The logical objective of international policy throughout history has always been to compete and "exploit" advantage. We are competing in a world where idealism is a distinct disadvantage.
There really ARE mechanisms for "blowing the whistle", and any G.I. interested in doing that can easily find them.
The location of the info being known, a whistleblower with actual evidence of illegal activity (keeping secrets of lawful acts and information isn't illegal, nor is there a requirement to disclose all operational interaction with locals for public amusement!) could use the CIVILIAN chain of command outside the military, and the International Criminal Court.
[quote] After being able to peruse their entire set of documents from Afghanistan and Iraq, how much confidence can I have in them? [/quote]
None. They don't even care enough to pay for secure terminals and instead use common desktops which have no security, and even have burners installed so spies can make multisession CDs/DVDs to harvest information. Use of commodity hardware and operating systems invites users with local physical access to do what they like.
"Improve accountability? No, all this will do is force the decision-making process further away from the prying eyes of public scrutiny. Arguments and discussions will only take place "off the record" and in ways that can be immediately destroyed. No decisions will be documented - at least not in a way that can be used against anyone. Don't like the amount of paper that a bureaucracy produces? You won't have to worry about that much longer..."
It IS a good lesson that if you wish to keep something a "secret", you don't leave it on a fucking server for dog and world to harvest. A documentation fetish is IMO an unintended result of having such convenient ways to store and transmit material.
I think of the incidents as a good, sound LARTing.
I don't subscribe to your superstition or any other, and BTW if you are a Christian YOUR BOOK in effect agrees with the Dove Outreach folks that Islam is sinful and its followers Hellbound!
YOUR _ruled_ book is either the _literal_ Word of your God from which you must not deviate and which you may not question, or you have no faith.
"Would you be offended if someone build a YMCA near Auschwitz with a small chapel in the back?"
That was a deliberately poor analogy. Hitlers supposed "Christianity" was irrelevant to his Nazi politics, while Islam IS completely integrated with Muslim politics.
"Would Jews be offended if a Hitler Youth camp were established nearby?" is a much more accurate analogy. Thanks for trying!
No one dare criticize Islam because Muslims are fond of violent reprisals against anyone who does so. This has worked wonderfully, chilling debate throughout the Politically Correct secular West.
Muslim reprisals will explain Islam quite nicely, FORCING the unwilling to understand what they would deny and demonstrating the Clash of Civilizations.
"You do not train a child to be rational and logical by mocking them. You do it by listening to them and educating them slowly over time."
Muslims are not "children", they are political opponents of all that is not Islam. At this early point, what I would prefer is to awaken the secular West to the Muslim threat so it will perceive it as such.
Any attempt to do that from within is Politically Incorrect, but direct action by Muslims is irrefutable. If I say "Islam is bad because (insert reasons), society will mod me Troll for thoughtcrime. Jihadist actions are another kettle of fish, because Jihadists can not be discredited.
"Not this ignorant shit again. You are confusing moderate Islam with extremist Islam. The two are not the same. It's not Islam that makes extremist Muslims crazy, but their extremism."
The moderates (so-called) ENABLE and FUND the fighters, who (to borrow a Maoist analogy) swim like fish in the sea of the people.
Extremist Muslims are not "crazy". That unfairly trivializes their ideology and intent. They govern whole countries (Iran), while other, supposedly-less extreme countries fund terrorism (KSA).
Being a moderate religionist is quite like being a moderate Communist. Strip the superstitious nonsense and both are revolutionary political ideologies that rely on a _spectrum_ of supporters.
The backlash will inform those undecided about Islam. Muslims were never going to convert in appreciable numbers, but the secular and Christian West share Islam as a savage enemy.
The backlash will instruct the undecided. Every "infidel" Islam kills is like every Jew killed by Nazis or Black lynched by Klansmen in that they demonstrate the true character of the movement.
Islam is designed to thrive under tolerance, produces horrible societies, hence conflict is to be sought. Moral examples outside their doctrine don't interest religionists.
We need to be attacked by Muslims to appreciate how bad Islam really is, and when they attack us they do us a cultural favor.
As for protest, religion is merely superstitionist politics, nothing more or less, and should be protested. If you don't want to live under theocracy, fight religion that would impose it. Protest SHOULD be offensive.
"One cannot force someone to change their religious views (or any view) through taunts and provocation. This exercise is immature, and the response will be likely be violently immature."
Their response is needed to awaken the secular West to the threat of religion, all of which are toxic. We are used to tame, social-club religions. Islam is not that.
Rackspace, like most of the US, are terrified of Muslims. The only cure for that is to be forced to fight them by making the "dialogue" more confrontational.
"Burning qurans to upset islamists is like burning bibles to upset the WBC."
But it is a brilliant troll.
Peaceful destruction of inanimate objects is reasonable protest, and there is no reason that superstition shouldn't be freely debated and attacked in the marketplace of ideas. We have shied away from attacking superstition because much of the world wasn't grown up enough to handle the debate. Now, when Muslims freak out and act as their book dictates, we'll have their demonstration of how the way Muslim superstition is practiced. I'd like to see Muslims FORCE the world to see Islam for what it is, they appear willing, so have at it.
That's a lie designed to give superstition a pass so SUPERSTITIONISTS CAN BAN ANYTHING THEY _CHOOSE_ TO CONSIDER "INTIMIDATING".
Burning any other _POLITICAL_ book would be fine, religion is _not_more_than_ superstitious politics, and burning inanimate objects is peaceful protest.
Burning a cross in a FRONT YARD (private property not belonging to those doing the burning) is intimidation.
Burning one elsewhere can certainly be protected speech:
Slashdot Mirror
The logical objective of international policy throughout history has always been to compete and "exploit" advantage. We are competing in a world where idealism is a distinct disadvantage.
Other countries aren't stupid enough to make bulk downloads of their material conveniently available.
There really ARE mechanisms for "blowing the whistle", and any G.I. interested in doing that can easily find them.
The location of the info being known, a whistleblower with actual evidence of illegal activity (keeping secrets of lawful acts and information isn't illegal, nor is there a requirement to disclose all operational interaction with locals for public amusement!) could use the CIVILIAN chain of command outside the military, and the International Criminal Court.
[quote]
After being able to peruse their entire set of documents from Afghanistan and Iraq, how much confidence can I have in them?
[/quote]
None. They don't even care enough to pay for secure terminals and instead use common desktops which have no security, and even have burners installed so spies can make multisession CDs/DVDs to harvest information. Use of commodity hardware and operating systems invites users with local physical access to do what they like.
"Improve accountability? No, all this will do is force the decision-making process further away from the prying eyes of public scrutiny. Arguments and discussions will only take place "off the record" and in ways that can be immediately destroyed. No decisions will be documented - at least not in a way that can be used against anyone. Don't like the amount of paper that a bureaucracy produces? You won't have to worry about that much longer..."
It IS a good lesson that if you wish to keep something a "secret", you don't leave it on a fucking server for dog and world to harvest.
A documentation fetish is IMO an unintended result of having such convenient ways to store and transmit material.
I think of the incidents as a good, sound LARTing.
"OUR" own?
I don't subscribe to your superstition or any other, and BTW if you are a Christian YOUR BOOK in effect agrees with the Dove Outreach folks that Islam is sinful and its followers Hellbound!
YOUR _ruled_ book is either the _literal_ Word of your God from which you must not deviate and which you may not question, or you have no faith.
"If they really wanted to be provocative, they'd even burn an effigy of Jesus on the cross."
Boring. "Piss Christ" isn't shocking, and effigy-burning is positively hackneyed.
"Saying that only Muslims subscribe to the "kill the infidel" newsletter is... utterly fucking ignorant."
Some subscribe, the rest enable. Why, exactly, do you defend such a brutally oppressive ideology?
Go live in the nations it creates, and run a Slashdot-like site there. See how that works out in, for example, Saudi Arabia or Iran. :)
"Would you be offended if someone build a YMCA near Auschwitz with a small chapel in the back?"
That was a deliberately poor analogy. Hitlers supposed "Christianity" was irrelevant to his Nazi politics, while Islam IS completely integrated with Muslim politics.
"Would Jews be offended if a Hitler Youth camp were established nearby?" is a much more accurate analogy. Thanks for trying!
"You know who else attacked superstition and "backward cultures"?"
Yes, the Americans who settled the Wild West. Your nick IS Wyatt Earp. :)
Not necessarily a lunatic.
No one dare criticize Islam because Muslims are fond of violent reprisals against anyone who does so. This has worked wonderfully, chilling debate throughout the Politically Correct secular West.
Muslim reprisals will explain Islam quite nicely, FORCING the unwilling to understand what they would deny and demonstrating the Clash of Civilizations.
"much like burning crosses in peoples front yards."
Burning a cross in a front yard belonging to someone else who doesn't approve = "intimidation".
Burning it in your own or a rented yard is protected speech given the right context:
http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/us-supreme-court-upholds-va-cross-burning-ban-sends-law-back-state-court-refinement
"And there's the basic problem. Most Muslims will tell you that the Koran, if read properly, does not encourage such action."
Of course they will...tell you that. The first duty of a religionist is to promote their ideology.
http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/25320
"You do not train a child to be rational and logical by mocking them. You do it by listening to them and educating them slowly over time."
Muslims are not "children", they are political opponents of all that is not Islam. At this early point, what I would prefer is to awaken the secular West to the Muslim threat so it will perceive it as such.
Any attempt to do that from within is Politically Incorrect, but direct action by Muslims is irrefutable. If I say "Islam is bad because (insert reasons), society will mod me Troll for thoughtcrime. Jihadist actions are another kettle of fish, because Jihadists can not be discredited.
"Not this ignorant shit again. You are confusing moderate Islam with extremist Islam. The two are not the same. It's not Islam that makes extremist Muslims crazy, but their extremism."
The moderates (so-called) ENABLE and FUND the fighters, who (to borrow a Maoist analogy) swim like fish in the sea of the people.
Extremist Muslims are not "crazy". That unfairly trivializes their ideology and intent. They govern whole countries (Iran), while other, supposedly-less extreme countries fund terrorism (KSA).
Being a moderate religionist is quite like being a moderate Communist. Strip the superstitious nonsense and both are revolutionary political ideologies that rely on a _spectrum_ of supporters.
The backlash will inform those undecided about Islam. Muslims were never going to convert in appreciable numbers, but the secular and Christian West share Islam as a savage enemy.
The backlash will instruct the undecided. Every "infidel" Islam kills is like every Jew killed by Nazis or Black lynched by Klansmen in that they demonstrate the true character of the movement.
The intolerant church is trolling the vastly more intolerant Muslims so they will violently demonstrate their intolerance of mild intolerance.
I for one am enjoying this.
I don;t respect them either. All superstition is bad.
"But at the same time, the Qu'ran itself contains many inflammatory passages and should be criticized just as roundly as the wing-nut in Florida."
See how fast your irrefutable statement of fact got you a Flamebait moderation?
"Sooner or later you get into the question, do people have the right to dislike other groups of people?"
The Dove site was very specific that they disagreed with Islam, but didn't hate Muslim people.
Islam is designed to thrive under tolerance, produces horrible societies, hence conflict is to be sought. Moral examples outside their doctrine don't interest religionists.
We need to be attacked by Muslims to appreciate how bad Islam really is, and when they attack us they do us a cultural favor.
As for protest, religion is merely superstitionist politics, nothing more or less, and should be protested. If you don't want to live under theocracy, fight religion that would impose it. Protest SHOULD be offensive.
"One cannot force someone to change their religious views (or any view) through taunts and provocation. This exercise is immature, and the response will be likely be violently immature."
Their response is needed to awaken the secular West to the threat of religion, all of which are toxic. We are used to tame, social-club religions. Islam is not that.
Rackspace, like most of the US, are terrified of Muslims. The only cure for that is to be forced to fight them by making the "dialogue" more confrontational.
"Burning qurans to upset islamists is like burning bibles to upset the WBC."
But it is a brilliant troll.
Peaceful destruction of inanimate objects is reasonable protest, and there is no reason that superstition shouldn't be freely debated and attacked in the marketplace of ideas. We have shied away from attacking superstition
because much of the world wasn't grown up enough to handle the debate. Now, when Muslims freak out and act as their book dictates, we'll have their demonstration of how the way Muslim superstition is practiced. I'd like to see Muslims FORCE the world to see Islam for what it is, they appear willing, so have at it.
Not "Insightful" if you think about it!
That's a lie designed to give superstition a pass so SUPERSTITIONISTS CAN BAN ANYTHING THEY _CHOOSE_ TO CONSIDER "INTIMIDATING".
Burning any other _POLITICAL_ book would be fine, religion is _not_more_than_ superstitious politics, and burning inanimate objects is peaceful protest.
Burning a cross in a FRONT YARD (private property not belonging to those doing the burning) is intimidation.
Burning one elsewhere can certainly be protected speech:
http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/us-supreme-court-upholds-va-cross-burning-ban-sends-law-back-state-court-refinement