Yes, I agree and appreciate your comments on that subject. Your attempted jabs at conservatism I'm less enamored with, as they are ironically neither well-intentioned nor well informed. C'est la vie, though. I'll just put it down as one of your little eccentricities.

Either your position is changing, from a focus on Western victims of violence to a focus on victims in places like Syria, or it has been like that all along but that was not clear. Let's assume the latter. That position is prima facie more reasonable to me than one about heightening domestic anti-terrorist activities. But the practical and definitional problems are immense.

What would you like to be sufficient conditions for the US to intervene militarily in another country, and what form would you like that intervention to take? How does this apply to countries like North Korea, Burma, Zimbabwe and Congo?

Either your position is changing, from a focus on Western victims of violence to a focus on victims in places like Syria, or it has been like that all along but that was not clear. — andrewk

I've focused on both. The topic is Islamic terrorism, which has drifted to foreign policy.

That position is prima facie more reasonable to me than one about heightening domestic anti-terrorist activities — andrewk

I mentioned that Western governments should shut down mosques that breed terrorists, try those suspected of plotting terrorist activities for treason, and force the Gulf Arab states to take more refugees. I forget the page number, but that is what I said. What, if anything, do you find disagreeable about these suggestions? Notice I said nothing about curtailing freedom.

What would you like to be sufficient conditions for the US to intervene militarily in another country, and what form would you like that intervention to take? — andrewk

The sufficient conditions are already in place, whether I like them or not, but I would simply like the US to honor its stated commitments and obligations. That's all. The form of the intervention is determined by whatever is necessary to honor said commitments.

How does this apply to countries like North Korea, Burma, Zimbabwe and Congo? — andrewk

How does what apply? Both US and international law apply to them too, wherever relevant. You'd have to be more specific about each individual case for me to comment any further.

I'll just put it down as one of your little eccentricities. — Thorongil

And to you also ;-)

I mentioned that Western governments should shut down mosques that breed terrorists, try those suspected of plotting terrorist activities for treason, and force the Gulf Arab states to take more refugees. — Thorongil

That's reverting to action to prevent domestic terrorism incidents, which I have indicated - without rebuttal - is an insignificant issue in public policy terms.

Let's concentrate the discussion on action against activities of terrorists in places where terrorism is a significant problem, like Syria. Western governments cannot close down the mosques there. What action would you like taken, and what is the threshold criterion that must be met for such action, so that we can work out what other countries it should be applied to?

Without clear criteria, such a policy has no defence against the accusation that it is simply anti-Muslim. You mentioned genocide earlier. You could pick a particular definition of genocide and use that as the centre of a criterion. I am interested to see what that criterion will be, and whether it also mandates US military intervention in those non-Islamic trouble spots I mentioned.

domestic terrorism incidents, which I have indicated - without rebuttal - is an insignificant issue in public policy terms — andrewk

What on earth. No it's not.

What action would you like taken, and what is the threshold criterion that must be met for such action, so that we can work out what other countries it should be applied to. — andrewk

Now see, either you exist in an echo chamber or you haven't read what I've said. This question has basically already been answered twice:

I mean that Western governments have broken their own informal promises as well as legal obligations to militarily intervene in the event of genocide, the use of WMDs, and/or the crossing of red lines, all three of which have now occurred.

The sufficient conditions are already in place, whether I like them or not, but I would simply like the US to honor its stated commitments and obligations. That's all. The form of the intervention is determined by whatever is necessary to honor said commitments.

-

You mentioned genocide earlier. You could pick a particular definition of genocide and use that as the centre of a criterion. I am interested to see what that criterion will be, and whether it also mandates military intervention in those other non-Islamic trouble spots I mentioned. — andrewk

So I'll take this as your wanting me to expand on the answers I've already given. You should have simply asked that.

The UN has declared that ISIS has committed genocide against the Yazidis. The US is a signatory to the Genocide Convention, which obligates signatories to protect and to punish in the event of its occurrence. It does not require military intervention, but this is often the only available means of carrying out this obligation. In Syria, the only way we could have protected the Yazidis and the only way we can now punish those responsible for the genocide perpetrated against them is military intervention against ISIS. Moreover, the EU, the UK, the US, and Canada have officially recognized the murder of Christians by ISIS in the region as genocide. It also stands to reason that for it to end, the perpetrators must be punished, which again would involve military intervention.

Is your proposal then that, whenever the UN declares Genocide to have occurred in a region, you want the US government to do whatever is necessary to prevent that, including invading and attempting to install a new government if no other way appears likely to achieve that?

That's a perfectly good debate topic, with credible cases to be made on both sides and, even better, there is no need to mention Islam, as the issue is responses to genocide, not Islam.

If that is your main concern, I think a productive and interesting discussion could be had about it, with lower stress levels than this one seems to have. It would suit a new thread, as this one appears to be about Islam. I'd be an interested reader of, and probable participant in, such a thread.

AndrewK is quite right to point out that it's no more practical to throw money at the domestic "war on terror" than it is to throw money at the war on intestinal infection if we're trying to actually save lives rather than merely assuage outrage.

The question is: why should we throw away more money to fund "security theatrics" in the west when the actual safety it provides is increasingly marginal and there are far more cost effective ways to save lives which are currently underfunded? Why is stopping terrorism related death more important than stopping obesity related death? (hint: emotion)

Closing down mosques and banning Qur'ans in the west is a steep price to pay to try and end terrorism, and aside from being a terrible strategy to begin with (obvious reasons), it may come back to bite other religions in the future (obvious reasons). I know politicians would love to convince you that TSA agents groping your children and the NSA spending tax money to invade your privacy using every possible covert means available has something to do with protecting your freedom; or that spending money on the military is required to stop terrorists from blowing you up, but in truth it amounts to less than the boost in actual safety you would get from purchasing an emergency medical kit or attending a driving safety class.

If we're talking about military action abroad in order to intervene in genocides, this is entirely a separate issue from terrorism at home. Fighting ISIS directly is definitely a cost effective way to preserve Yazidi life, and I personally support it, but dismantling ISIS without causing extreme and mass civilian casualty would seem to necessitate many boots on the ground. Funneling money and guns into the region seems not to be working very well so far, for a host of reasons (infighting between rebels, desertion, the sale of weapons to ISIS, weapons being captured by ISIS, and some groups being assimilated into ISIS). So far total US commitment against ISIS hasn't happened because American foreign policy seems to value regime change in Syria much more than bringing and end to ISIS. Likewise, Russia seems more interested in keeping the Al-Assad dynasty in power than defeating ISIS.

It would really be swell if America policed the world based on the morality that the UN tries (and fails) to enforce... Alack, alas... Saudi Arabia is free to behead "sorcerers" on a regular basis, Israel keeps getting the nod to demolish foreign homes to construct it's own, and ISIS benefits from the division within Iraq and Syria caused by the greed of external nations.

AndrewK is quite right to point out that it's no more practical to throw money at the domestic "war on terror" than it is to throw money at the war on intestinal infection if we're trying to actually save lives rather than merely assuage outrage.

The question is: why should we throw away more money to fund "security theatrics" in the west when the actual safety it provides is increasingly marginal and there are far more cost effective ways to save lives which are currently underfunded? Why is stopping terrorism related death more important than stopping obesity related death? (hint: emotion)

Closing down mosques and banning Qur'ans in the west is a steep price to pay to try and end terrorism, and aside from being a terrible strategy to begin with (obvious reasons), it may come back to bite other religions in the future (obvious reasons). I know politicians would love to convince you that TSA agents groping your children and the NSA spending tax money to invade your privacy using every possible covert means available has something to do with protecting your freedom; or that spending money on the military is required to stop terrorists from blowing you up, but in truth it amounts to less than the boost in actual safety you would get from purchasing an emergency medical kit or attending a driving safety class. — VagabondSpectre

This is merely one long, hamfisted straw man, assuming you had me in mind when you wrote it.

Rest assured you would have received a direct reply. This was an open post formulated in response to reading an article that Wayfarer posted which described a debate between Geert Wilders and someone else, along with reading andrewk's remarks concerning the cost in money and freedom entailed in fighting terrorism.

But now that we're here, what makes terrorism such a massively significant political issue? Is it the death and harm it causes or the widespread outrage that results?

I am in favor of rigorous gun control, suppression of ammunition manufacture, gun seizures, and a bunch of other repressive measures that could be directed against guns, gun owners, and gun users. That having been said, who produced the figure that more Americans have been killed by domestic gunfire than all the Americans killed in its wars?

Since the Revolution, 1,354,664 Americans have been killed in one major or measly war or another. War dead tend to get counted. How did they arrive at the figure that more than 1,354,664 Americans had been killed by gun violence since the nations founding?

If the annual death count was as high every year as it was in 2015, sure -- one could calculate out that in x years there would be over a million. But... the annual human harvest by gun fire hasn't always been as high as it is now. The population is larger now than it has been previously (of course). Who was keeping track of gun deaths across the country in 1907, for instance? 1853? 1799? Well, nobody was keeping track until relatively recently.

Rest assured you would have received a direct reply. — VagabondSpectre

Alright, good to know.

But now that we're here, what makes terrorism such a massively significant political issue? Is it the death and harm it causes or the widespread outrage that results? — VagabondSpectre

With all due respect, I think I've more than addressed this in my recent posts.

what makes terrorism such a massively significant political issue? Is it the death and harm it causes or the widespread outrage it causes as a result? — VagabondSpectre

In a previous post (neglected) I pointed out that important decisions are often made irrationally, or I'll add now, "apparently irrationally". The body count doesn't rationally merit the level of reaction we have seen. But note, without vigorous reaction and vigilance, we could have seen a lot more terrorist attacks than occurred. (That's not provable, of course.) People are irrational about certain kinds of accidents. They are cavalier about auto accidents and deathly afraid of their passenger plane crashing -- even though the former is vastly more likely than the latter.

Whites are afraid of getting shot by black men, even though white folks are not the usual victims of black killers. Blacks are angered at white police shootings of black men, when a far larger number of black men are killed by other black men.

People are more afraid of foreign terrorists than they are of domestic terrorists. The Oklahoma City court house bombing by Timothy McVeigh was, by any standard, very bad. Yet, there was less angst about that bombing than much smaller attacks by Islam-believing terrorists. Indeed, the US ATF task force that started the fire at the Branch Dravidian compound in Waco, Texas (that's way-co, not whacko) to which McVeigh was responding, supposedly, was pretty bad too.

On and on. People don't respond rationally to these sorts of events. What is really crazy, though, is that legislators who are elected and paid to make decisions that are more rational, and less irrational, than your average citizen's reaction, frequently fail to make sensible, rational policy.

Is your proposal then that, whenever the UN declares Genocide to have occurred in a region, you want the US government to do whatever is necessary to prevent that, including invading and attempting to install a new government if no other way appears likely to achieve that? — andrewk

Once again, as far as I can tell, the US is obligated to do this whether I want it to or not. But yes, I do want the US to do as you say. If we sign on to do something, but then don't do it, why sign on? A treaty, law, declaration, etc is utterly meaningless unless it's enforced.

I'd be an interested reader of, and probable participant in, such a thread. — andrewk

You're free to create it, though I can't promise I'll have the time to sustainably keep up with it. I'm not one to create threads, given the responsibility I feel in addressing everyone who responds to me. I'm very busy at the moment and so tend to post in short bursts, like this evening.

That having been said, who produced the figure that more Americans have been killed by domestic gunfire than all the Americans killed in its wars? — Bitter Crank

Here is the definitive article.

There have been 1,516,863 gun-related deaths since 1968, compared to 1,396,733 cumulative war deaths since the American Revolution. That’s 120,130 more gun deaths than war deaths -- about 9 percent more, or nearly four typical years worth of gun deaths. And that’s using the most generous scholarly estimate of Civil War deaths, the biggest component of American war deaths.

I do find the US attitude towards this issue hypocritical and also irrational. Going on averages of around 298 persons shot every day in the USA, if you allow 90 days since Trumps' failed immigration ban, that would amount to more than 2,500 persons shot. The number of people killed on US soil by recognised terrorist acts is a miniscule fraction of that number. Yet no politician dare stand up to the NRA and gun ownership, as it's regarded as a civil rights issue. It is one of the symptoms of the decline of American culture IMO.

I've more than addressed this in my recent posts. — Thorongil

...Islamic terrorists, on he other hand, are hellbent on creating a worldwide theocratic state and will destroy anyone and anything that stands in their way...

...I am not saying that some ISIS fighter poses the same statistical risk as innumerable other ways in which one could die. But I am saying he poses more of an existential and civilizational risk than a great many other things. You may not care about preserving civilization, but I do...

...If you don't nip terrorism in the bud, then you are taking a massive risk, for if terrorists do acquire the means to better achieve their ends, they will not hesitate to make use of them... — Thorongil

I have a harder time seeing and believing that radical Islam and Islamic terrorism poses even a remote existential threat to western civilization than I do accepting that the statistical threat to my life terrorism poses is actually a rational cause for worry.

I've caricatured that general thrust earlier in this thread... How will terrorism bring down the west? How will radical Islam bring down the west? How will ISIS make landfall in the US?

The contrived answers to these questions I've seen from all sources are comedic to me.

How will terrorism bring down the west? How will radical Islam bring down the west? How will ISIS make landfall in the US? — VagabondSpectre

I too don't believe they will succeed, but unlike you, I do believe it's their stated aim and intention. If the jihadists could destroy America and/or Western civilization completely, they would have no hesitation in so doing.

The contrived answers to these questions I've seen from all sources are comedic to me. — VagabondSpectre

Did you find 9/11 amusing?

It seems that our reaction to terrorism, on both the public and political level, is well typified by terror. On the level of the public it seems to air more on the outrage and anger side of fear and on the political level I think we have cool-headed politicians (notable exceptions not withstanding) who are all too willing to opportunistically play to their audience while justifying more power and authority, bigger budgets, and generally less fettered decision making (that dang democracy) in the name of safety...

In a world where outrage is a political commodity, terrorism is a cash cow.

How will terrorism bring down the west? — VagabondSpectre

Terrorism can bring down the West not by military action but by making the West betray its values in the name of the so-called 'war against terror'. The fall will not be military but moral, and is well underway.

To that end, the most powerful ally the terrorists have is the current American president and his ilk. Those that pile in behind, howling for discrimination against domestic Muslims are - without realising it - providing the best collaboration service that Daesh could wish for.

Fortunately, some Western leaders are prepared to take a tough stand against the jihadi fifth-columnists like Trump. Foremost amongst these are Merkel and Trudeau.

Did you find 9/11 amusing? — Wayfarer

Not at all, but the fact that Larry Silverstein (WTC owner) had the towers fully insured puts a damper on the idea that severe or lasting infrastructural damage was inflicted. It was the deadliest terrorist attack in American history and was morally repugnant along with even the least deadly terror attack, but clearly the emotional scar it left has been it's most prolific legacy, not the strategic damage it did to American infrastructure.

The 9/11 hijackers didn't intend to bring down the west or destroy America. Their stated and speculated motivations include: religious revenge for supporting Israel (stated), religious revenge for sanctions and hostility against Iraq (stated), religious revenge for U.S support of Saudi Arabia (stated), religious motivation to humiliate the west (speculated), non-religious motivation to humiliate the west in response to feeling humiliated by globalization (speculated), an attempt to provoke America into a war which would incite a Islamic unification and revolution (speculated); but destroying the west isn't among them.

9/11 wasn't terrorism bringing down the west, it was terrorism galvanizing it in opposition. It wasn't a part of radical Islam's long term plot of global domination, and it wasn't a militant Islamist group actually making landfall. I'm not saying we should have no airport security or not do background checks on immigrants and tourists, I'm just saying that we don't need to spend every spare dollar and bend-over backwards trying to feel safe from terrorism, and that radical Islam does not actually pose an existential threat to the west.

The fall will not be military but moral, and is well underway. — andrewk

What would you say to Muslims who demand that the West bans internet pornography and gay marriage? Do you think that acquisence to those terms would be a fair bargain in return for their abandoning terrorism? Or do think that Islam ought to change its concept of 'holy law' in respect of such issues?

the fact that Larry Silverstein (WTC owner) had the towers fully insured puts a damper on the idea that severe or lasting infrastructural damage was inflicted. — VagabondSpectre

So...the fact that the buildings were insured means what?

radical Islam does not actually pose an existential threat to the west. — VagabondSpectre

If it doesn't, it's only because it doesn't have the means, but it does certainly have the intent.

So...the fact that the buildings were insured means what? — Wayfarer

It means that in the grand scheme of things the infrastructural damage caused by 9/11 amounted to less financial cost than what a single insurance company could cover with money they had sitting around. Severe and lasting infrastructural damage was not inflicted. It was at best strategically null if destroying the west was their intent... When insurance companies can no longer cover the financial cost of the infrastructural damage caused by terrorism, then significant long term damage to the west might begin to accumulate.

If it doesn't, it's only because it doesn't have the means, but it does certainly have the intent. — Wayfarer

As far as I can tell the primary motivation of Islamic terrorism in the west is a kind of delusional revenge brought on and enhanced by political and religious extremes. Yes the intention to create a global caliphate and destroy western society is out there, but it is a bogeyman isolated in the middle-east and in the minds of a few radicals abroad who continue to remind us of why we abhor them.

The means of radical Islam to destroy the west are far out of it's reach. Beyond somehow gaining an arsenal of nuclear bombs, I can't even begin to imagine what they would need to do in order to accomplish their end goals.

Our values are definitely being tested...

The increasing social and political complexity of the modern world seems to generally pit reason against emotion. As the world becomes more complex, rationally deciphering current events becomes more and more difficult, making emotional narratives much easier to embrace by comparison.

Why put in unending rational leg work when we can settle for simple and emotionally appealing?

I wrote out an answer to this and then my jaw dropped when I realised the implication of your first two sentences in that post - what it implies about Muslims in general. No doubt it was just a mistake, arising from typing on auto-pilot, and does not in any way reflect what you believe. I suggest you fix it before we go on.

sorry what does it imply?

Any Muslim advocates for or performs terrorists attacks against Western societies until we ban pornography and gay marriage.

what it implies about Muslims in general — andrewk

Any Muslim advocates for or performs terrorists attacks against Western societies until we ban pornography and gay marriage. — TheWillowOfDarkness

You guys are ridiculous. Read the sentence again. He asked you a simple question about Muslims who demand that the West ban pornography and gay marriage. There are Muslims who are in favor of such things. He's talking about them. In no way did he say or imply that he was talking about all Muslims.

How will terrorism bring down the west? How will radical Islam bring down the west? How will ISIS make landfall in the US? — VagabondSpectre

It won't, if we defeat it.

Andrew also said that it can undermine Western values, and I agree with him, though from a slightly different angle, I imagine.

Here is the definitive article.

There have been 1,516,863 gun-related deaths since 1968, compared to 1,396,733 cumulative war deaths since the American Revolution. That’s 120,130 more gun deaths than war deaths -- about 9 percent more, or nearly four typical years worth of gun deaths. And that’s using the most generous scholarly estimate of Civil War deaths, the biggest component of American war deaths. — Wayfarer

Does America have a gun problem? Yes, absolutely. A severe problem. I am only disagreeing on the details 1,617,000 deaths? Probably not, but even 500,000 would be too many.

Definitive? Punditfact?

Let's say there 33,000 gun deaths a year. We could say that since 1968 there have been 1,617,000 deaths. Reasonable assumption? Sure, if you assume that the same number of people were shot dead every year -- which isn't the case.

In 1950, the rate of gun deaths was 5 per 100,000. Ah, 15,000 deaths in 1950. No, 7,600 because the population was 152 million in1950, not 320 million. In 1950 and 1960, the rate of gun deaths was 5.1 and 5.0 per 100,000. In 1970, 1980, and 1990 it was 8.8, 10.4, and 9.4 per 100k, respectively, and the population was increasing each decade. In 2014 the rate per 100k was the same as in 1950, with twice as large a population.

Here is a chart from the Bureau of Justice showing the trends in homicide:

Not every death is a homicide. In fact, 2/3s of the gun shot deaths were suicides by middle-aged white males.

Further, homicides are not distributed evenly across the population. Young, black, males living in specific sections of specific cities in specific states account for a very disproportionate number of the homicide deaths. (Not that its OK that the largest number of homicide victims is young, black, and male. It's just that most demographic groups are not similarly violent. That the largest number of suicides is among middle aged white males is likewise very significant, even if most people have far lower rates of suicide.)

It won't, if we defeat it.

Andrew also said that it can undermine Western values, and I agree with him, though from a slightly different angle, I imagine. — Thorongil

Plenty of stuff undermines western values. Being free to undermine values happens to be itself a western value...

We don't all of us oppose terrorism because terrorists undermine our values. We oppose it because we abhor violence and death. So when you say "if we defeat it" are you referring to terrorism or any ideology which undermines western values?