RE: Iran VS Israel (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Anaxagoras -> RE: Iran VS Israel (10/21/2012 6:25:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

If you persist in drawing parallels with MacCarthy, pretending I'm George Bush's buddy and that I agreed with the war, when I said again and again and again and again and again they were wrong to start it, then please don't be surprised if my response to you is harsh.

Ah, my mistake. i thought you were proposing an agreement of civility. When I took you up on it you come back with a fatherly scolding. *shrugs*

Indeed I was but that does not preclude pointing out the rather extreme dishonesty and continual strawmanning of your prior posts, something you continue to do right here.

quote:

quote:

Thing is Muslims are not an equivalent to hornets. They have a moral agency just as Westerners do. They know right from wrong. Yet you don't remotely find them morally culpable - if you did you would have at least acknowledged the debased way in which the Iranians etc. acted. Yet you actually justified their response with the Axis of Evil speech.

Morality in geopolitical conflicts???? On which planet? When have nations ever played nice? Get fucking real, Anax. LOL!!!

Maybe you should "get fucking honest" instead. You have suddenly changed your stance to all is fair in geopolitics after blaming Blush and Blair at length for pages. You are simply wiggling about to avoid placing any substantive blame on Iran, Syria or even the insurgent terrorists. Does your stance possess any consistency, honesty or integrity whatsoever?

quote:

quote:

I agree 1441 did not spell out what would happen but everyone knew it was the last chance saloon for Saddam to act.

Good of you to speak for all the nations of the world. Just as it was so clever of you to know Saddam's motives were not what he said they were in his final interviews. [8|]

You are strawmanning once again. Once again I never said I had any access to Saddam's thoughts. I was simply pointing out the blindingly fucking obvious when you said he was more worried about Iran. I stated that it seemed strange and perhaps doubtful when he was faced with the immediate threat of invasion by the strongest fucking army in the world.

quote:

quote:

It is absurd to suggest Bush and Blair used a power vacuum to cause a civil war. They were right in the centre of it FFS,

Please don't twist my words. I said they created a power vacuum. I did not say they used one.

Wrong. You stated in Post 277: "Bush/Blair created a power vacuum and triggered a civil war between religious factions in Iraq." - hence you blame them for the bloodbath.

quote:

quote:

The degree of terrorism inflicted does matter. There is a study of the most serious terrorist attacks of the last 100 years which I posted about before. The criterion is the killing of more than 100 people in a single act. There are around 45 such acts over that 100 year period. 22 of them occurred in Iraq over a six year period. Sorry but that level of butchery fucking well matters as much as you would prefer that it didn't. Iraqi civilians were subjected to the most intensive terrorist activity of any populace at any period in history.

So, that little business in Hiroshima back in 1945 doesn't count for much?

You could apply the very same logic to conventional warfare, such as carpet bombing which is still common on parts of the world today. The morality of the use of nuclear bombs is on Hiroshima is a complex discussion in itself but it is clear the Allies resorted to it rather tha a full-scale invasion of Japan which would have likely been as costly in terms of life as the 200,000 killed in those two cities combined since Japan was willing to fight tooth and nail down to the very last rather than ever surrender.

By contrast there is a situation where the US is being indirectly attacked by insurgents coming from Iran and Syria etc. They wish to liberate Iraq but paradoxically are targeting the civilian populace rather than the army by a factor of 60:1 as the Lancet found. They're butchering the very innocents they supposedly wish to assist. Hardly a moral equivalent.

quote:

quote:

It sounds like you are justifying the waves terrorism that Iran inflicted on the Iraqi populace.

If that is what it sounds like to you perhaps you should adjust your hearing aide. I am not justifying; merely examining matters through the lens of realpolitik.

Not at all. When I presented how bad things were in Iraq to challenge you on your assertions that the US was solely to blame, you did not express any contrary opinions on what Iran etc. did. Rather you actually switched stance with them and have repeatedly justified their appalling actions. Thus my hearing aid is working fine, thanks for your concern! [:)]



Anaxagoras -> RE: Iran VS Israel (10/21/2012 6:54:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

For there to be a sensible conversation on the matter one needs to look up the technical definitions of the word first rather than applying the loose common language argument.

Good luck with that endeavour!

Indeed, luck is something I need to ever get through to yourself considering the cheap tactics you have used thus far. That is why I didn't wish to discuss terrorism with you because you start off just as I expected you to do by quoting an extreme subjectivist like Hoffman. I shall write an analysis of how terrorism is conceived implicitely and overtly.

quote:


There is neither an academic nor an international legal consensus regarding the definition of the term "terrorism".[1][2] Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of "terrorism". Moreover, the international community has been slow to formulate a universally agreed upon, legally binding definition of this crime. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged.

Furthermore, from the same source:

As Bruce Hoffman has noted: "terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. (...) Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization 'terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism."[3] For this and for political reasons, many news sources (such as Reuters) avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like "bombers", "militants", etc.[9][10]

Nicely describes all of your arguments regarding Iranian "terrorism."

ciao [:D]

Incorrect. Obviously the term is challenging because it is politically charged. That does not mean however that it is completely subjectivised and unworthy of any use whatsoever.

To develop a useful definition of terrorism all one has to do is look at the spirit of the word and how it is applied in the more technical definitions. There are striking features which stand out from other applications of the word. Terrorists have political and/or religious aims. They focus on soft targets - principally the civilian populace to induce fear and terror. The acts often display a barbarity and an indiscriminate nature designed to intimidate. The targets are also often highly symbolic for the same reasons. There is often an absence of a militaristic aim not only because such targets are far riskier but because the military is not their principle target because attacking it will do less to induce a sense of terror in the civilian populace. Outrage by aiming at especially soft targets (e.g. schools and children) in order to divide a populace can also be an objective of terrorism.

The machinations of war differ to a significant extent. War can be used to intimidate a civil populace of course but there targets are overwhelmingly military in nature unless a malign intent is involved as is sometimes the case. This is where the notion of war-crimes comes into play. To take an analytical approach to language, of there are war-wrongs, there are also war-rights. Any nation has a right to defend itself from aggression. In its defence it will inevitably kill civilians. At times conflict will go into urban areas where a population has a high density and civilian deaths will be high as a result. They should only do so if there is a significant military element within these areas. Such activities will of course cause terror in a civilian populace but that is not or should not be the intent of the military activity, and the effort to minimise casualties should be (and often is) a priority.

Features of terrorism are also in stark contrast with other forms of militaristic activity not sanctioned by a state or controlling authority in which the activities take place. Rebellion is one example. Rebellion, as in the case of the 1916-22 Irish Revolution (and the Young Irelanders, the 1798 Rebellion etc. that preceded), did not target the civilian populace. Rather it engaged in largely open warfare with the political and military institutions of the state. As a result these attempts were often crushed but are often noted for their bravery, heroism and sacrifice. This is a notable contrast with terrorism, where the stain of innocent blood follows the likes of Adams around even in the Republic of Ireland. Other examples that do not qualify as terrorism include The French Resistance. Here again they were in opposition to Nazi Germany but they did not target the civilian populace. Quite the opposite in fact, they targeted the military itself. These acts of disobedience to a given state have notable divergences with terrorism as it is commonly understood. I hope that clarifies your supposed confusion although I very much doubt it will since people like Tweak and yourself conflate the various forms of disobedience and militarism for political reasons. [8|]



vincentML -> RE: Iran VS Israel (10/21/2012 8:42:52 AM)

quote:

Indeed, luck is something I need to ever get through to yourself considering the cheap tactics you have used thus far. That is why I didn't wish to discuss terrorism with you because you start off just as I expected you to do by quoting an extreme subjectivist like Hoffman. I shall write an analysis of how terrorism is conceived implicitely and overtly.

I am not interested in a conversation with someone who approaches with so condescending an attitude toward me and slander toward my opinions. I cannot value or respect your opinions under such circumstances. Be sure that whatever you wrote went unread by me. Carry on with your self inflating silliness.



Anaxagoras -> RE: Iran VS Israel (10/21/2012 11:00:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

Indeed, luck is something I need to ever get through to yourself considering the cheap tactics you have used thus far. That is why I didn't wish to discuss terrorism with you because you start off just as I expected you to do by quoting an extreme subjectivist like Hoffman. I shall write an analysis of how terrorism is conceived implicitely and overtly.

I am not interested in a conversation with someone who approaches with so condescending an attitude toward me and slander toward my opinions. I cannot value or respect your opinions under such circumstances. Be sure that whatever you wrote went unread by me. Carry on with your self inflating silliness.

LOL How very convenient. Your criticism of me above is a bit rich when your messages positively dripped with the lowest form of wit (sarcasm), drew parallels with me and Joseph McCarthy http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4272760 constantly strawmanned, and acted as if I agreed with the war when I said so many fucking times the allies were wrong.



vincentML -> RE: Iran VS Israel (10/21/2012 2:19:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

Indeed, luck is something I need to ever get through to yourself considering the cheap tactics you have used thus far. That is why I didn't wish to discuss terrorism with you because you start off just as I expected you to do by quoting an extreme subjectivist like Hoffman. I shall write an analysis of how terrorism is conceived implicitely and overtly.

I am not interested in a conversation with someone who approaches with so condescending an attitude toward me and slander toward my opinions. I cannot value or respect your opinions under such circumstances. Be sure that whatever you wrote went unread by me. Carry on with your self inflating silliness.

LOL How very convenient. Your criticism of me above is a bit rich when your messages positively dripped with the lowest form of wit (sarcasm), drew parallels with me and Joseph McCarthy http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4272760 constantly strawmanned, and acted as if I agreed with the war when I said so many fucking times the allies were wrong.

Anax!
Oh, you poor soul. tsk, tsk. And now your memory is going as well. The mind is so easily blinded by self-puffery. Ain't that so? I never said or acted like you agreed with the war. I accepted that you did not. I addressed myself to the responsibility for the disaster, much of which you wished to deflect away from the criminal Bush/Blair. I popped McCarthy at you after you referred to me as a Marxist. Keep it straight, mate.
ciao [sm=LMAO.gif]



vincentML -> RE: Iran VS Israel (10/21/2012 2:43:29 PM)

quote:

So we really ought to be very careful about throwing loaded terms such as 'terrorism' around when discussing the ME - all sides are either deeply involved in 'terrorism' now, or have long histories of 'terrorist' activities.

Tweak!
Ohhhh no! Not our side. That can't possibly be so. The other side is the 'terrorist' side. Yasee, we have a list of who the terrorists are, and we ain't on the list. We are clean, moral, righteous, humane, and civilized in our treatment of the enemy. Ask anyone. Ask that fellow over there. The one with the electrodes clamped to his nuts. Yeah, the one with the bag over his face. Or ask that other fella there. The one with the wet sponge on his nose. Rendition? Waterboarding? Drone missles killing children? Solitary confinement? Sleep deprivation with loud music and bright lights? Bomb villages? Kill fifty or sixty Arabs? Well, no those aren't acts of terror. Let me 'splain, Lucy. It only counts as terrorism when you kill more than 100 people per incident. Thems the rules. And the West is guided by Judeo-Christian morality. So, we are blessed and Good. Yup, take us to the Promised Land. [dripping with sarcasm]

Some people on here actually believe that shit[8|]



ermood -> RE: Iran VS Israel (10/21/2012 2:47:34 PM)

So you are saying that God and Jesus aprove the warcrimes, tortures, murders, rapes and terrorist acts that are done in the name of Israel?

That would be the most dumb thing i've ever heard...



mnottertail -> RE: Iran VS Israel (10/21/2012 2:51:12 PM)

God maybe does, but not Jeebus, I think they are at odds on that one, bit of infighting there I imagine, the old wresting control of dad's company thing, I expect. 



vincentML -> RE: Iran VS Israel (10/21/2012 2:53:49 PM)

Teenagers! They always rebel against the Old Man.



mnottertail -> RE: Iran VS Israel (10/21/2012 2:55:31 PM)

It's always been a give me a reason; give me a cause; let's burn this motherfucker down, sort of world as the youth inherits the world.

They get over it.



ermood -> RE: Iran VS Israel (10/21/2012 4:04:22 PM)

guess you're right...



Anaxagoras -> RE: Iran VS Israel (10/21/2012 4:31:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
LOL How very convenient. Your criticism of me above is a bit rich when your messages positively dripped with the lowest form of wit (sarcasm), drew parallels with me and Joseph McCarthy http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4272760 constantly strawmanned, and acted as if I agreed with the war when I said so many fucking times the allies were wrong.

Anax!
Oh, you poor soul. tsk, tsk. And now your memory is going as well. The mind is so easily blinded by self-puffery. Ain't that so? I never said or acted like you agreed with the war. I accepted that you did not. I addressed myself to the responsibility for the disaster, much of which you wished to deflect away from the criminal Bush/Blair. I popped McCarthy at you after you referred to me as a Marxist. Keep it straight, mate.
ciao [sm=LMAO.gif]

I suggest you keep it straight. Firstly, I didn't refer to you as a Marxist - I suggested you write a Marxist interpretation of history on the ME. Many apply that reading without being Marxist. Secondly, you repeatedly inferred that I agreed with the war. Here are a few of your absurdly hysterical responses when I only said the issue wasn't truly black and white:

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
What a fucking shameful nutjob position you have taken. Embarrassing. Ridiculous.


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Perhaps then you would not take the despicable posture of giving George Bush a pass on responsibility for so many deaths in Iraq.
- I didn't. I simply didn't place blame on him for civilian deaths caused by the hand of insurgents.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
You spout this bullshit legalese and tell me Saddam was to blame.
- I didn't blame him for the war. I simply said he should have complied after you falsely claimed that he had with a 12,000 page declaration that told the UN what they already knew. He agreed to comply with the UN resolution, then didn't, and didn't act on the imminent threat of war.





quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Ohhhh no! Not our side. That can't possibly be so. The other side is the 'terrorist' side. Yasee, we have a list of who the terrorists are, and we ain't on the list. We are clean, moral, righteous, humane, and civilized in our treatment of the enemy... It only counts as terrorism when you kill more than 100 people per incident. Thems the rules. And the West is guided by Judeo-Christian morality. So, we are blessed and Good. Yup, take us to the Promised Land. [dripping with sarcasm]

Some people on here actually believe that shit[8|]

I assume that swipe was aimed in part at myself since you use the same words I used to describe your behaviour.

I referred to a study that classified the most serious terrorist attacks at over 100 people per event. That was just a basic system of categorisation. It had nothing to do with stating that terrorist acts of under 100 people were not terrorist activities. In other words it is just another one of your cheap strawman tactics. You might have had some credibility if you treated the violence on both sides equally as seriously. However, you actually justified the violence Iran, Syria and the insurgent terrorists wrought on the Iraqi civil populace. That is twisted. You have no right to adopt the moral high ground.



DomYngBlk -> RE: Iran VS Israel (10/21/2012 5:44:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk
The war with Iraq both times does not stand up under scrutiny. They were simply proxy wars set upon us by the Family of Saud. As is the rumblings of the new war with Iran. As tweak said..the rumblings of that coming war are in the air with the Republican party.

Funny then that it was the family of Saud that perpertrated the attacks on 9/11.

I doubt the Haus of Saud was directly involved in 9/11 but hasn't Obama been involved with the biggest military US-Israeli manoeuvres of late?


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kana
I should mention here that when Iran and Iraq were at war, the US was backing Saddam at the time and thus wouldn't sell any military spare parts to Iran...which was a problem because Iran was still relying on equipment that the Shah had bought. From, you know who, the US.
Which was causing them massive problems, tanks broke down because of lack of washers, planes were grounded because of simple shit...but they couldn't buy any spare parts because the US had basically embargoed them.
Happily for the Mullahs though, there was one country in the Middle East that was sitting on a mountain of US spare parts that they didn't really need (Because we had sold them much more modern equipment and their excess spare parts were meant for older outdated munitions...like the ones Iran was using) and were happy to sell Iran enough equipment to help them fight off Saddam and save their own bacon.
The country?
You guessed it, Israel.

The supply of arms is thought to be an effort to appease the mullah's especially since Iran housed the largest Jewish community in the ME, and Israel had lost an allie there. The US was attempting to do the same with the Iran–Contra affair.


You don't think? Bin Laden.......any guess where he was born? Did not our Ambassador give tacit approval to Saddam to invade Kuwait only to have it taken back when the house of saud blew a gasket?



Anaxagoras -> RE: Iran VS Israel (10/21/2012 6:01:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk
quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
I doubt the Haus of Saud was directly involved in 9/11 but hasn't Obama been involved with the biggest military US-Israeli manoeuvres of late?

You don't think? Bin Laden.......any guess where he was born? Did not our Ambassador give tacit approval to Saddam to invade Kuwait only to have it taken back when the house of saud blew a gasket?

Yeah Osama was born there and his family is closely connected with the Saudi Royal family but didn't they disown him back in the early 1990's?



DomYngBlk -> RE: Iran VS Israel (10/21/2012 6:14:56 PM)

Of course they didn't. I suppose you don't think they build, create, monetarily, emotionally madrasas across the middle east with the express purpose of galvanizing hatred towards the west?



Anaxagoras -> RE: Iran VS Israel (10/21/2012 6:26:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk
Of course they didn't. I suppose you don't think they build, create, monetarily, emotionally madrasas across the middle east with the express purpose of galvanizing hatred towards the west?

Indeed they did promote madrassas that portray the West in a very negative light but perhaps thats to be expected as they come from an extremely conservative nation? Actual collusion with Osama is another matter - not saying it definitely didn't happen but more evidence is needed. It seems they did disown him http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Laden_family#Family_members after they didn't see eye to eye:

quote:

American and European intelligence officials estimate that all the relatives of the family may number as many as 600. In 1994, the bin Laden family disowned Osama and the Saudi government revoked his passport.[2] The Saudi government also stripped Osama bin Laden of his citizenship,[2] for publicly speaking out against them, after they permitted U.S. troops to be based in Saudi Arabia in preparation for the 1991 Gulf War.



DomYngBlk -> RE: Iran VS Israel (10/21/2012 6:36:08 PM)

Giving me Wiki is giving me a western source. Sure they did. But does that make sense considering the history of the family and how the House of Saud came to be? How tight they've always been wiht the mullahs? No, I don't think it is a farfetched idea at all. A very inconvenient idea to be sure that no one wants to broach...



tweakabelle -> RE: Iran VS Israel (10/21/2012 11:29:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

So we really ought to be very careful about throwing loaded terms such as 'terrorism' around when discussing the ME - all sides are either deeply involved in 'terrorism' now, or have long histories of 'terrorist' activities.

Tweak!
Ohhhh no! Not our side. That can't possibly be so. The other side is the 'terrorist' side. Yasee, we have a list of who the terrorists are, and we ain't on the list. We are clean, moral, righteous, humane, and civilized in our treatment of the enemy. Ask anyone. Ask that fellow over there. The one with the electrodes clamped to his nuts. Yeah, the one with the bag over his face. Or ask that other fella there. The one with the wet sponge on his nose. Rendition? Waterboarding? Drone missles killing children? Solitary confinement? Sleep deprivation with loud music and bright lights? Bomb villages? Kill fifty or sixty Arabs? Well, no those aren't acts of terror. Let me 'splain, Lucy. It only counts as terrorism when you kill more than 100 people per incident. Thems the rules. And the West is guided by Judeo-Christian morality. So, we are blessed and Good. Yup, take us to the Promised Land. [dripping with sarcasm]

Some people on here actually believe that shit[8|]


You're right, VincentML! 'We' can't be 'terrorists', only the 'other side' can. Western hands are as clean as water from a mountain spring - always!

Westerners can't possibly be 'terrorists' - that is, if you use a 'definition' along the lines Anax proposes. The whole point of his useless tortuous definition is to create a situation where only the 'other side' can be 'terrorists', where the West is permanently absolved of all culpability. But even then it fails miserably. For instance:
"There are striking features which stand out from other applications of the word. Terrorists have political and/or religious aims. They focus on soft targets - principally the civilian populace to induce fear and terror. The acts often display a barbarity and an indiscriminate nature designed to intimidate. The targets are also often highly symbolic for the same reasons. There is often an absence of a militaristic aim not only because such targets are far riskier but because the military is not their principle target because attacking it will do less to induce a sense of terror in the civilian populace. Outrage by aiming at especially soft targets (e.g. schools and children) in order to divide a populace can also be an objective of terrorism."
This is a fairly accurate description of the Israeli invasion of Gaza ("Castlead") or the US Marines assault on Fallujah in Iraq, or the tactics currently in use by the US and its allies in Waziristan (NW Pakistan). We had a thread about it just a few weeks ago ("So who's a terrorist now....?")

Amongst Anax's verbiage, there is a farcical claim that legitimate armies in uniform can't commit terrorist acts - only war crimes. Though whether they died because of terrorism or a war crime is scant comfort to the deceased or their loved ones. A hostile foreign military occupation isn't of itself a war crime, but it does "induce a sense of terror in the civilian populace" when enforced rigourously (eg the Occupation of Palestine). If in doubt ask any Palestinian.

So, despite its almost constant use, we are none the closer to having a workable, precise definition of terrorism or terrorists. Any definition I have encountered that is worth the effort of applying ends up making terrorists of all actors in (for example) most counter insurgency campaigns.

For mine, a far more useful question and productive discussion can be had if we instead ask:
Why do civilians take up arms and use 'terrorist' tactics against their opponents?
What causes the kinds of actions usually described as 'terrorist'?
Who is using the term, who are they describing as such and what is the relationship between the person making the allegation and the alleged 'terrorist'?

When we realise that 'terrorism' is usually a response to a hostile foreign military occupation, we will have taken a huge step in understanding the fundamental dynamic underwriting 'terrorism'



FMRFGOPGAL -> RE: Iran VS Israel (10/21/2012 11:47:48 PM)

Needs more Jews in "jackboots"



YN -> RE: Iran VS Israel (10/22/2012 1:29:12 AM)


- tweakabelle



Well thought out.

I would add several points.

First nations now seldom declare war upon each other prior to engaging in acts which would be considered acts of war and in addition often act secretly or with some attempt at deniability.

The second is that nations acted for many years under the Principal of Westphalian sovereignty, i.e. the convention that a nation or state was sovereign within its territory and forcible intervention in the internal affairs of another country was illegitimate.

After the casting aside of these conventions, which mostly occurred during my lifetime, we now have a state of affairs where one nation is entitled to commit assassinations, engineer coups or regime changes, and even use the uniformed military to attack another country one often highly questionable grounds with impunity.

The victims of this conduct often reply in kind, usually through their proxies.

All this type of conduct can been seen as terrorism by any definition of terrorism seen so far.

The Soviets murdered people on London streets, the US secretly mines harbors, Israeli assassination teams kill abroad, the last fifty years are an inventory of such things.

The lessor actors observe this conduct and ape the state actors.

And the projections of the future of asymmetrical warfare include more use of robots, special forces, deniable mercenary units and so on in furtherance of this type of conduct.

The result has became where this is considered the mean. And that a government or even a small faction within a government is often entitled to do this any accountability.

Naturally the victims will act in kind, and often with some more creative scheme.

And the sort of hardware and technology needed to do these things drifts down, even the Palestinians now have drones, and the weapons left by the state actors with their proxies become the tools of even modest criminals, grenades and rocket launchers, even surface to air rockets descend into the hands of people who would have struggled to obtain a revolver 40 years ago.

Arms control is of little use, for now the state actors are the ultimate providers handing them out to their proxies, and as I noted to you regarding the rise of the paramilitaries in Columbia and their retirement from governmental service into the ranks of the drug cartels, these weapons and their operators can find a home, being the modern dogs of war.

There are places today within a few hundred km of my home province where one can purchase a functional Kalashnikov or Colt military rifle for less then the cost of several hundred rounds of it's ammunition. I hear one in Africa can be had for 20 USD in certain places.

These things and others far more dangerous laying about are all collateral to this new warfare style, and act as force multipliers to this mayhem allowing small criminal gangs and splinter political or religious groups havoc creation abilities that would be the envy of crack military units in WW2.

But until the state actors n this madness decide to stop the madness themselves the lessor subdivisions and splinter/fringes will have the means, motive, and opportunity to ape them.



Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.054688E-02