that perception caused people in South Carolina to take hostile action and seize federal property in Charleston, including two forts, like I had claimed.
Again, I want to repeat that this sort of thing is common knowledge amongst people familiar with how the Civil War started. Steven Mosher may feel he can do some quick research and know enough to dictate what the timeline of events were and insist I’m wrong. The truth is, some quick research is enough to know who is right. I’d say two hours is all it’d take to familiarize oneself with the general stuff. I could tell you the books* to use. The thing is, you have to try to actually learn about the subject, not just Google a few random topics that come up.
*Speaking of which, I hope you’ll forgive the poor transcription of this letter. I have a PDF of the book The War of the Rebellion v. 1-53, but due to issues with software recognizing characters, things don’t copy perfectly. You can probably find a copy of the letter online somewhere, but I’m tired of looking for links for letters I have on my drive. For anyone with a copy of the book, you can find the letter on page 120.
“Sort of like how the demands for draconian reductions fossil fuel use (NOW! NOW! NOW!!!) will decline when warming continues half or less of model projections for the next couple of decades.”
I doubt it will end up like that. The chances/odds that it will decline soon(ish) are probably about as good as they will rise.
SteveF,
I should have been more specific:
Sure they would have been happy if the North had capitulated to the secession without a fight, but the election of Lincoln guaranteed that wasn’t going to happen. Lincoln was not going to allow any state to leave the Union. Once the secession happened, as Julius Caesar was reported to have said when he crossed the Rubicon, “Alea iacta est” (the die is cast). The states that seceded were fully aware of this, but they thought they could easily defeat the North.
The link, by my reading, doesn’t accurately summarise the document from which it quotes; I find Lucia’s interpretation far more plausible than yours (although it’d be good to know the larger set of correspondence), and I didn’t find her quotation to be cherry-picking. I’d also have added this part: “[..] the attempt to throw re-enforcements in and the whole course of the Government and command here, has forfeited all claim for future accountability for armament and public property in this fort now; besides, the expenses they have forced us to, in order to ward off the conquest and subjugation intended by their occupation of Sumter, all cancel the obligation to account.”.
I doubt many people here would agree with you. I know I don’t. Your criticism about the difficulty of meaningful discussion seems to me to be much more applicable to yourself. You’ve previously misrepresented others’ while accusing them of doing the same, and accused them of not addressing your points while failing to address theirs (you’ve certainly done this with me) – the above seems like further hypocrisy.
As I said, I see the “pathetic” behaviour as being on your part. You also seem to put some effort into maintaining a personality that is, all too often, by turns rude, whiny, arrogant, and jeeringly obnoxious – at least, that’s how it comes across to me. I imagine this is fairly disagreeable, if not repellant, to most people, so don’t be too surprised if not many take you up on your offer of discussion – it’s not that they think you’re right, they just don’t want to deal with the unpleasantness. That would be my guess, anyway. From what I’ve seen, Lucia’s analytical skills, understanding of history and people, and general grasp of reality are more advanced than yours, and she seems to put up with your immaturity, so you could actually learn something from her.
“she seems to put up with your immaturity, so you could actually learn something from her”
Teach, don’t lecture, is a good methodology.
oneuniverse
The blogger who put together the site linked has collected together many available primary texts. Sometimes he adds a preface as comment; sometimes not.
It would be nice if we had the letter Beauregard sent to Pickens– Pickens was responding. But I haven’t found it. Many correspondences appear to no longer exist– a fact that if true would hardly be surprising.
Lucia: You think you have problems with your history. Try doing the same work in nations with longer histories. Most is definitely written by the conquerors.
one universe
I have found a sizable number here. They aren’t amenable to cut and paste. But with respect to Pickens letter, some exchanges between various people before he wrote it are near page 279. It appears the reason the South wanted to propose an inventory was that rumors existed mines might have been laid under Sumter. So L.P. Walker, the Confederate Secretary of war wanted Beauregard to suggest the inventory as a pretext to permit him to hunt for evidence of such mines before Federal troops left. Moreover, if Anderson wouldn’t assist him in taking inventory, he was to ask Anderson if any mines were in place. If Anderson wouldn’t assure him there were no mines in place, he was to hold Anderson and his men in place. (Presumably the thought is Anderson and his men wouldn’t blow themselves up.)
In other words: The purpose of this inventory was not because the Confederates intended to reimburse anyone for anything seized but to permit the Confederates to assure themselves there were no mines in place and avoid blowing themselves up.
That book doesn’t have Beauregards letter to Pickens– but as you saw from Pickens response, he didn’t want Beauregard to request the inventory himself as he thought that would suggest the South ought to pay for material seized.
Hi Lucia, thank you, that’s very interesting, and further support for your interpretation.
I’m getting very limited access from that link, by the way – Google is only showing a fragment of a page (the top two lines of page 256). If I search for Pickens within the book, I get similar fragments for the top 3 hits, but no more, and no option to scroll through the book. (Normally, I find Google books shows sequences of complete pages.) Are you able to see more?
oneuniverse,
I was able to see quite a lot. I’d googled a particular sentences, and sent to a particular page. Then I scrolled, reading along quite a bit. Let me see if I can do better for you.
Yeah… clicking, I still seem to be able to scroll up and down pretty freely. Sorry if you can’t. I don’t know how Googlebooks page might be programmed to allow or disallow that.
Thanks for checking, maybe it’s a regional agreement issue for Google. The book is a US Govt. publication, and I’m trying to access from the UK.
Archive.org has the book online though, in various formats including PDF: The war of the rebellion: a compilation of the official records of the Union and Confederate armies. Unfortunately, the search performance for the digitisation is very hit and miss.
oneuniverse:
Well first, I’d like to say it is a horrible idea to offer a source for people which disagrees with what you say without addressing that disagreement. Even if you only want to provide the source for a quotation found within it, the fact the source explicitly disagrees with you is a hugely important item which you really need to address.
Second, you both seem to be suffering under the same misunderstanding of that letter. The author of that source, who is far more familiar with this field, understands it quite well because he does not simply read sentences out of context. Here is what lucia quoted in bold with some additional context provided
Bleh. For some reason I can’t edit that comment to fix the blockquote tag. Sorry about that.
Anyway, oneuniverse, you say:
The problem with this is your accusations are completely unverifiable. When I make accusations, I try to ensure people can check for themselves to see if what I say is true. All of my accusations here have been fundamentally tied to things said on this thread, meaning anyone can read the thread and find me highlighting the things I later accuse people of doing. That means they can look for themselves to decide if they agree with what they say. It also means anyone who wants to dispute my accusations can do so.
With your accusations, none of that is true. I can’t even recall times where you’ve claimed I was doing these things. I wouldn’t know how to find what you refer to, and if I don’t, certainly no other readers could. That means you’re effectively doing nothing more than posting random derogatory remarks.
I don’t expect to be popular or well-liked, and I can’t help but notice many people who don’t get along with me tend to only do so when they disagree with what I say. If it were really just that I’m the horrible person you make it sound I am, these people wouldn’t get along with me when we’re not disagreeing.
I could disagree with people in ways that weren’t so confrontational and probably not have as many issues. I’m not going to though. I speak my mind and say what I see without concern for who or what did it. Most of the time I’m right. When I find out I’m not, I openly admit it. If people don’t like that, oh well.
To be blunt, I’ve heard comments like yours a thousand times in my life. I spent years trying to figure out how to change myself to stop it. What I learned is I can’t. It doesn’t matter how I say the things I see. People will always find a way to complain about how I express thoughts rather than the thoughts themselves.
Ok, I linked to a different volume of the book, sorry Lucia.
The letters you refer to (near page 279) appear to be in Chapter I, if I’m making out the text at the top of the page correctly. I haven’t found this on the archive.org website yet, but it looks like it might be there – this is a very large ‘book’ !
The full text of the “The War of The Rebellion” seems to be online at Cornell Library, OCR’d into searchable .txt format (including the original page numbers).
Brandon Shollenberger:
I’m referring to your comments at this blog and at Judith Curry’s Climate Etc. Whoever wants to verify the general criticism (assuming they haven’t independently come to the same conclusion already) can start with your comments at this thread and work backwards. For the more specific reference involving your interaction with me, I had our conversation at Vaughan Pratt’s “Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin” post at Climate Etc. in mind.
Here is a nice article to show dilemma climate scientists are in when trying to save the world.
.
Dr. Root egotistical? Naaaaa.
Oh god, I had completely forgotten about that exchange oneuniverse. I can’t believe you’re seriously suggesting people look at it as evidence for your case.
We’re talking about a thread where I pointed out Vaughan Pratt had used a parameter in his model which could be tweaked to improve the fit he achieved. He had labeled this particular parameter the “Hansen delay” after work done by James Hansen, and when someone called it a “fiddle factor,” Pratt responded:
I responded to point out this was untrue. His particular “fiddle factor” was being used to address the fact there are delays in response time for what he was modeling, and it is true you have to account for such delays. However, there was absolutely no reason one would have to account for such delays with this particular approach. I was making the simple point that the fact there was a problem didn’t mean one had to use this “fiddle factor” to address it. When Pratt responded, his comment included this remark:
This is obviously nonsense. A person cannot justify including a parameter in their model by saying anyone who questions its use can’t find a better solution so they don’t have room to complain. I pointed this out, with a simplistic description, quoting the portion I’ve bolded here and saying:
Now, he obviously didn’t say what the literal words of my comment say. However, I had quoted his remark with the assumption people would understand I wasn’t being completely literal. I thought they would read his remark where he had literally said if I couldn’t provide a better answer I shouldn’t complain and understand my description was meant to describe the form of the argument by referring to a classic logical fallacy. That’s when oneuniverse joined the discussion, to say my description was wrong. I responded to explain he hadn’t literally said what I meant as I was trying to describe the form of his argument not the literal words it contained and commented:
After I had acknowledged what I said wasn’t fully accurate, explaining the intention behind my remarks and clarifying what had been said so there would be no confusion, oneuniverse came back with a ridiculously over-the-top comment that said (in part):
This was absurd as acknowledging what one said wasn’t accurate, explaining how it happened and clarifying/correcting it is exactly what a person should do after making an “error.” I did it. Despite that, oneuniverse nearly started ranting about how I needed to “admit my error(s),” which I had already done.
Things went downhill from there, with oneuniverse eventually claiming my depiction of what Vaughan Pratt had said was wrong by pointing to the quote from Pratt seen at the start of this comment and quoting all but the bolded portion, which was the portion I had quoted when I wrote my comment. Having somehow managed to quote everything but what I was responding to, oneuniverse claimed my response was inaccurate…
And that’s not even the most messed up part of the exchange. oneuniverse wound up referencing a comment I had made on another thread, asking me a question. I pointed out he would have found the answer if he had looked at the comment immediately after the one he was referencing, a comment I had submitted a mere nine minutes after the former to clarify the comment he was referencing. oneuniverse then acknowledged I was right, saying he should have seen the second comment “back-track” the first.
Naturally, I thought that was weird. I don’t understand why a person would call saying something then immediately clarifying it to be backtracking. oneuniverse responded by writing six sentences to explain the clarificatied statement was not identical to the original one… which nobody would have possibly disputed because that’s sort of the point of clarifying things. When I pointed out the absurdity of that response, he then said:
Because apparently he felt it was completely wrong for me to say after writing a comment, typing a four paragraph comment follow-up to it and submitting that within nine minutes was “immediately clarifying” the first comment. I don’t know how much more “immediate” my clarification would have had to have been to satisfy oneuniverse since he chose to stop responding after I wrote a comment scoffing at this.
I don’t have words for how hilarious this is. This being the example cited for my supposed bad character is too funny. It’s the perfect example of how ridiculous this thread is. It’s like, “Yah man, look at me. I’m a horrible hypocrite who don’t know nuthin about nuthin. I’m biased out the yin-yang and gettin’ schooled on a regular basis ’cause I keep misrepresenting things left and right. Check it. I said I immediately clarified things, but really, it took me nine whole minutes. Mmyeah.”
By the way, I should probably apologize for anyone who talks in whatever sort of sland I was pretending to emulate. I’m not hip on slang at all, but I said that out loud while writing my comment and laughed so hard I had to write it out.
I hope it reads as ridiculous as it sounded when I said it, because me actually speaking like that was priceless.
The latest from the TASS news agency (former Soviet Union) or MSNBC, its hard to distiguish.
“The Earth’s climate has never had a year like 2015.” [It’s technically true but in an old Madison Ave trick way.]
.
.
Those GOP wascals!
Lucia, If you wish to cut off this comment or thread, I can understand. On the other hand, the link I am providing seems to provide important information pertaining to Islam and the Quran. Oversimplifying, it states that the peaceful exhortations in the Quran tended to be in the first-written parts and that the more violent aspects of the Quran seem to be in the later-written parts. Further, that where there is a conflict the later-written parts control. See http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/games/no-compulsion.aspx
…
Generally speaking, I see much restraint and little action in most Muslims condemning Islamic motivated violence. Also, according to the link, the peaceful quotations from the Quran are often misleading. I don’t claim to have carefully researched the issue, but I believe this link would be a good place to start and others can point out the weaknesses and strengths of the claims made in the article.
…
JD
JD Ohio
Did you see this: http://nypost.com/2016/01/06/facebooks-anti-israel-double-standard-on-hate-speech/
Facebook had to be publicly shamed to pull a fake anti-Israel page while they took took down an anti-Palestinian page at the first complaint.
JD,
I don’t object to these discussions. I think the topic of Islam, dealing with refugees, immigration and so on are all politically important topics and need to be discussed.
I don’t happen to be in the “zero immigration” camp. But I do think we controls are required. I don’t think any country can afford to be swamped with immigrants of any sort– the question is want level of immigration constitutes “swamped”. I also think the cultural values of potential immigrants does matter. The degree and speed of assimilation is affected by numbers, by their cultural values, by their desire to assimilate and also by where the immigrants end up once the arrive. (For example: people spread out where they can find jobs works much better than any sort of concentrated refugee camp. Refugee camps holding large concentrations of not-yet assimilated refugees for any period greater than– oh, say a week– are the gateway to becoming a “Palestine”.)
In that regard, these things need to be discussed. I know people are going to have a range of views, but I think silence imposed by PC rules is worse than permitting people to express views or bring forward information.
Lucia: “I don’t happen to be in the “zero immigration†camp. But I do think we controls are required. I don’t think any country can afford to be swamped with immigrants of any sort– the question is want level of immigration constitutes “swamped.â€
…
We pretty much agree. I think regulated immigration where the laws are enforced is good for the US.
JD
In that respect, Nikki Haley, the child of immigrants, who gave the Republican response to this year’s State of the Union address, is being hammered by some for not being opposed to all immigration.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/deport-nikki-haley-1452729872 (pay-walled unfortunately)
It’s becoming obvious that a lot of Republicans don’t actually want to win the Presidency in 2016 because a candidate that could attract enough independent voters wouldn’t be pure enough for them. They probably wouldn’t be all that upset at losing control of the Senate as a result either.
The question on immigration and many other issues now is whether the political process is being corrupted by special interests or whether sensitivities to such interests is robust democracy. My opinion is that when laws must be undermined or ignored be willful neglect of them or intentional expressed subversion it is usually a sign of corruption. I think many realize this in their gut even if they cannot diagnose or verbalize such a logical test.
.
One of the side effects of this dynamic is widespread anger against the erosion of rule of law and constitutional principles in general. Such sentiment can be founded but at the same time lead to over-reaction and populism. I believe this is embodied in Trump’s message it’s appeal. That said, he could still be a great president. The same could be said for Clinton and Sanders but in their cases their greatness would be short-lived, as in Castro’s, Stalin’s and Hugo Chavez’s, or very very short-lived as in Barack Obama’s.
Ron,
Trump as president would be a catastrophe. I get the appeal, but if elected he will be a crappy president.
I won’t vote for Hilary. No way, no how. She is personally corrupt. That she is effective at being corrupt and not getting indicted does not make things better but worse. I am in the “anyone but Hilary” crowd. Unless Satan runs against her, I will not vote for her.
I think Lucia is saying she’ll vote Hillary in Hillary v Cruz 🙂
I agree that a personally corrupt, scheming for half a lifetime to get into the White House candidate is the worst. Only one step better is a fame and fortune capitalizing, skyscraper ego candidate feeling all that is needed is REAL strong charisma to solve everything.
.
I like to see a combination of charisma and intellect, but with humility. Diplomacy is critical, keeping it just business and leaving face saving outs, will lead to long-term success. Trump would have a wonderful 100 days. Maybe even a year or two, but then he will misuse his power, as Obama has. As much as Ted Cruz is wanting for charisma, he would be the surest of all candidates to respect the constitution and refrain from misuse of power because his candidacy is centered on that.
.
So you can see my view is that the most encompassing problem is the need for presidential checks. Iran-Contra could never happen today because it is ridiculous to think the congress would even try to alter defense policy or any foreign policy.
RB,
I was unaware Brooks had suggested Cruz was somehow satanlike. No… I would not vote for Hilary in Hilary v. Cruz.
I shudder at the thought of having tho decide between Hillary and Trump. I think Trump would be a very, very, very poor president. Truly wretched. But I think he will be poor in a way the system can deal with.
Hillary? Corruption of her sort is very bad and I think of a sort that can be system destroying.
“Unless Satan runs against her, I will not vote for her.”
term limits apply to Satan.he cant run for a third term
I’ll leave it to folks to fill in the possibilities.
I think Trump would make a good, even very good, President. He is running to win and does not have to kowtow to the establishment RINOs. I think that is part of the difference you are seeing. He does not buy into political correctness, another difference. Where he gets in the weeds is when he fights back when attacked. It is fine, good, and even required in a President to be willing to fight; but he takes it too far occasionally.
Obama was supposed to be a great President, but much of the time he seems to loath the US and IMO, has shredded the Constitution and Rule of Law. I think Trump is and would be very pro-US and would show it often. That would be good for moral in this country.
Also, his ideas are good. For example, put a tax on Chinese goods. This is fair in light of the fact that they tax any goods imported by us.
Putting a temporary stop on Muslim immigration is also a good idea. We really need to figure out the Muslim problem. I know Sharia is incompatible with US law. I know that Muslim views on women and homosexuals do not comport with ours. But it’s difficult for me at least to quantify these qualities. WRT other immigrants, they should apply through legal channels and no one should be allowed here illegally.
We can effect the expulsion of illegal immigrants to a large extent by punishing employers with significant penalties for using illegals. There is no need to “round them up” like cattle. The Republicans don’t want to do this because they want cheap labor for their rich donors. The Dimowits don’t want to do it because immigrants tend to vote Dimowit. Trump wants to deal with illegals. Good on him.
http://www.dutycalculator.com/country-guides/Import-duty-taxes-when-importing-into-China/
And then there is this. From the article:
Poll: Nearly 20 Percent of Democrats Would Vote for Trump Over Hillary
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/democrats-vote-for-trump/2016/01/09/id/708859/