site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   42689 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 8, 2025

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

As we're probably all aware by now, Israel bombed Doha, Qatar this week, in an attempt to assassinate Hamas' leadership resident in the city. There's some dispute over who exactly was killed in the attack, whether any non-Hamas people were hurt, etc. It appears to have been reasonably precise, any collateral damage is in count-on-one-hand territory. It's unclear what impact this will have on the ongoing conflict, or on Israeli relations with Qatar and more importantly with the United States. There's a LOT of conflicting stories out there about who knew what when, did the United States greenlight the attack and plan it, maybe even sending over a ceasefire proposal to bait them into meeting together; or the Israelis acted alone and Trump's team is furious at being left out of the loop.

What this does say is, Qatar has joined the ranks of countries that have no true sovereignty, and can be bombed at will by capable powers. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia; all have come to be considered failed states, where the United States and its allies, or Iran and its proxies, can bomb targets at will and the putative "governments" of such places will merely wring their hands and protest at the United Nations on the topic. Is Qatar now in danger of becoming another country that can be bombed at will? This would mark a major escalation. The countries previously treated as bombing ranges by the great powers were poor, backwards, weak; Qatar is small but it is oil-rich. By Human Development Index countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan were near the very bottom, while Qatar is around the level of Poland.

This represents something shocking, in that Qatar has been historically less hostile to Israel than the Arab average, and is a direct ally of the United States, hosting the largest US base in the middle east. Qatar was actually hosting the Hamas leadership at the quiet behest of the United States, to keep them coherent and on hand rather than chaotic and in Palestine or underground, and wanted to kick them out after 10/7 but was told not to by Israel's protector the United States. Despite all this cooperation, Qatar does not get to decide if Doha will be bombed today, Israel feels it can make that decision with impunity.

EDITED TO EMPHASIZE

Qatar’s Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani proposed expelling Hamas’s leaders from Doha during a meeting with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken days after the terror group’s October 7 onslaught, two officials familiar with the matter told The Times of Israel on Wednesday.The proposal was made in somewhat of a roundabout way during the emir’s opening remarks at an October 13 closed-door meeting in Doha with Blinken. Thani began by expressing his horror over Hamas’s attack in which some 1,200 people in Israel were slaughtered and another 253 were abducted into Gaza. He then asked whether it was time for the US to ask Qatar to expel the Hamas’s leaders, the two officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity. When Blinken began his own remarks, he didn’t respond directly to the emir’s proposal but did go on to say that he thought it would be better for Qatar to use its contacts with Hamas — through the office it allowed the terror group to establish in Doha in 2012 at Washington’s behest — to mediate between the Gaza war parties to secure a hostage deal, the officials recalled. They added that the US secretary of state also clarified that it would not be “business as usual” for Hamas in Qatar once the conflict concludes.

Qatar was not harboring Hamas because they like Hamas, they are literally harboring Hamas at Israeli/US request.

The message is being taken in the Muslim world: collaboration will not save you. To quote from an apparently pro-Hamas substack post that popped up in my feed:

Trump directed his special envoy, Steve Witkoff, to “inform the Qataris of the impending attack.” So the Qataris knew that America had greenlit an attack on their sovereign territory. They then either allowed the attack to proceed or were too powerless to stop an attack on their own soil. Either way, it reveals who is actually in control of the country with just over a quarter of a million citizens but enormous natural resources.

The Israeli bombing in Doha serves an important lesson: resisting Israeli barbarism is a high-risk, high-reward endevaour. Those who resist, as the Palestinians, Hezbollah, and the Yemenis have done, will undoubtedly suffer losses — but, most importantly, they will be able to look themselves in the eye with dignity. The collaborators, however, will not only be publicly humiliated but will ultimately be destroyed once they have outlived their usefulness. For the four Arab states that have normalised as part of the so-called Abraham Accords, the fate of Qatar should serve as an example.

So the question then arises: why did the Israelis commit such a brazen and criminal attack on a country aligned with their interests? The short answer is that they intended to send a stark message: they can bomb a country even when it is aligned with them. As if to erase any doubt about the message behind the attack on Qatar, Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana posted a tweet — in Arabic, no less — with an attached video of the targeted building in flames, accompanied by a blunt caption: “This is a message to all of the Middle East.” Take note: the tweet makes no mention of the Hamas leadership in Doha; its sole focus is the Middle East.

This is the fairly reasonable interpretation being offered by the insane lunatic fringes, the excellent propaganda handed to the Islamists. Israel as of now claims power of life and death over the citizens of Qatar, they used it mostly righteously on this occasion, and they may continue to do so. Or they may not. And that is not for the Qataris to judge, they can only accept the decision. And this to a US ally. Is there a country in the middle east where they would not have launched such an attack? On principle, or merely because the cost/benefit wasn't there yet? Does Israel claim the right to kill any Arab anywhere in the Middle East? Or perhaps they would not blanche at killing Arabs in France or Germany.

This has been an uncomfortable question for me since the Bin Laden raids, but it feels more pressing than ever today:

Under what circumstances would you feel that a foreign drone strike targeting a terrorist living or operating in the United States was justified and acceptable?

Consider some examples of individuals considered terrorists who live openly in the United States.

Fethullah Gulen, purportedly behind a coup attempt in Turkey that lead to the deaths of hundreds, lived for years not a few hours from me. If the Turks had decided to bomb Saylorsburg, PA to get him, or did it today to get his successor, would that be acceptable?

I've personally been to events at which the Dalai Lama spoke. The ChiComms consider him a dangerous separatist terrorist. If they had bombed the college basketball stadium or the NYC auditorium at which I saw him speak, would that have been acceptable? What about Uyghur leader Anwar Turani? Or Guratpwat Singh Pannum the Sikh leader seeking to establish Khalistan?

Zelensky has traveled to the United States multiple times, if the Russians blew up his limo would that be acceptable? What about the reverse, if Ukrainian nationalist psychos had shot down Putin's plane over Alaska?

My own view is simple. None of these are acceptable to me, as a US citizen, even if I dislike some of these groups. The Schelling point of sovereignty is maintaining a legitimate monopoly on violence within the territory, if the United States gives that up it can never be gotten back. The United States, and the United States alone, gets to make the decision as to who enjoys the protection of our laws. No other country can assassinate or bomb its enemies on our soil, not if we remain a sovereign country. If it wishes to request their extradition, they may do so, but it is at our own pleasure that we will accede to or refuse such a demand. If any other country claims the right to kill on our soil, then the protection of our government is meaningless, what is to stop any other country from killing a citizen? The Schelling fence between non-citizen and citizen on our soil feels significantly weaker than the one between on our soil and not on our soil. We've already seen how the citizenship distinction can evaporate abroad.

I hope that Israel will be able to make amends with Qatar, and that this will not lead to further degradation of the political situation in the Middle East.

This represents something shocking, in that Qatar has been historically less hostile to Israel than the Arab average, and is a direct ally of the United States, hosting the largest US base in the middle east. Qatar was actually hosting the Hamas leadership at the quiet behest of the United States, to keep them coherent and on hand rather than chaotic and in Palestine or underground, and wanted to kick them out after 10/7 but was told not to by Israel's protector the United States. Despite all this cooperation, Qatar does not get to decide if Doha will be bombed today, Israel feels it can make that decision with impunity.

Israel uses a different calculus. If Qatar's actions are 60% pro-Israel and 40% pro-Palestine, Israel doesn't look at them and think, "on balance, they are 20% pro-Israel, nice". It thinks, "they are 40% pro-Palestine, time for a cheeky airstrike."

But I agree with @TIRM this all might be 4D chess. No one really likes Palestinians in the Middle East, but it's bad taste to overtly help Israel. Qatar can't just arrest the leaders of Hamas and extradite them to Israel, even if this is a good idea. What it can do is pass a note saying, "btw, this and that Hamas bigwigs will be all alone at these coordinates".

Then Qatar can show some performative indignation, "oh, how dare these Zionists violate the sovereignty of our country! Our small and peaceful and American-friendly country that can't even strike back in retaliation!" Everyone of their neighbors goes, "by Allah, they are right, we shall write a strongly-worded letter!" and Hamas moves to literally a NATO country.

What this does say is, Qatar has joined the ranks of countries that have no true sovereignty, and can be bombed at will by capable powers.

They already were. Maybe before now they could put on airs and pretend it wasn't so.

Under what circumstances would you feel that a foreign drone strike targeting a terrorist living or operating in the United States was justified and acceptable?

In what sense would I be mad that a foreign terrorist that was operating on our soil is disintegrated? That we didn't get the pull the trigger first? What national interest of mine does that foreigner serve?

In an even larger sense, terrorists from country A operating against country B while hiding out in country C are putting the citizens of C in danger to further their own ends in the A/B conflict. Unless C has a specific interest in that conflict, they only lose by their presence.

[ Of course, if the target(s) were factually innocent of terrorism or were too unimportant to be really culpable, that would be a different matter. But that obviously doesn't apply to this situation in which we all know with certainty that Hamas are culpable here. ]

In what sense would I be mad that a foreign terrorist that was operating on our soil is disintegrated? That we didn't get the pull the trigger first? What national interest of mine does that foreigner serve?

You should be mad that your government and armed forces proved incapable of predicting and preventing an attack on your country's territory. You should be mad that they did not kill or extradite the terrorist first. And finally yes, you should be mad that a foreign government carried out an attack within your country's borders instead of politely asking for your government to kill or extradite that terrorist.

Territorial sovereignty is, to my knowledge, not yet a dead concept. And poking holes in it is a bad idea, RE: "refugee" crisis.

Right, so this boils down too: I should be mad that we didn’t pull the trigger first.

Implicit in being mad that we didn’t pull the trigger first is the judgment that the action was good in itself.

But the US, Russia, China, etc are soveriegn nations. Qatar isn’t. Bombing in Qatar by a more powerful country is OK by that measure.

“This is a message to all of the Middle East.”

What would be a real message to the Middle East is if the much-vaunted Israeli army actually moves into Gaza and destroys Hamas with ground troops. Not a chevauchee where they go into one part of Gaza, blow things up and leave whereupon Hamas returns, then do it again to another part of Gaza. But if they actually attack and keep attacking until they defeat Hamas, take all weapons caches, clear out the tunnels, defeat the fighting men, then they actually win.

All this precision-strike stuff is very pretty and impressive but it doesn't actually do anything by itself. You can blow up Hamas leader A and Hamas leader B will replace him. You can blow up Osama Bin Laden and there's basically no effect. Al Qaeda trundles on, they're still doing their thing. Blow up Trump and nothing would happen, they'd just replace him. A state or any statelike entity cannot be defeated from the top down, only from the bottom-up by destroying their soldiers and their revenue sources, their territorial control.

This is why Israel remains in 'small-dog' territory, they don't seem to have this capability or at least they aren't using it when it's the sole solution to their military-political problem. All the exo-atmospheric interceptions and fancy long-range strike in the world cannot substitute for ground combat power like Ukraine or Russia have, where they take and actually hold territory after capturing it. Precision strikes are only

Israel is in a very dangerous position, doubling down on fear tactics and intimidation while lacking the actual power/will to win. I sense a 'oh but they could go in and blow up hamas and keep attacking till they win but the real plan is to keep skirmishing until the Palestinian population is reduced by starvation, bombing or migration thus letting them annex Gaza' argument and that may be the strategy but it's not politically workable. They can't blow up all the humanitarian aid lest they lose overseas support. If they get sanctioned, then Israel is sure to lose and may even collapse entirely. Small, high-tech economies require overseas market access. Sanctionproofing is impossible for such a small country.

All the stalling tactics and assassinations in the world cannot bypass the basic logic of war, you have to destroy the enemy's ability to resist, not blow up the negotiators. And it's especially dumb against a population of notorious bravery. Arabs might often be poorly led, uncoordinated and generally inferior to European troops in combat power but the guys who popularized suicide bombing as a military tactic should not be considered cowardly!

You can blow up Osama Bin Laden and there's basically no effect. Al Qaeda trundles on, they're still doing their thing.

This seems factually untrue. Over the GWOT the US dismantled Al Qaeda and related groups to the extent that they seemed unable to mount meaningful strikes against the US afterwards.

The US weakened Al Qaeda by going after the rank and file, hammering away at them and blocking terror attacks with security. Osama Bin Laden was not key to the organization and his death had no significant affect on their capabilities. Likewise with ISIS. Killing Al-Baghdadi didn't have much effect, it was defeating their troops in their field that matters.

My understanding is that it wasn’t just rank and file, it was mid level command structure.

Sanctionproofing is impossible for such a small country.

Does the normal calculus apply to Israel? Yes, it's a small country both geographically and population-wise, but it's behaving like one with a deep arsenal. Does Israeli leadership perceive the US as a backstop, allowing them to take military risks no country its size ought to be able to take? I am uncomfortable about the degree to which US politicians praise Israel (see https://instagram.com/reel/DKjnZmtPcGE/), and it seems like Israel has every reason to believe that when push came to shove, they can use the US military to win.

Under what circumstances would you feel that a foreign drone strike targeting a terrorist living or operating in the United States was justified and acceptable?

If a terrorist was living in the USA and a major allied country wanted them disposed of, I would expect the USA to do the arresting and/or whacking with their own troops. If Qatar was really an ally they should have offered to assassinate Hamas' leadership themselves. As for Fethullah Gulen, he's not a terrorist, he's a pretender. Coup attempts and terrorist attacks are generally mutually exclusive, and sheltering pretenders from semi-friendly powers is a practice as old as civilization itself. Like the Romans sheltering Arsinoe to have a backup Egyptian queen, the Americans might have a strategic interest in keeping an alternative Turkish government in their back pocket.

Zelensky has traveled to the United States multiple times, if the Russians blew up his limo would that be acceptable? What about the reverse, if Ukrainian nationalist psychos had shot down Putin's plane over Alaska?

If the Russians blew up Zelensky on American soil that would be a poor strategic decision. It would give the Americans a legitimate reason to intervene, which is the last thing Putin wants. Likewise, Qatar now has a legitimate reason to intervene in or even declare war on the United States if they so choose. I don't think that they will, for obvious reasons, but the option is open to them.

If Ukrainian terrorists shot down Putin's plane over Alaska that would be awesome. It would probably escalate the war in Ukraine, which would be bad for the Ukrainians, but from an American perspective it would be great. The Americans would have no real involvement but their rival would be weakened, and anyway it's not like Putin's successor is going to start a nuclear war on his first day as dictator of Russia. That's the capstone of his career, he's the last person in the world who will want to rock the boat.

The US has a long history of backing and supporting terrorists.

Killing representatives in a diplomatic process is abhorrent. Palestinians are a part in an armed conflict. They are legal combatants. Even if it was a real terrorist gorup like the Israeli backed Al Nusra front they can be negotiated with. Nearly all armed conflicts end with negotiations.

The US has a long history of backing and supporting terrorists.

Can you name one? It's interesting that the first "terrorist" you named, Fethullah Gulen, is only classified as a terrorist by two governments: Turkey and Pakistan. If the best example you can come up with is only recognized by two Islamist regimes of dubious legitimacy, then I have to wonder if the point is really so well-supported.

The US has a long history of supplying arms to enemies-of-enemies to attempt to achieve its strategic aims, but that's not really a central example of terrorism. A central example of terrorism is when you murder lots of people for no reason at all except to sow terror among a civilian population. If you can't provide an example of that then I'm not going to give the word "terrorist" much weight.

Killing representatives in a diplomatic process is abhorrent. Palestinians are a part in an armed conflict.

Hmm...

They are legal combatants.

HMMMMM...

Hamas' fighters do not wear uniforms. That makes them war criminals, it makes any war they participate in an illegal war, and it means they have none of the rights and privileges afforded to legal combatants. Hamas is a non-state terrorist actor and any action taken against them is merely an international police action, not subject to the rules of war.

The US has a long history of supplying arms to enemies-of-enemies to attempt to achieve its strategic aims, but that's not really a central example of terrorism. A central example of terrorism is when you murder lots of people for no reason at all except to sow terror among a civilian population.

The word which you are describing is terror. Terror is a weapon which can be wielded by the state, opposition groups down to a couple of crazies.

The US has certainly supported many perpetrators of terror in the cold war for geostrategic reasons. But they were generally states or rival groups to the people in control of the state. This is because supporting tiny groups of crazies is rarely conductive to their geostrategic aims.

Generally, these people supported by the US do not seem to seek shelter in the US, though. All the governments-in-exile based in the US listed on WP sounded somewhat tame.

The US gave massive support to various jihadist groups in Syria. Also the US has backed terrorists in Libya.

Like the US bombing the middle east almost constantly since 2001? The endless drone strikes, backing jihadists and starving civilians.

Hamas fighters do wear uniforms. Israel is a genocidal nation that is illegally occupying territory. Any action against it is not only karmic, it is self defence.

The US gave massive support to various jihadist groups in Syria. Also the US has backed terrorists in Libya.

Like the US bombing the middle east almost constantly since 2001? The endless drone strikes, backing jihadists and starving civilians.

So regarding my question of whether you could name an example of a US-backed terrorist who committed acts that fit the central definition of 'terrorism,' the answer is that no, you cannot name one?

Hamas fighters do wear uniforms.

No they don't.

Israel is a genocidal nation that is illegally occupying territory. Any action against it is not only karmic, it is self defence.

Self-defense sure, whether it's karmic is a question of metaphysics, but 'illegally' occupying territory? Since when is it illegal to occupy territory? Hamas invaded Israel, Israel counter-invaded Hamas. That's not illegal, that's just how it works when you invade somebody. Do you think there's some kind of international treaty that says that Hamas is allowed to kill Israelis but Israel is not allowed to fight back?

So regarding my question of whether you could name an example of a US-backed terrorist who committed acts that fit the central definition of 'terrorism,' the answer is that no, you cannot name one?

Are you trolling, the US has personally given anti-tank ground-ground missile launchers to insurgents in order to fuck with Assad. In other cases they were suppling "the good kind of terrorists" with weapons in one country and pretending to be at war with the same org in another.

So regarding my open question of whether anyone can name an example of a US-backed terrorist who committed acts that fit the central definition of 'terrorism,' the answer is still no?

Does supplying certain “less bad” drug cartels with arms and intelligence count? I would think so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Sycamore

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_state-sponsored_terrorism

No they don't. Yes they do

They aren't like the Israelis in Iran who don't wear uniforms or the Israelis who attacked a hospital in Gaza while dressed as civilians.

Sorry, allow me to clarify: I'm not disputing that Hamas owns uniforms to wear in photo ops. When I say that Hamas doesn't wear uniforms, this should be taken as shorthand for saying that in battle Hamas militants disguise themselves as civilians by not wearing uniforms (as well as by other means, such as operating out of active civilian buildings like hospitals and schools and mixing themselves into civilian populations to maximize collateral damage on their own side). I am not claiming that no member of Hamas has ever worn a uniform at any time in their lives.

Zelensky has traveled to the United States multiple times, if the Russians blew up his limo would that be acceptable? What about the reverse, if Ukrainian nationalist psychos had shot down Putin's plane over Alaska?

Both parties are at war; killing the opposing leader is militarily acceptable, they are commander in chief after all. Doing so on someone else’s territory is impolite but whether you can get away with it depends on that country’s own position and power.

As others noted, Putin has regularly and publicly assassinated defectors in Western Europe for 20 years, this was tacitly accepted by everyone involved; serious sanction only happened after Crimea in 2014.

For me assassinations of people that are in the game is nothingburger. It is when uninvolved people are hurt that I get worked up. As long as it is kept discreet. The russians operated with tacit approval in UK until they started getting sloppy.

Israel are morons in this case because it is too overt. And they are doing their best to destroy every shred of goodwill that exists.

Qatar has Patriot and NASAMS missile systems. Perhaps they let this happen and now are pretending to be outraged.

Wouldn't be the first example of this sort of kayfabe in Middle East politics.

I wonder if a team of special forces/mercenaries assassinating Hamas guy before slipping away would be substantially less offensive and concerning. Alternatively, kidnapping him. Only so many teams competent to do that in the world, but drones are made in factories.

Fethullah Gulen, purportedly behind a coup attempt in Turkey that lead to the deaths of hundreds, lived for years not a few hours from me. If the Turks had decided to bomb Saylorsburg, PA to get him, or did it today to get his successor, would that be acceptable?

For more info, an obituary by Sailer- https://www.stevesailer.net/p/fethullah-gulen-international-man and an older piece that has unicode hiccoughs https://www.takimag.com/article/the_shadowy_imam_of_the_poconos_steve_sailer/

It's funny, the Wawa I know best is in Blakeslee (unrelated to nascar, never seen a race, but you can hear it in the distance), so about 20 minutes/miles from there.

an older piece that has unicode hiccoughs

Younger coders have no idea how rough the CP-1252 to UTF-8 changeover was. It was complicated by writers who knew nothing about it but loved pasting in text from MS Word with curly quotes.

Mafia is gonna Mafia. States are gonna State.

I think there was recently an assassination of an Indian political separatist on Canadian soil. Putin assassinated a journalist in the UK. The saudis cut up a journalist. The US just blew up a boat in international waters that was merely suspected of being a drug running boat.

These things don't surprise me too much. They are ugly incidents. But I get the sense that they are merely another item on the international negotiating table. Its possible that they happen in America too, but perhaps one of America's conditions for such things happening is that no one is allowed to know about it. The power dynamic between the two countries probably matters a lot in all cases.

I do admire the people that loudly protest these things and raise the cost of doing them for all countries. In that sense I agree with your post in general. You just also asked for personal feelings of the readers, and that is why I think you see a lot of shrugs and gestures at 'realpolitik'. Its hard to pay attention for too long and stay angry about these things constantly.

I remember reading the works of Fethullah Gulen. I know he passed recently. Does he have any real lingering impact or influence in Turkey today? Orlando Bosch was an anti-Cuban terrorist that openly lived out his days in the US. International rules and norms are ultimately superfluous if you're the world's only superpower and can act like a rogue state on the world stage. Israel can only do what it did in Doha because it has the full diplomatic and military backing of the US.

If you're a small State out on the geopolitical periphery of some regional power, you can't throw your weight around the same way bigger nations do. If you look at Singapore for instance, it's primary public policy focus diplomatically has always been to try and strengthen multilateral institutions and international cooperation between the countries of Southeast Asia and the US, to bring about a system of shared interests that doesn't involve military conflict. The US naturally doesn't want this because it wants to preserve and extend it's privileges and footprint in the region and because it has the might and ability to do so, it can sideline any recommendations and calls to peaceably work toward a different system for the future. China always tries to look for compromises with it's neighbors but it too is an aspiring regional hegemony and would like to carve out and dominate it's own sphere of influence.

Getting bombed by the U.S. does not make you a failed state. Getting bombed by a U.S. ally, even less so.

I think this is a questionable decision, but not a particularly novel one.

It's not so much that they got bombed as it is the circumstances. If Israel bombs a country nobody likes or even is neutral about, it's a minor news item. It's different when they bomb a US ally with whom we have various agreements involving keeping a military base in their country and selling them advanced weapons. Even in the absence of a mutual defense agreement, one would expect that a "key strategic ally" would get more than a warning that another country would attack them.

It's different when they bomb a US ally with whom we have various agreements involving keeping a military base in their country and selling them advanced weapons.

Apparently it isn't. Qatar has been playing both sides of the fence, and nobody really cares if they got a bloody nose for it.

I remember being a junior in highschool when 9/11 happened. In the ramp up to the war in Iraq, closer to when I went or was already off to college, anti war protesters were a common object of mockery. I'll never completely forget this one clip. The details are fuzzy. He was holding some sign like "Arrest Bush" or "Bush is a War Criminal", you know the type. He had a slight speech impediment, accent, or both. And some conservative was asking him loaded questions like "Don't you think Iraq is the most dangerous country to world peace?" and the protester, in his weird mush mouth way of speaking went "I think the United States is the most dangerous country to world peace."

Like I said, something to all that effect. I doubtlessly have the details wrong. It was 25 years ago, and some throw away clip on cable news. But I remember my mind exploded. How could this guy be that fucking stupid? What the fuck. What a moron. What a rube. How delusional.

I'm sorry unwashed protester with a slight speech impediment on the TV. I didn't know better.

Well, funny enough, in that moment, they were both right! Iraq was sitting there, dangerously tempting the US into taking an action that disrupted world peace, just by existing. For a period of time around 2003, at least as far as big conflicts went, the existence of the US and Iraq both were but-for causes of no world peace, in the sense that if one of those two countries poofed out of existence there would have been peace.

Not really. The US had a list of countries it wanted to go after at the time. Iraq was just on the top of that list. If the US didn’t exist, on the other hand, Iraq would barely be a small regional power.

If they had bombed the college basketball stadium or the NYC auditorium at which I saw him speak, would that have been acceptable?

If the ChiComs bombed an entire baseball stadium or auditorium, packed with civilians, I would consider this an act of war. It would evince a grievously callous lack of regard for civilian lives. However, if they planted a bomb on the Dalai Lama’s limo and blew it up, killing only the inhabitants of that car, I would see this as a legitimate act which could be smoothed over diplomatically.

Similarly, if the Ukrainians shot down Putin’s plane over American airspace, I would not consider it an overly aggressive act against American sovereignty; it would be an obviously targeted act against an indisputable geopolitical foe of theirs, and if the only collateral damage to America was embarrassment about our lack of airspace security, that would be something I could live with.

There seems to be a fundamental difference, though, between a traditional assassination and one using military means. If a foreign actor shot someone on American soil for political reasons it's different than them sending their air force in and bombing their house. One is a criminal act, the other an act of war.

Well that's tough for the Qataris then. If you're going to fund proxies to try to militarily destroy another nation, that nation might decide they don't want to play by your particular rules of engagement.

The Qataris that funded Hamas with explicit Israeli approval.

For years, the Qatari government had been sending millions of dollars a month into the Gaza Strip — money that helped prop up the Hamas government there. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel not only tolerated those payments, he had encouraged them.

During his meetings in September with the Qatari officials, according to several people familiar with the secret discussions, the Mossad chief, David Barnea, was asked a question that had not been on the agenda: Did Israel want the payments to continue?

Mr. Netanyahu’s government had recently decided to continue the policy, so Mr. Barnea said yes. The Israeli government still welcomed the money from Doha.

I want off of Mr. Netanyahu's wild 4d chess ride. So his goal is to preserve Hamas and deny a possible peaceful resolution?

So why exactly did the Israelis support this policy?

Israelis generally likely wouldn't, but Netanyahu and co use Hamas as a justification (especially to their domestic opposition) to refuse to negotiate in good faith let alone negotiate a longer-term political solution to the conflict, e.g., a two state solution which is the preferred and endorsed "solution" by the overwhelming vast majority of the world for many decades and, at the time, a sizeable portion of Israelis. Netanyahu and co can claim they have no "viable partner for peace" as long as Hamas is in control.

It's important to remember, Netanyahu and co very nearly lost that battle when Yitzhak Rabin was elected PM in 1992 on making peace and who genuinely engaged in dialogue with the Palestinians to work towards a lasting peaceful political solution with the Oslo Accords and Peace Process. Or he was until he was assassinated.

Additionally, Netanyahu and co think of Hamas as not being particularly dangerous; Israel would simply need to go in and "mow the grass" from time to time to keep them beaten down.

So they constantly serve as a placeholder who murder any upstart rivals and prevent a more palatable (to negotiate with) group coming to the front in the Gaza strip as well as prevent a united group across the Strip and the West Bank.

The article is paywalled. Nevertheless, I may be misinformed on this.

I definitely agree that this distinction is useful, although frankly if the Chinese air force could pull off a strike with such precision that they could blow up the Dalai Lama’s house without hitting anything else around it, I’d have to just say “well played”. I’d be more mad at my own government for not being able to intercept it.

You might say that but I doubt the American government or indeed the American public would feel the same way. Media would report it as the only time the US mainland has ever been bombed and the first bombing of US territory since WWII. We would respond militarily, even if it was just a Doolittle-style raid to show we could do it.

I don't think the American public would really believe that a Chinese bomber could get into US airspace without being intercepted. The Americans are supposed to have the best air force in the world. If someone gets bombed by a stealth bomber in the the mainland USA, I think most people would rightly assume that the Americans must have done it (or allowed it).

I don’t think it would certainly result in US military action against China. If they were willing to let the US save face and said it was an overzealous action by a rogue general and made trade concessions they might even get away with it.

Media would report it as the only time the US mainland has ever been bombed and the first bombing of US territory since WWII.

The media might well report it that way, but the US mainland was bombed (as in, from the air) in WWII.

The message is being taken in the Muslim world: collaboration will not save you.

Who is Qatar collaborating with? I wouldn't call "harboring enemy leaders" an instance of collaborating with Israel, or with its allies including the US.

Zelensky has traveled to the United States multiple times, if the Russians blew up his limo would that be acceptable?

That's war. Doing it on the territory of a neutral risks making the neutral into a belligerent, of course, but the US likely wouldn't actually do anything all that rash. The Soviets were and now Putin is fairly well known for that sort of thing, actually.

No other country can assassinate or bomb its enemies on our soil, not if we remain a sovereign country.

Sure they can. They just risk the US's not-inconsiderable wrath if they do.

Qatar hosts a US base, has been repeatedly publicly proclaimed as an ally by successive administrations, have Trump a PLANE, and only harbored the enemy leaders at this point because the United States told them to keep them around. Collaborator might actually be too mild.

There are lots of reasons to host a US base and loudly proclaim that you're their ally, especially if you're a tiny little oil-rich Middle Eastern country with neighbours who might covet that oil for themselves. There are even more reasons to give the US President a free airplane, if you can afford it and want to ingratiate yourself with him. Qatar literally only exists because of the rules-based international order backed up by US military power.

From my perspective, the fact that Qatar has already invested so heavily in the USA is all the more reason the USA can kick them around without consequence. If Qatar abandons the alliance then all the money they've spent building credit with the USA will be wasted. It's more likely that they'll use this as a bargaining chip, "Remember that time you let Israel bomb us?"

I'm not really concerned with the current regime of Qatar doing a face-heel turn against the United States. I don't think there is any practical way to do this.

What is more concerning is the possibility of the current regime in Qatar being fatally weakened, losing public confidence, and being replaced by a regime with more pride and less sense.

In that case the wisdom and sanity of Hamas's senior leadership - who surely knew all this and more - is deeply in question.

sanity of Hamas's senior leadership

This always seems like kind of an iffy proposition to me. In that their principles are so alien to me that they automatically read as insane, yet they seem to be fully capable of rationally pursuing those principles and goals. There are postulates embedded in their math that make my worldview entirely incompatible with theirs.

Under what circumstances would you feel that a foreign drone strike targeting a terrorist living or operating in the United States was justified and acceptable?

I can imagine some Hollywood type situation where the US military was disabled or distracted and there was a terrorist attack planned and James Bond stopped the attack himself.

A borderline case would be if Mexico took out a cartel leader on US soil that for some reason we were refusing to extradite. I think there'd be outrage, but just at much aimed at US leadership for not extraditing the guy before it got that far.

In real life it’s a ‘happens every once in a while’ story that Mexico refuses to extradite a gang official to the USA over opposition to the death penalty.

In real life, the government of Mexico is the cartels.

The US has a long history of killing people, toppling leaders, backing terrorists and simply stealing resources from countries. This behaviour is hardly new or different for the US. The US doesn't believe in an equal relationship between countries. The US has its imperial interests which are enforced by bombing and sanctions.

The main difference today is China and the rise of a multipolar world. Countries that are simply treated too poorly by the US will jump ship and join team China. China hasn't even come remotely close to doing the damage the US has done in latin America and the middle east. China is less interested in how us non Chinese, aka barbarians, run our countries. For many countries China is a bigger trade partner than the US is. With cheap drone and missile tech even Yemen can have some proper military bite towards the US.

Israel continues to be a gigantic liability for the US and China's greatest strategic asset in the region.

Under what circumstances would you feel that a foreign drone strike targeting a terrorist living or operating in the United States was justified and acceptable?

Probably none. But, this is the realm of international relations, of realpolitik. I feel no need to go beyond who, whom.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats