Also, the Western media ought to have given much more attention to the fatwa on terrorism than it did. That was a movement within Sunni Islam to condemn terrorism as un-Islamic, and it hardly got any notice. — Wayfarer

Perhaps because it had hardly any success? The Saudis' export of Wahhabism is second only to their oil exports. To try to put lipstick on a pig by claiming that terrorism or extremism are un-Islamic is belied by other teachings.

The authority in question was Pakistani, not Saudi. The Fatwa that was issued was extremely thorough and well-grounded in Islamic law, according to all reports. I am simply observing that you would think that enrolling respected Islamic authorities in the 'war on terror' might have some strategic benefits, but that this was basically ignored.

I thought "we" referred to the West and its allies, implying that, say, the U.S. and French militaries were more barbaric than, for instance, ISIS and al Qaeda. — Arkady

Yes, but let's include the British, please. But only in the sense that technology empowers barbarism. Which does not mean I am anti technology, only anti the technology of death.

It also seemed as if you were taking an apologetic stance towards the Nice terrorist's actions, by suggesting it is we who are at fault for trying to help him out of his despair. — Arkady

Again, yes. But only in the relative sense that the invader, the aggressor, the comfortably empowered, have no excuse whatsoever, whereas the suffering have their suffering.

Terrorism, as generally understood, is the action of the disempowered attempting to gain power. When the same tactics are employed by the already powerful, it is usually called something else. Thus the shooting of an already subdued black man by the police is not called terrorism, whereas the 'retaliatory' shooting of police officers more likely is. And yes, I am saying that the former is more culpable than the latter. Not that I support either.

Terrorism, as generally understood, is the action of the disempowered attempting to gain power. — unenlightened

I didn't think the invasion of Iraq was a good idea -- ditto for the invasion of Kuwait, ditto for the war in Afghanistan, or Vietnam. It was bad policy and bad human behavior--"shock and awe" bombing, and like actions. Our poor management of Iraq after we had collapsed the government caused a lot of additional problems, on down to the present.

If an imperial power can't competently invade, take over, and then control a country, it should leave it alone. We did ok on the Invade part, but performed poorly on the take over and control part -- which is critical. Had we done a better job of taking over and controlling Iraq, everyone would have been better off.

The invasion, competent or klutzy, did not cause inter-sectarian hostility between Sunni and Shia'a Moslems, or hostile exclusionary policies towards Christian Arabs and other minorities there. Previously suppressed hostilities came out into the open. We should have kept a lid on that sort of crap. Still, we were not instructing or forcing anyone in the Middle East to blow themselves up, blow up a car loaded with explosives in a food market in a targeted neighborhood, blow up a mosque, and so on.

The extreme Moslem radicals are terrorists and a threat to everyone, be they Moslems, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, or something else, because of their extreme ideology. They are as likely to blow up their own cultural heritage or the world's heritage (like the libraries in Timbuktu, or the pre-Islam ruins in Syria, or the great Buddha statues, etc.

Thus the shooting of an already subdued black man by the police is not called terrorism, whereas the 'retaliatory' shooting of police officers more likely is. And yes, I am saying that the former is more culpable than the latter. Not that I support either. — unenlightened

The police are charged with maintaining the safety of society. Some people actively threaten the safety of society and if they resist arrest or persist in violence, will be killed. The acts of protecting a society and the acts of threatening a society are not equivalent.

Naturally, no one likes being pulled over by cops, or be suddenly confronted by an investigating officer, and so forth. But that's what the police do. We want them to that, even if we don't ourselves like being the object of policing.

In fact, police shoot more white men than black men, if it makes you feel better. Granted, though, policing falls heavier on black communities than white communities, while at the same time, not increasing the safety of black residents with respect to each other.

Blacks kill each other at a much higher rate than whites or cops kill black people. The gross amount of violence in Chicago this year is largely limited to black violence in black neighborhoods. A case can be made that the black on black killing is actually "caused by the police" (or more precisely, not sufficiently prevented). IF the police forces were doing their jobs more effectively, they would apprehend the black men who do the shooting. They are not, and in many ghettos, murderers operate with a fair amount of impunity, killing again and again (they're not series killers, they're more like hired guns). There certainly is such a thing as oppression, but the virtue of the oppressed is not therefore superior.

The black community and the police are locked in a mutually self-fulfilling prophecy: The blacks don't trust the police, and don't cooperate with the police; the police expect hostility and resistance from blacks and they get it. Police/community relationships tend to be negative. Encounters which may not involve major crime can turn deadly quickly.

There certainly is such a thing as oppression, but the virtue of the oppressed is not therefore superior. — Bitter Crank

In the court of judge unenlightened, oppression counts as provocation, a mitigating circumstance. It does not make a virtue of a vice, and is certainly no virtue itself. So I agree that there is no superiority.

You know, after 9/11 people became more afraid to fly, and more people started to drive long distances rather than fly, increasing the annual car accident death rates by the equivalent of four fully loaded boeing 737s crashing every year. Even if 9/11 happened like every three or four years, it would still probably be safer to fly than drive. In reality, the risk level of terrorists compared to the real everyday dangers we shrug off is insignificant. Yeah, it's awful that that stuff happens, but it isn't really something we need to worry about, no more so than being struck by lighting while being devoured by a shark.

Ivan the Terrible became convinced that the only way to save his country was to reanimate Russian fears of Mongol warlords. Ivan was crazy, but maybe there's something to that strategy. When people are terrified, they give their leaders more power.

Terrified people are easier to control... something like that.

The authority in question was Pakistani, not Saudi. The Fatwa that was issued was extremely thorough and well-grounded in Islamic law, according to all reports. I am simply observing that you would think that enrolling respected Islamic authorities in the 'war on terror' might have some strategic benefits, but that this was basically ignored. — Wayfarer

I didn't make any claim as to the nationality of the person who issued the fatwa, and it doesn't really matter. Saudi Arabia (a Sunni state) is a much more prosperous and powerful state than Pakistan due to its oil wealth (albeit without nukes), and is a major exporter of Wahhabism. Whether or not the fatwa was "thorough," my point was that it appears to have been nearly wholly unsuccessful.

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are ostensibly our allies in the war on terror; but with friends like these, who needs enemies?

Yes, but let's include the British, please. But only in the sense that technology empowers barbarism. Which does not mean I am anti technology, only anti the technology of death. — unenlightened

Sure, we can include the British; I didn't specifically exclude them. You accused me of responding to "shit you didn't say," but you are making the tendentious point that Western militaries are more barbaric than the terrorist forces which they oppose. So, how am I misinterpreting what you said? As I said earlier, you apparently draw no distinction between intentional targeting of civilians and accidental killing of civilians as collateral damage. That being the case, you do suffer from Chomsky derangement syndrome.

What would, for instance, ISIS or Hezbollah do if they had at their disposal the military of France (never mind of the United States)?

Again, yes. But only in the relative sense that the invader, the aggressor, the comfortably empowered, have no excuse whatsoever, whereas the suffering have their suffering.

This person had dual Tunisian-French citizenship. The West is not at war with Tunisia, and any problems that country is currently suffering can probably be largely laid at their own feet, and that of their deposed dictator ben Ali. And even if this person had some legitimate grievance with France or some other Western power (which he didn't, as far as I can tell), that doesn't provide an "excuse" for mowing down more than 80 innocent people.

Terrorism, as generally understood, is the action of the disempowered attempting to gain power. When the same tactics are employed by the already powerful, it is usually called something else.

Baloney. This just the hoary old canard that the "the bigger army calls the smaller army terrorists." Terrorism is the intentional targeting of largely non-military targets (or non-combatant military targets, in the case of the Fort Hood shooting) for the sake of inflicting psychological or material damage, or simply to rack up as large a body count as possible in the name of your pet ideology. (How were the Boston bombers, for instance, attempting to gain power?) Once again, you elide the difference between intending to kill civilians, and accidentally killing them; Islamist terrorists do the former, and Western militaries do the latter (with rare exceptions, e.g. the My Lai Massacre).

Thus the shooting of an already subdued black man by the police is not called terrorism, whereas the 'retaliatory' shooting of police officers more likely is. And yes, I am saying that the former is more culpable than the latter. Not that I support either.

They're both murder. Why should one be less culpable? Is a black police officer who murders a restrained white subject less culpable than when a white officer murders a black one?

Once again, you elide the difference between intending to kill civilians, and accidentally killing them; Islamist terrorists do the former, and Western militaries do the latter (with rare exceptions, e.g. the My Lai Massacre). — Arkady

Or Dresden, or Hiroshima. Or any of the other actual important deliberate mass killings of civilians since then that have been planned, ordered and/or supported by western military powers.

Plane crashes, whether they involve 300 or 3, tend to get press. Why, don't know. Media have been reporting small aircraft crashes involving 1, 2, or 3 people, and whether they involve fatalities or not, where they might not report car crashes involving 1, 2, or 3 passengers.

Editors in newsrooms have to decide what's interesting, important, and relevant, and what's not. It isn't just a question of which stories make more money. I guess editors identify more with the horror of falling out of the sky than getting gored by one's trusty Ford.

We aren't good at assessing relative risk, whether it is driving vs. flying, terrorism vs. accidents at home, the risk of dying from disease vs. the risk of vaccination (a child recently died from diphtheria because his parents thought vaccinations were risky), the risk of being sent home from the hospital too soon vs. the risk of being infected with nosocomial infections from staying in the hospital too long, etc.

What would, for instance, ISIS or Hezbollah do if they had at their disposal the military of France (never mind of the United States)? — Arkady

What would poor people be like if they were rich? Like rich people.
Similarly I would expect Hezbollah to be like Israel if they had the power, and ISIS like an extremely unpleasant military power if they had the power. Nazi Germany maybe?

Which is to say that humans are not different in kind from one ethnicity to another, but are all and always susceptible to greed and fear and violence

Why should one be less culpable? — Arkady

They're both murder. Why should one be less culpable? — Arkady

I already said:

...
oppression counts as provocation, a mitigating circumstance. — unenlightened

Is a black police officer who murders a restrained white subject less culpable than when a white officer murders a black one? — Arkady

Find me the report of such an event or better the film, and that question might become worth answering. But given the news that I see day after day, you are starting to sound like a 'white lives matter' merchant, trying to misdirect attention away from the rampant racial oppression that is happening. Why would you be doing that?

relevant video to my post just came out!

As far as the Islamist ideology is concerned, Western Civilization is the work of Satan, and needs to be destroyed. Make no mistake that from their perspective, it is Holy War, an apocalyptic scenario. There are also plenty of parasites, hangers-on, soldiers of fortune, and plain psychopaths. But at the core of the Islamist ideology is a deep hatred for Western liberal democracies and everything they stand for.

So I very much doubt any Islamist regime would be 'like Israel', as it is constitutionally opposed to what we regard as human rights, sexual equality, the presumption of innocence, and many other things that are taken for granted in democratic societies (including Israel).

Or Dresden, or Hiroshima. Or any of the other actual important deliberate mass killings of civilians since then that have been planned, ordered and/or supported by western military powers. — Baden

Of course (and I already mentioned the nuclear bombing of Japan earlier in this thread). However, you will note a couple of points: (1) this tactic is the exception rather than the rule, and (2) our terrorist problems these days don't originate from Japan or Germany (at least not with German nationals, rather than recent arrivals from the Middle East, who sexually assault women en masse and hack at people with axes while riding trains).

The rules of engagement for U.S. soldiers fighting in Iraq (and elsewhere), far from being open season on civilians, are, if anything, overly onerous, and more than one soldier has commented on this fact.

What would poor people be like if they were rich? Like rich people.
Similarly I would expect Hezbollah to be like Israel if they had the power, and ISIS like an extremely unpleasant military power if they had the power. Nazi Germany maybe?

Which is to say that humans are not different in kind from one ethnicity to another, but are all and always susceptible to greed and fear and violence — unenlightened

So, in other words, given the power of a Western military, ISIS would become akin to one of (if not the) worst regimes in human history. And clearly France does not comport itself as Nazi Germany does. So, by your own supposition, what does that say about the barbarity gap between ISIS and Western militaries?

I already said:
...
oppression counts as provocation, a mitigating circumstance. — unenlightened — unenlightened

With regard to the Middle East, Tunisians and others have been oppressed largely by their own people, including despotic leaders who have squelched political and personal freedom. The people of France in general (and especially those 84 innocent people killed in Nice in particular) were not oppressing the maniac who plowed into them. (I can hardly keep up with the news: an axe-wielding Afghani national recently attacked a family on a train in Germany and a mall was shot up in that same country; just more wails of pain of "oppressed" people, no doubt). You also continue to ignore other recent examples such as the Fort Hood shooting, San Bernardino shooting, the Boston bombing, etc, most of which, far from involving oppressed people lashing out against their oppressors, involved immigrant (or 1st generation) Muslims lashing out against the country which has given them a better life than they ever would have had in their home country or country of origin. So, your theory about "oppression -> terrorism" fails.

And in your response to the Nice attack, you didn't merely intimate that there might be mitigating circumstances: you essentially blamed the West for supposedly bringing these attacks upon itself, saying we need to look into our own hearts in order to figure out the root of the Islamists' hatred. So, you are suffering not only from Chomsky derangement syndrome , you are also suffering from battered wife syndrome, in which you ask yourself what you did to "deserve" such ill treatment.

Find me the report of such an event or better the film, and that question might become worth answering. But given the news that I see day after day, you are starting to sound like a 'white lives matter' merchant, trying to misdirect attention away from the rampant racial oppression that is happening. Why would you be doing that? — unenlightened

I assume you are acquainted with hypothetical questions? Or are you just dodging mine? Such evasiveness ill suits you, Un.

(As for your foolish "White lives matter" statement, I'll ignore that, except to say, as BitterCrank pointed out, American blacks slaughter each other at astronomical rates, and so they can look to their own for the bulk of their oppression in the 21st century U.S.)

Blacks kill each other at a much higher rate than whites or cops kill black people. The gross amount of violence in Chicago this year is largely limited to black violence in black neighborhoods. A case can be made that the black on black killing is actually "caused by the police" (or more precisely, not sufficiently prevented). IF the police forces were doing their jobs more effectively, they would apprehend the black men who do the shooting. They are not, and in many ghettos, murderers operate with a fair amount of impunity, killing again and again (they're not series killers, they're more like hired guns). There certainly is such a thing as oppression, but the virtue of the oppressed is not therefore superior. — Bitter Crank

People complain when police patrol their neighborhood, and then complain when they don't. A violent criminal gets into an altercation with a police officer after robbing a store, is killed in the ensuing fight, and then gets called a "gentle giant" in media coverage. For all of their historic discrimination, American blacks are their own worst enemy in 2016 America.

ISIS successfully liberated itself from 200 oppressors a few weeks ago. Good for them.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/02/middleeast/baghdad-car-bombs/

I assume you are acquainted with hypothetical questions? Or are you just dodging mine? Such evasiveness ill suits you, Un.

(As for your foolish "White lives matter" statement, I'll ignore that, except to say, as BitterCrank pointed out, American blacks slaughter each other at astronomical rates, and so they can look to their own for the bulk of their oppression in the 21st century U.S.) — Arkady

I assume you are acquainted with direct questions? Or are you just dodging mine?

I assume that folks have reasons and justifications, and I assume that the social situation, including the political rhetoric that prevails are influences. Just to be clear, at no point am I seeking to justify acts of terrorism or mass killing, or even a single killing.

American blacks slaughter each other and American whites and American police slaughter blacks. There is a reason for this slaughter, which is that there is a social construction of blackness that devalues black lives. Am I being controversial here? Are you wanting to say that blacks are inherently more violent? Feel free to ignore the questions.

My position is that this social construction affects everyone, black and white, and that it is an immoral social construction that ought to be resisted personally and socially. This moral and as I understand it legal obligation to treat people equally has a particularly urgent application to law enforcement officers.

Is a black police officer who murders a restrained white subject less culpable than when a white officer murders a black one? — Arkady

So here is the hypothetical question. And the answer, of course is that he is more culpable. The only question is whether he is more culpable because he doesn't even have the social construct as a partial excuse, or whether he is more culpable because the social construct is true. This, of course on the assumption, possibly wrong, that your hypothetical relates to the status quo of American race and not to a hypothetical reversed social construct, in which case it would be identical to what happens every other day except for the inversion of the races.