Today in Broken Irony Detectors
Steven L. Taylor
·
Wednesday, September 3, 2014
·
127 comments
"I’m not giving up on them, but I’m just saying either convert them or kill them. One or the other."—Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty on ISIS.
About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is a Professor of Political Science and a College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored
A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog).
Follow Steven on
Twitter
How Albigensian of him.
Another Duck gem;
Now…Jesus never said a single word about homosexuality…so I’m not sure how Mr. Duck came to this conclusion. Jesus spoke directly to him, perhaps?
@Tillman:
Thanks…for giving us the “Word of the Day”. We’re all just that much more knowledgeable now.
At least he didn’t say “burn them all, God will know his own”.
Change in the Islamic world has to come from within. Decades of killing them hasn’t really changed anything. If you can convert them to atheism, I suppose I could get behind that.
Birds of a feather behead together.
How very Christian of him. I remember well that part in the Bible where Jesus walked the earth, slaying all who would not recognize him as the One….oh wait, that was The Matrix. Never mind.
Just like Jesus…
@beth:
The elitist views of self-identifying Christians never fails to fascinate me…not humble, nor merciful, nor redemptive as Christ teaches…but greedy judgmental know-it-all’s; absolutely certain, in their own minds, of what God and Jesus would think or do.
I often wonder if they have ever even opened a bible…much less understood it.
He should run for congress.
The people of the great state of where-ever-he-is-from need someone who represents their values, and beliefs. There are a hundred senators, and over four hundred representatives, and none of them have quite that angry-homeless-man-ranting-at-the-world quality that Mr. Robertson brings to the table.
Sure, sure, he’s not actually a homeless man, but in politics, optics matter more than anything. George W. Bush wasn’t a cowboy, but he projected a cowboy image and empathized with the whole cowboy lifestyle, so actual cowboys accepted him as if not actually one of their own, at least someone who shares their goals and ambitions.
Perfectly logical solution.
The core motivation of these lunatics is their radical Islamic faith. There are only two solutions to that sort of thing: killing them or converting them.
Note that he didn’t say “convert them to Christianity.” Pretty much any kind of conversion would be an improvement. If they end up mellower Muslims or Hindus or even Jewish, they’d be better.
It’ll certainly work better than Obama’s strategy of… well, I’m sure he’s got Top Men working on it.
Anyone here got any other solutions that are more likely to work with ISIS (and other radical, militant Muslims) than killing them, or converting them?
@Jenos Idanian #13: I take it you’re volunteering, cross & Bible in one hand & gun in the other. Good luck w/ that!
@M. Bouffant: What part of “not necessarily to Christianity” did you not understand, you unfettered dolt?
And I’ll repeat my challenge: if you have an alternate solution that might actually work, feel free to bring it up. Hell, forward it on to Obama — he apparently has no ideas of his own.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
With apologies to A. Einstein
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Please explain how…exactly, in detail …you would go about killing all the radical militant Muslims, as you call them?
You calling someone else an unfettered dolt…that’s hilarious. Are you aware of the Dunning/Kruger Effect?
@C. Clavin: Once again, Cliffy shows his Grand Strategy of “I have nothing to say on the topic, but I can call you names!”
Are you aware of the Dunning/Kruger Effect?
Yes, it’s that thing that you bring up when you want to fool people into thinking you actually have a functioning brain.
One symptom is that one doesn’t recognize genuine skill in others. I’m waiting for you to demonstrate any actual skills in anything.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Please explain how…exactly, in detail …you would go about killing all the radical militant Muslims, as you call them?
@Jenos Idanian #13:
.
Why don’t you take a look at Leon Hadar’s article, How Obama’s Non-Strategy ISIS Strategy Works over at the American Conservative site, and see if your thinking changes. (I’ll give you a hint: The more we’re involved the less inclined the Arab states with more to lose are to get their shit together. — You know, the let’s-you-and-him fight strategy those folks are so good at.)
@C. Clavin: Please explain how…exactly, in detail …you would go about killing all the radical militant Muslims, as you call them?
Why in hell should I give you any details, Cliffy, when you have never provided a detailed response to anything besides crass, stupid insults?
Besides, Cliffy, Obama’s already doing something, with his drone strikes. That’s what we call a good start.
Once again, Cliffy, what’s your alternative? Or are you gonna reach in to your very limited bag of insults, like you do whenever you’re challenged?
@sam: That’s an interesting exercise in turd-polishing. Kind of a “tough-love” approach — don’t do anything in the hopes that those parties pull their crap together and handle this before it gets even more out of hand.
Quite a risky strategy. If it’s even a strategy. Like I said, that article is an interesting exercise in entrails-reading.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Please explain how…exactly, in detail …you would go about killing all the radical militant Muslims, as you call them?
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Please explain how…exactly, in detail …you would go about killing all the radical militant Muslims, as you call them?
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Well, what, exactly, is your plan?
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Please explain how…exactly, in detail …you would go about killing all the radical militant Muslims, as you call them?
Some more GOP strategy advice ~
Rep. Jeff Duncan:
https://twitter.com/RepJeffDuncan/status/505864134593093632
Sen. McCain:
https://twitter.com/gretawire/status/506940656317898752
Fox Anchor Heather Childers:
https://twitter.com/HeatherChilders/status/506918798298198018
@C. Clavin: Today in broken irony detectors, Clavin brings up the Dunning/Kruger Effect.
@Pinky:
Let’s review; people in the party you support unquestioningly are talking about killing all the radical militant Muslims. Let’s see…there are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world.
Say 1/2 of 1% of them is a radical militant. That’s 80 million radical militant Muslims we should be killing immediately. Or converting, I suppose.
Apparently you think that is both do-able…and smart….and I’m too stupid to know that I’m stupid.
Feel free to explain the process Mr. Smarty pants.
@C. Clavin: I’m not saying he’s right or wrong. I’m just saying what I’ve always said, that you (or your online persona) is abusive and dumb. That makes it ironic that you’d bring up the Dunning/Kruger Effect. And here’s the thing: Jenos being right or wrong doesn’t change you being lazy in your thinking and abusive to others. Only you can fix that.
I think Jenos is a troll. He’s funny sometimes. You’re not. You have no sense of humor and don’t support your arguments. You seem like a perfect example of the Dunning/Kruger Effect. Jenos says inflammatory things on a site that doesn’t like him. You say obnoxious things on a site that generally agrees with you. Neither play seems like a good use of time, but the thing you have to remember, you really have to remember, is that even if you’re right, you don’t make good arguments and you insult people, and there’s no way that’s respectable.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Maybe you should followed the link through:
“I’d much rather have a Bible study with all of them and show them the error of their ways and point them to Jesus Christ … however, if it’s a gunfight and a gunfight alone, if that’s what they’re looking for, I’m personally ready for either one,” Robertson later added.
Gee, looks like he was talking specifically about converting them to Christianity, and not any of the other religions you named.
@Pinky:
Oh.. So you have nothing to offer but an ad hominem attack.
You could have just said that.
@C. Clavin: Ad hominem? Kind of. Usually that term is applied to the fallacy of using a personal attack in place of an argument. I’m not trying to make an argument. I’m making an observation. I’m pointing out that you use ad hominem attacks all the time in place of arguments. I guess you could read that as an ad hominem attack, but it’s not fallacious.
@Pinky:
Of course to do that you have to:
~ ignore the argument I made here
https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/today-in-broken-irony-detectors/#comment-1968384
~ ignore the argument I made here
https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/today-in-broken-irony-detectors/#comment-1968424
~ perform logical gymnastics…like I’m dumb…but people agree with me.
~ make subjective judgments about humor and arguments and portray them as facts.
But apparently doing it assuages you insecurities…so good on ya, Pinky.
@C. Clavin: Here it is, Cliffy, nice and simple.
1) Identify, locate, and kill the bad actors.
2) Identify, locate, and kill those who identify with the bad actors.
3) Repeat as needed.
(No promises that it’s simple enough for you, of course.)
The irony is, Obama’s already doing this on a small scale. It doesn’t need much to scale it up.
So, what’s your solution to get rid of genocidal militant Islamists that doesn’t involve “conversion” or “kill them?” I await with bated breath.
Even more irony: Militant Islamists toppled two governments, and are threatening two more. And Obama, at least at one point, supported all of them: the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the rebels in Libya, and ISIS in Syria and Iraq.
Why does he have such terrible judgment?
@Jenos Idanian #13: Hey, brains:
“”In this case, you either have to convert them — which I think would be next to impossible,” Robertson said. “I’m not giving up on them, but I’m just saying either convert them or kill them. One or the other.”
“I’d much rather have a Bible study with all of them and show them the error of their ways and point them to Jesus Christ … however, if it’s a gunfight and a gunfight alone, if that’s what they’re looking for, I’m personally ready for either one,” Robertson later added.”
If you can’t actually understand enough English to know what “convert” means in this context, you might try actually reading what this creep says.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Not simple … Simple-minded.
It’s on par with deporting all the un-documented immigrants.
It’s not possible…but it makes for a catchy bumper-sticker…and it fools the dupes.
@Jenos Idanian #13: So your answer to “how do you kill all the radical Muslims” is “simple — you kill all the radical Muslims. And Obama’s a queer for not doing it.”
Boy, I hope there isn’t an aneurysm victim out there waiting for you to operate while you post here!
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Why do you insist on lying?
@wr: Queer in quotes?
@Pinky: Huh?
@Pinky:
Given your position as arbitrar of good and bad arguments, I’m glad you caught that.
FYI…Jenos isn’t operating on anyone’s brain anyeurism either.
@wr: So your answer to “how do you kill all the radical Muslims” is “simple — you kill all the radical Muslims. And Obama’s a queer for not doing it.”
I dunno why you’re projecting your homophobia into this argument, but it really has no place here.
And, as I stated clearly and simply that only a deliberately obtuse idiot could miss it, Obama IS already killing radical Muslims — through air strikes on ISIS. And that’s a good start.
And yes, when I said “deliberately obtuse idiot,” I was referring to you. You don’t seem to pick up on subtleties, so I’ll spell it out for you. You’re an exceptionally stupid person with delusions of adequacy, and you have a truly annoying tendency to jump into arguments when you think others have won it so you can claim some of the glory. Sadly, you lack the intelligence to recognize 1) your side hasn’t won the argument, and 2) is gloriously, stupidly wrong.
But back to the topic at hand… Robertson proposed two ways that would stop the militant Islamists from their planned and attempted genocide. Both would work. And those idiots who are mocking him here haven’t proposed any alternatives that would work anywhere as well. In fact, you haven’t proposed anything at all.
Here, let me offer a suggestion, based on past Obama initiatives. Why don’t we try strong statements of condemnation and fierce deployments of #Hashtags! to get them to stop?
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Converting them to Christianity as he was clearly saying if you read his statement in context is unrealistic to the point of idiocy. Including that as one of two viable options is ridiculous. The alternate proposal of us killing all of them is only slightly less unworkable. We cannot identify and kill all of them and an attempt to do so will inevitably lead to us killing quite a few innocents and making more militants and more enemies of moderates.
What we can do and to some extent are doing is give aid to our friends who are fighting IS (the Kurds et al) and we can encourage the people that they are a direct threat to to confront them (the Saudis et al). We are much better off if the Saudis, Jordanians, Iranians, Iraqis, and Syrians fight them than we are putting boots on the ground to fight them ourselves. Obama’s nice start shouldn’t go much further. Getting bogged down in someone else’s religious civil war is almost never a good idea.
@Jenos Idanian #13: Your “plan” reminds me of the old Marvel Comic Nick Fury–Agent of Shield. For several dozen consecutive issues, he was doing the ‘rinse and repeat” phase of your plan against Hydra. Then Cobra took over the job in the GI Joe cartoon series.
The problem, at least it seems to me, is that we are dealing with ISIS in the wake of our last step one adventure in (…ummm… it’s on the tip of my tongue…) oh yeah! Iraq! That’s it! Your flippancy seems to echo Senator Mc Cain’s blather about a 1000 year occupation of Iraq (if that was what was necessary). The hubris is breath taking.
@ Jenos
Hey, you kind of vanished the other day after making this rather nonsensical claim
Something easily disproved by spending three seconds on Google.
Anyway, on to your stupidity du jour – If you really think Muslims need killing, why not go take care of business yourself stud? Could it be that you are basically a bedwetting coward who is only brave when talking on blogs? Signs point to yes…
@ Grewgills
But, but, but… a blond chick in a really short skirt on Fox said Obama has to DO SOMETHING!!!! Or ISIS guys will come here and kill you!
@anjin-san: The Blonde chick? Wait, I thought it was the Kardassian-looking one in the tight short dress. Since it’sthe blonde one, we really need to take this seriously!
Will you ever learn to ignore Jenos?
Stick to discussions with Pinky on the rare occasion she tries to make a point. At least she has the grace to leave for a month afterward.
Really? You guys have been reduced to a pathetic crew criticizing the Duck Dynasty guy? Really?
Who knew it was so simple? We need to get a kickstarter fund going so Jenos can implement his brilliant plan.
Jenos’s first day in Iraq:
“Good day sir, I’m taking a survey in your neighborhood. Could I ask you a few questions? Thank you. Are you a member of Isis? You are. In that case I’m afraid that I will have to kill you. Could you step outside please? Don’t worry, this will only take a moment.”
@ Scott O
It’s simple. We send GW Bush over there, and he wanders around looking into people’s souls. He will identify “those who identify with the bad actors”. They will be summarily shot.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
So you forgot about all of those new bad actors you generate with each of the old ones you kill. Even if you did kill enough to terrorize the rest of the population into submission you would then need to find a government that can govern. At that point no peaceful democracy or self-government would be possible so you are left with installing another Saddam Hussein and that would be fine until that person decides he doesn’t need the US any more, then I guess we do it again.
Jenos has a very short memory and an adorable affection for simple solutions to complex. [prblems.
Oh, look. Here come the grown-ups to save the idiot children (wr and Cliffy) from themselves. And, as expected, they repeat the same stupid moves.
Here’s how it plays out: X says something. The Usual Gang Of Idiots says “X said it, so it must be wrong,” and the mockery and derision commences. No one ever actually thinks about what was said, and therefore never notices that X had a good point.
Robertson looked at the problem (radical Islamist Muslims waging genocidal war, currently exemplified by ISIS, but they’re hardly unique), and offers two solutions that would actually work. But since he’s Robertson, he must be wrong and must be mocked.
Then, I suggest a strategy that would help achieve one of those two solutions with ISIS: let the bad actors self-identify, and then kill them. And I noted that this is exactly what Obama is doing, on a small scale, right now. But since I said it, it must be wrong. Even though I said, from the outset, that this is exactly what Obama is doing, on a small scale, right now.
Christ on a crutch. As noted, wr and Cliffy have an excuse — they are children, at least intellectually and emotionally. But the rest of you? What’s your excuse?
@anjin-san: The example you cited is an example of Putin’s domestic challenges. I was referring to external threats — hence the references to other nations.
Sorry that nuance was too subtle for you. I’ll try to remember to talk down to you more in the future.
I am fairly certain the only contexts in which the formulation “find and kill all the bad guys” works are video games and bad action movies.
@Steven L. Taylor: I am fairly certain the only contexts in which the formulation “find and kill all the bad guys” works are video games and bad action movies.
So, I assume that you think Obama’s choosing the targets for his air strikes by Ouija boards, chicken entrails, and other augurs?
How many different ways do I have to find to say “this is what Obama is doing right now, and just needs to be scaled up?”
@Steven L. Taylor: And I’ll extend my earlier challenge: since you find Robertson’s answers so risible, just what would you suggest as a more mature, more nuanced, more appropriate, more potentially successful solution?
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Did the US win WWII by finding and killing all of the Nazis?
Did the Union win the Civil War by finding and killing all of the CSA’s soldiers?
Did the US win the Revolutionary War by finding and killing all the Red Coats?
Did the US win the Mexican-American War by finding and killing all the Mexicans?
Did the US win the Spanish-American War by finding and killing all the Spaniards?
Did the US depose Saddam by finding and killing all the Baathists?
Did the US occupy Afghanistan by finding and killing all the Taliban?
Did the US lose Viet Nam because the Viet Cong found and killed all the American?
Perhaps you can spot a pattern here that undercuts your elegant analysis of the situation?
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Ummm…pretty much anything…considering what you and Mr. Duck propose is…well…um…simply impossible.
What’s really funny…I mean really funny…is that ISIS gave the same convert-or-die ultimatum to Iraqi Christians when they took control of the city of Mosul.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/thousands-of-christians-fleeing-northern-iraq-following-isis-convert-or-die-ultimatum-123587/
But they’re Muslims and Mr. Duck and Jenos are Christians…so it’s different.
Everyone knows the Christians are right and Muslims are wrong.
Because, God.
@Steven L. Taylor: You’re right, I never should have said “all.” I should have said something like:
Oh, wait, I did. It was someone else who inserted “all” into my suggestion.
And in each case you cited, victory was achieved when enough of the enemy was “found and killed” that they stopped causing trouble. As you note, that’s been a pretty good way of winning.
But from your objections to my saying it, I assume you have an alternative plan. Please, feel free to share it. I’m bored with the “Jenos suggests something and everyone attacks” game. Don’t you want to
take your turn in the barreldemonstrate your obviously superior grasp of reality?@Jenos Idanian #13:
Oh…I see…you said the bad actors…not ALL the bad actors.
Well now…that changes everything…doesn’t it.
Goal posts moved.
@C. Clavin: Cliffy, we all know you’re a complete idiot. You don’t need to keep demonstrating it.
If I originally meant “all,” then why would I include a “repeat as needed” step? If we kill them all in the first place, then it’s impossible to repeat.
Honestly, Cliffy, I can’t tell if you are feigning being that stupid to make what you think are points, or you really are that stupid. But I’m at the point where I don’t think it really makes any difference.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Support a bigoted, unworkable, impossible to implement solution…that is exactly the same as the evil militants…and then resort to semantics to defend it from two completely different attacks…and then call anyone who points this out stupid.
You crack me up.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Support a bigoted, unworkable, impossible to implement solution…that is exactly the same as the evil militants…then resort to semantics to defend it from two completely different attacks…and call anyone who points out the foolishness of it all, stupid.
You crack me up.
@Jenos Idanian #13: The problem with your ongoing attempt at
“analysis” is that you seem to not understand, not one whit in fact, that all of the cases listed were not simply cases of the greatest application of force wins the day.
Politics is complicated.
In terms of the current situation, I am actually as satisfied as I can be with the current approach (see James’ post on this subject today). The notion that all out war on ISIS is a good idea is video game thinking.
(Note: above edited to include a rather important “not”)
@Jenos Idanian #13: BTW: even your attempt at adding a modifier misses the point.
@Jenos Idanian #13: New wisdom coming soon from the grown up Jenos:
“Those stupid scientists keep saying they need more money to cure cancer, but they refuse to do it the right way. All you have to to is kill the cancer cells or turn them into regular cells. Why are they so stupid?”
“Why don’t the stupid Democrats fix illegal immigration? Obviously all you have to do is deport everyone who’s here illegally or make them decide to go home on their own. I know this is easy, because someone from Extreme Pawn said so. Anyone who disagrees is a stupid child.”
“Why do stupid people refuse to fix our schools? All we have to do is make the children learn. But those stupid teachers unions just want to steal my tax dollars if I ever make enough money to pay taxes.”
Remember, folks, there is no problem so complex is can’t be solved simply by restating the problem as the solution! That’s how the grown ups do it!
@wr: Why, oh why, did you slaughter so many innocent pixels to say “I have no idea on what we should do, so I’ll just keep up the insults, because it’s all I can do.”
Oh, and you forgot to toss in “queer” somewhere. It just doesn’t seem like one of your pointless posts without that word.
@Steven L. Taylor: In terms of the current situation, I am actually as satisfied as I can be with the current approach (see James’ post on this subject today).
So, we both agree that what Obama’s doing right now — air strikes aimed at killing ISIS — is a good thing. Our disagreement is that I think it’s a good start and should be ramped up, while you are content with a “wait and see” approach.
ISIS has already tried genocide, and has shown zero indications it’s changing its mind. In fact, their actions and words show they haven’t changed in the least. I don’t like the number of victims they might pile up with the “wait and see” approach.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Yes…of course…how could we have all missed it??? What Obama is doing is the exact same as “convert them or kill them”.
I like how Jenos said some months back he would not be spending much time around here, and from any realistic observation that’s precisely what he hasn’t been doing.
(double negatives are occasionally fun)
@C. Clavin: Eh. It would’ve been a more appropriate word choice if Christians were slaughtering Christians.
The Cathars were an interesting bunch. Most people don’t learn that prior to the Protestant Reformation there were a lot of Christian movements that utterly failed or were stamped out by the Catholic Church. And they all accused the Catholics of being utterly corrupt and raping people and/or their children.
@Jenos Idanian #13: Yes, because “convert militant Muslims to Christiananity somehow” is a solution. As is “kill millions of people who overtly or secretly sympathize with those we determine to be “bad actors.” You are such a genius! If only people would listen to you!
As for my solution… I don’t have one. I’m not an expert on the Middle East or foreign policy or miliatary matters. And fortunately, I’m not stupid and arrogant enough to think that I can come up with easy solutions to complex problems when the real experts are struggling. But then, I don’t spend my days behind the counter at 7/11.
This is hilarious. I just checked, and Jenos never did say “all”. Cliff did (a lot), then wr and Grewgills and Steven followed, but Jenos never did. And they made fun of him for saying “all”. As the newly-appointed Arbitrar of Good and Bad Arguments, I’d say that Cliff made the biggest mistake, but Steven is noteworthy for making it 8 times in one comment.
@wr: “convert militant Muslims to Christiananity somehow”
Just once, it’d be nice if you put quote marks around something I actually said, and not what you wish I’d said. But that would require a fundamental sense of honesty that you sorely lack.
My comment:
Your version: “convert militant Muslims to Christiananity somehow”
My comment:
Your version: So your answer to “how do you kill all the radical Muslims” is “simple — you kill all the radical Muslims. And Obama’s a queer for not doing it.”
Step 1 in engaging in a discussion, clod, is to actually pay attention to what the other person is saying, and respond to that. Since you obviously are incapable of doing that, perhaps you should stop embarrassing yourself and shut up.
@Pinky: I would note that any assessment of this conversation also has to take into account the original quotation that Jenos was defending.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Let’s see. You said.
Then you said:
Then reality intruded on you:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/isis-tell-vladimir-putin-we-are-coming-russia-free-chechnya-1463874
I’ve got a better idea. Try being right about something in the future. I will give you some time to rearrange the goalposts.
@Pinky:
Yes…semantics. Notice that Jenos also didn’t say KILL SOME of the bad actors. Indeed, he is referencing ISIS. Without a modifier the implication is all of ISIS.
Jenos also used semantics in his other defense.
If you have to rely on weak-assed semantics to defend your arguments…then your arguments are weak-assed to begin with.
But feel free to keep defending them. It’s your right as an American.
@Pinky: Thanks, but a few corrections/admissions against interest.
1) I didn’t say “all,” but I did say “the,” which could be interpreted as meaning “all.” However, my Step 3, “repeat as needed,” would discount that interpretation.
2) The word is spelled “arbiter.” But considering that it was Cliffy who introduced the term “arbitrar,” perhaps we should preserve it as a tribute to his… special status.
Further, focus on the word “all” obfuscates the basic thesis being offered–which is one predicated on the notion that if we kill a sufficient number of members of ISIS that this will solve the problem. Unfortunately, the situation is more than a tad more complicated than that.
I am more than willing to remove “all” from my basic position. It really doesn’t alter my fundamental point, which is that the items in my list did not resolve based on simple logic of things like numbers of deaths or amount of force deployed.
I will also concede that if ISIS just disappeared or if they spontaneously became Amish or Hare Krishnas or Jedi or whatever that the problem would go away. Likewise, owning a unicorn would be cool
@Jenos Idanian #13: That’s why I felt comfortable acting as new Arbitrar. I was pretty sure there wasn’t an Arbitrar already.
@Steven L. Taylor: I would note that any assessment of this conversation also has to take into account the original quotation that Jenos was defending.
I was responding to the quote you cited. I didn’t think that I’d need to go and check to see if you’d quoted enough of the original material to represent what was said accurately.
But if you’d like to rewrite my words to more accurately reflect what everyone thinks I said or meant I said, you have the ability to go and edit my comments to conform with the straw man so many have worked so hard to construct.
But I stand by my observation: two methods likely to be very successful in stopping ISIS (and Islamist extremists in general) from perpetrating atrocities like they are wont to do are 1) killing them, and 2) converting them away from their militant, extremist version of Islam.
Alternate solutions, as always, are welcome. But, as has been shown above, are not expected.
@Steven L. Taylor: You listed eight cases in which wars were won by one side killing many on the other. In each case, you pointed out that the war had not been won by killing all of the others. Your comment’s reasoning rested solely on the question of whether one side had to kill all of the other to win a war.
@Steven L. Taylor:
I’m seeing a major contradiction between the two excerpts I quoted above. “Kill a sufficient number of members if ISIS” would achieve the goal of “the problem would go away.” It’s implicit in the use of the term “sufficient.” And the end result is the same: ISIS militants ceasing to exist as such, and therefore not causing the kinds of problems they’re causing right now.
@Pinky:
Also…I’m sure when ISIS implemented the Jenos/Duck “Convert or Kill” policy on Christians in Mosul they were only talking about SOME of the Christians and not ALL of the Christians.
It’s worth noting that ISIS exists today because America went to Iraq and started killing people. That’s something that those who get all hot and bothered by the notion of killing Muslims should keep in mind.
@Pinky:
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Yup…I spelled a word wrong. (Well…actually it is the correct spelling in Spanish, and I think Portugese.)
So your defense of the indefensibly stupid comes down to spelling and semantics.
You must be sitting behind your keyboards…chests thrust out…so dang proud of yourselves.
Go ahead…run upstairs and tell mommy how good you did. She’ll make you some jello.
Well I am off to enjoy a day in the People’s Republic of Mendocino. I’m thinking that when ISIS sees the dogged determination with which Jenos and Pinky are fighting The Battle of All, they will think twice about coming to America.
@anjin-san:
I spent a fantastic week on that coast…exploring the nooks and crannies between Gualala and Mendocino. My firm was founded by one of the half-dozen guys who had a hand in the original design of Sea Ranch.
Jealous.
@Pinky: “And they made fun of him for saying “all”
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I didn’t make fun of Jenos for saying “all.” I made fun of him for believing — or pretending to believe — that “kill them or convert them” was a plan. And goes whether we’re talking about “all” or “a couple.”
Wow. Word battle.
Let’s get back on track.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
The problem with his formulation is that he is agreeing with ISIS on the basic principle that this is about religious grievances, rather than mass disenfranchisement or old tribal conflicts for resources (which have only become more exasperated in the modern era by the discovery of oil, enriching those lucky enough to inhabit the parcels of desert with lots of the stuff). ISIS receives its funding and support to support a political agenda of destabilizing other regional actors (notably Bashar al-Assad). Converting them to milder (I would say truer, but hey, No True Scotsman) Islam, or to another religion entirely, would not remove the other factors that gave rise to ISIS.
I still don’t get this Highlander-esque “there can only be one” religious fundamentalism, but it serves as a distraction from other, more political problems. Engaging with ISIS on its own terms does nothing but validify the distraction, hence his comment is bunk. Then again, he’s a TV star, only a few of those have made it to public office.
@Jenos Idanian #13: You were agreeing with the Duck creep, although you tried to pretend he was saying something he clearly wasn’t.
But let’s do it your way. Tell me: How do you go about “converting” Muslims so fanatical they believe they are in the right to kill anyone who doesn’t agree with them?
Heck, I’ll let you start out with an easier task. I’m a Jewish atheist. Now, why don’t you go ahead and convert me to a religion you prefer? What’s your first step?
@Jenos Idanian #13: “1) I didn’t say “all,” but I did say “the,” which could be interpreted as meaning “all.” However, my Step 3, “repeat as needed,” would discount that interpretation.”
“Repeat as needed” certainly implies that if you don’t kill “them” all at the first pass, you keep going until you succeed.
You know, if a whole lot of intelligent, educated people are somehow unable to grasp the nuances of your statements while perfectly understanding everyone else’s, maybe the issue is not with your readers. No matter how much you stomp your feet and whine.
@Jenos Idanian #13: “I didn’t think that I’d need to go and check to see if you’d quoted enough of the original material to represent what was said accurately.”
Funny, I suspect you could do a random poll of any number of people and ask them what a conservative Christian means when he refers to “converting” Muslims — and not one of them would suggest it means anything other than converting them to Christianity. If you are simply incapable of understanding the language at this basic level, perhaps you should stop posting for a while.
@wr:
By telling them that, as Christians like Jenos and Mr. Duck, they are in the right to kill anyone who doesn’t agree with them.
@anjin-san: It’s worth noting that ISIS exists today because America went to Iraq and started killing people. That’s something that those who get all hot and bothered by the notion of killing Muslims should keep in mind.
I have two possible ways of responding to this. I’ll do both.
First, the dishonest approach — where I take what you said, put the dumbest possible interpretation on it, and disregard what I know you meant to say. But it’s a direct response to exactly what you said.
So, ISIS traces its origins back to 1991? They sat around on their asses and fumed for about 2 decades over Operation Desert Storm, and now they suddenly got all excited and are now acting up? You know, you really are a special kind of stupid and dishonest to put that kind of argument forth.
Now, for the second angle — where I acknowledge that what you MEANT was the invasion of Iraq, and not the first Gulf War, which fits the description you put forth — “America went to Iraq and started killing people.”
I realize that one of the fundamental tenets of your existence is “everything is Bush’s fault,” and every single ill of the world is Bush’s fault for invading Iraq (including, I suspect, the recent Ebola outbreaks, the Ferguson unrest, and Pamela Anderson’s Hepatitis-C), but — news flash! — militant Islamists have been at war with the US since, at least, the late 70’s. ISIS is merely the latest strain of the disease, the “flavor of the month.” It’s arguable when the war started (I say the Iranian Hostage Crisis, but others say the Beirut barracks bombing), but it started long before George W. Bush was a small player in the oil business, having lost his first run for office and long before he ran for governor. And even though Bush has been out of office for almost six years, and his successor ran on “being the anti-Bush,” things have — in many ways — only gotten worse.
Oh, and for that “anti-Bush:” he supported the Libyan rebels against Kaddafy, and now those rebels — militant Islamists — now hold Tripoli. He supported the Muslim Brotherhood, who promptly started turning Egypt into another Islamist dictatorship, and kept supporting them even after the Egyptian military stopped them. And he supported the Syrian rebels, who are now waging war against us. With that kind of record, how the hell do you argue that we should trust his judgment on fighting the people he was willing to fight alongside not that long ago?
@C. Clavin: By telling them that, as Christians like Jenos and Mr. Duck, they are in the right to kill anyone who doesn’t agree with them.
Congratulations, Cliffy! Your third fundamental lie in this thread! You win the free toaster!
I don’t consider myself a Christian. And I don’t recall ever claiming to be such here.
So, you wanna keep the toaster, or keep playing the Liar’s Game and go for the grand prize — a year’s supply of Turtle Wax?
I was thinking about the Jenos/Pinky combined spelling/semantics wrestling team.
And then the Brangelina, Mercozy, Beniffer, Tomcat type name contractions came to mind.
Sure…I’ll kick it off:
Penos?
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Sure…behind your keyboard you can be whatever suits your rationalization of the moment.
@C. Clavin: And you have a remarkable gift for, when you don’t feel like arguing about things, just making things up and pretending that they’re real. The sad part is, you probably actually believe your own BS.
If I was a Christian, I’d be obligated to forgive you. At least, if you genuinely repented of your offenses, which you would never do. You either pretend they never happened, or wear them as some twisted badge of honor.
Anyway, I’m not a Christian (the last house of worship I attended was a synagogue, and that as a guest), so you can’t even pretend that I’m morally obligated to forgive you. Instead, I’ll preserve my open contempt.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
The fact that you want to kill those who don’t agree with you is all that matters about your charachter.
Christian, Muslim, Jew…just names.
Beyond your comprehension…but true.
@Pinky: My fundamental point is that it isn’t just the number killed that leads to victory (nor is victory achieved when a certain number of enemies are killed). Further, the capacity to deal death is often not the deciding factor in conflicts (see, e.g., the Revolutionary War and the Viet Nam War–both cases in which the objectively superior fighting force lost).
To extrapolate to ISIS and Jenos’ policy analysis: even if we effectively kill a large number of ISIS fighters, victory may not be the result (see, e.g., the second Iraq War).
@Jenos Idanian #13: Of course you’re not a Christian. That would suggest that you believed in something other than annoying people. Your only religion is trolling.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
But this is the real problem I keep trying to focus on: killing X number of ISIS members does not, actually, necessarily mean that problem goes away (see: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Viet Nam and even North Korea for evidence).
@wr:
A perfectly reasonable alternative explanation is that these readers are so weighed down with their expectations that they don’t bother trying to grasp the nuances (or rather, grasp at things they expect to be there, but aren’t). It’s a reasonable explanation because it happens on every single message board on the internet. You’ve got to have noticed that by now. I know I make that mistake. Just look over the thread and tell me there’s no pack instinct at work.
@Steven L. Taylor: You were right the first time, when you said “sufficient.” There is no hard and fast rule on how many you have to kill; you just have to kill enough that the other side says “enough.”
Your point about Vietnam proves it: we killed a hell of a lot more of them than they killed of ours. But they killed enough of ours that we said “enough.”
Your earlier argument against mine, when you cited those eight wars, all reinforce my point: one way of winning a war is to kill enough of the other side that they give up the fight.
Or, to quote Vice President Joe Biden:
@Jenos Idanian #13: If you think Viet Nam is a good example for your position, well then I have nothing further to add.
(and Biden is bloviating there)
@Pinky:
C’mon…you are trying to insert nuance post facto in order to defend a stupid position…so stupid it has been chewed up and spit out…but for spelling and semantics.
@Steven L. Taylor: If you think Viet Nam is a good example for your position, well then I have nothing further to add.
It’s a superb example. I’m not that fond of it ending in a US loss, but the basic strategy of the Viet Cong — exhaust America’s will to fight — is a good example. We didn’t kill a “sufficient” number of theirs to win, but they did kill a “sufficient” number of ours.
The other examples you cited also bear it out.
@Jenos Idanian #13: You might want to consider who the analogues would be in your Viet Nam to ISIS comparison.
@Steven L. Taylor: I’m not making analogues at all. I’m using the historical examples you cited to bolster my point.
And that point is a historical truism: most wars are won by breaking the other side’s resolve to fight. And killing enough of the other side is a time-proven method to achieve that.
@Jenos Idanian #13: This is the intellectual equivalent to saying that the team that scores the most points wins and then acting as if that bit of wisdom means that one is qualified to advise an NFL franchise on a guaranteed route to a Super Bowl win.
And that is really
@Steven L. Taylor: “And that is really”
I guess it leaves you speechless… understandably.
@wr: Indeed.
@Steven L. Taylor:
It also over-simplifies victory in war.
@ Jenos
It’s interesting (or at least would be to a psychologist) how you alternate between crying about people misrepresenting what you say and inventing positions for others.
@ Jenos
Ah. So then everyone on the right is lying as they shriek from the rooftops that ISIS is a unique new existential threat to America. Perhaps you are talking to the wrong people then.
@ C. Clavin
We used to drive through Sea Ranch back in the mid-60s, when it was very new and somewhat radical. The NorCal coast really is a wonderland, I’ve been lucky to spend my life so close to it.
If you get out this way again, check out the Stanford Inn, it’s where we usually stay.
@anjin-san:
I’m writing it down.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
You were defending the comment of someone who clearly meant convert them to Christianity when read in context. You said he was right. Later you walked that back to any conversion. That doesn’t make the original statement you are defending correct.
My comment to you didn’t focus on the ”all” rather it pointed out that just going in and killing as many as we can is not the best approach. Rather we need a much more judicious approach where we act as support for our friends/IS enemies while letting them taking the lead. Your preferred approach has us taking the lead which is problematic to say the least.
@Steven L. Taylor: I would say for video games maybe not so much. Do you know how many levels you have to kill through to get to the end of Call of Duty? I know that I don’t.
@Steven L. Taylor: I’m gonna stick my neck out here and note one other point in Jenos’ argument. The repeat as necessary (I won’t use quotes because I’m not sure that I am quoting, but am confident of the contextual meaning) portion shows that Jenos really is really advocating a never-ending state of war unless it is actually possible to kill “all” the bad actors–which even Jenos himself notes is not possible.
@C. Clavin:
That might actually work… wait…tney already believe that is true based on their faith as Muslims. Well.. never mind…
So, my initial proposal has evolved from “laughably, stupidly wrong” to “redundantly correct.” Interesting.
And as far as an “endless war,” I specified “bad actors” and “their supporters.” When they stop acting badly, then it’s time to stop killing them. And when they stop acting badly, then their supporters tend to dry up with the lack of something to support.
God, no matter how simple I put things, it ends up twisted by those who want to twist it to their ends. It’s positively Sisyphean.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
If you say so.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Where are you seeing that? None of the people arguing with you have accepted your original argument, that Mr Duck was right, or your subsequent walk back of his argument. We shouldn’t be in there trying to convert them, nor should we be in the lead when it comes to confronting them. No one arguing against you has switched from that position.
Your preferred ‘strategy’ amounts to an endless game of whack a mole that creates new moles with each whack. That is a recipe for an endless war.