The OSU attacker claims to be motivated -- according to this FB post, which law enforcement says is his -- by the killing of Muslims in Burma.
I'm going to ignore the claims by this obvious loser to speak for "every single Muslim," which are clearly absurd. What really strikes me is the claim that America is somehow responsible for the killing of Muslims in Burma. We haven't had significant ties with Myanmar for almost twenty years. Our sanctions program aimed at them was precisely in order to object to the government's murder of its own people, and to try to motivate them to stop it. Lest one claim that the sanctions themselves are murderous, we have been working recently to begin lifting them -- just because the government seems to be involved in some reform efforts we want to encourage.
In the wake of 9/11, I thought the lesson was that we could not afford to be disengaged from the world. Afghanistan was somewhere we had also ignored for quite some time, having been on their side against the Soviet invaders. But they came to harbor a poisonous hatred for the West, especially America, and to nurture and protect terrorist movements like al Qaeda.
After 15 years of war in Afghanistan, though, I'm now wondering anew if engagement is the answer. Ultimately, things like this cast doubt upon the claims that the West is hated for its policies. Whether engagement or disengagement is pursued, and even when the disengagement is shaped around trying to encourage positive reforms in the way the people of a country are treated, hatred seems to continue. We are blamed for what we do, and for what we do not do.
If we do disengage, we're in a moment where the Russians and Chinese are likely to step up. If you thought the Pax Americana was bad, wait until you have to deal with Beijing.
10 comments:
People are going to hate us whether we do the right thing or not. We might as well do the right thing.
"The right thing" is sometimes easy to determine, and sometimes very difficult... but it's pretty much always easier than trying to predict the future, much less predict the justifications that a future nutcase might come up with. If we do disengage, five will get you ten that future terrorists will cite "You Americans let us be victimized by the Chinese!" as the grievance that justifies their attacks. So we might as well do the right thing if we can figure out what that is.
In general, I like your answer. Trying to sort out what 'the right thing' is, however, is just where I'm at right now. :)
Well, I know for sure what doesn't work- vacillating between engagement and disengagement. Pick one (preferably engagement if you ask me- though I've been made to have my doubts) and stick with it. Quit dancing.
That's the one position America can't take, thanks to our system of mandatory regular elections. No Congress can bind future Congresses, nor any President future Presidents. That has both good and bad consequences. It means we are free to rethink Obama's Syria policy, for example; but it also meant that he was free to abandon Bush's commitment to a free and democratic Iraq.
After 15 years of war in Afghanistan, though, I'm now wondering anew if engagement is the answer. Ultimately, things like this cast doubt upon the claims that the West is hated for its policies. Whether engagement or disengagement is pursued, and even when the disengagement is shaped around trying to encourage positive reforms in the way the people of a country are treated, hatred seems to continue. We are blamed for what we do, and for what we do not do.
The reason why Islam calls the US and Israel, the big and smaller Satans, is because to Islam's god, those two nations are under a spiritual contract, a Covenant, with the God of Abraham. That's one easy explanation, if Allah that Mohammed came to obey was originally the God of Abraham and later on morphed to somebody else.
Thus Islam will continue to attack the enemy nations of their god, while Israel and America continue to fight under political and economic banners, instead of the banner of Jesus of Nazareth. For those that sought victory in war, Jean De Arc has already demonstrated that faith leads directly to enlightenment of military knowledge and capabilities. If the US continues to attempt to use politics or "democracy" to try to counter evil, they will fail. Evil cannot be countered in such a fashion, no matter how many bombs America can produce and use.
Jean De Arc has already demonstrated that faith leads directly to enlightenment of military knowledge and capabilities.
Well, Bedford Forrest suggests that this is not necessarily a miracle. It might have been, of course. But it wouldn't be too surprising if some of us have the gift, given how important war has been to the survival and advancement of aspects of the species.
"That's the one position America can't take, thanks to our system of mandatory regular elections."
Well, America could, but any particular administration is limited, that's certainly true. But still - I could be giving that advice to an administration as much as the American people. Obama could have stuck with Bush's plan, even if he didn't favor it initially, if he'd had a clue about what happens when you vacillate. Now, I'm not inclined to advise Trump to get too invested directly over there- Obama's made a mess of it, and switching gears back to the Bush plan would be hugely problematic now, so I think the advice holds- with some wiggle room.
Certainly, we're far more susceptible to vacillation because of the system we have and our two-party system.
Well, Bedford Forrest suggests that this is not necessarily a miracle. It might have been, of course. But it wouldn't be too surprising if some of us have the gift, given how important war has been to the survival and advancement of aspects of the species.
If they can scientifically reproduce the training of a 14 year old peasant illiterate girl to the level of a siege/open field commander and capable of beating stronger, faster, more experienced opponents in battle, that would be something of an experimental data to see. Plus how to transfer that to plate armor fighting and climbing siege ladders without getting killed. Not even the highest integrated hybrid 21st century training methodologies make that claim equivalent to our era.
Many high level traditional people won't even take on females for self defense classes, due to various issues.
There's always a debate about whether guys like this are part of a movement--and thus that the lesson of the attack is that we should get more serious about combatting the movement--or whether they're just sick loser loners. It's a sterile debate. I don't take this guy to have been a paid, plugged-in movement operative, just a jerk who found the whole ISIS schtick an attractive outlet for his fury and self-loathing. It's a mistake to get too caught up in whether his manifesto is rational. The lesson I draw is that ISIS was happy to claim him, because he was nominally killing Americans for vaguely Islamic reasons. He's dead and no longer my problem. ISIS is still there.
Grim,
Here is something good that came of all of this. HB48
Yes!
*After Terrorist Attack, OSU Students Want The Right to Carry Firearms on Campus, Including 'Miss Ohio'
http://ijr.com/2016/11/745358-after-terrorist-attack-osu-students-want-the-right-to-carry-firearms-on-campus-including-miss-ohio/
Yes!
*“I implore you to consider amending House Bill 48 to allow licensed campus concealed carry and remove the university campus carry opt-in clause retaining the authority to regulate campus carry in the general assembly.”
Yes!
*After OSU attack, lawmakers could pass bill Wednesday permitting concealed handguns on campus
http://www.fox19.com/story/33823042/hb-48-aims-to-change-concealed-carry-on-college-campuses
Yes.
No more liberal safe spaces.
I will contact my legislatures office in the morning.
:)
-Mississippi
Post a Comment