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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
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.
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.
Hmm...
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 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.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
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?
No they don't.
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?
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?
More options
Context Copy link
Does supplying certain “less bad” drug cartels with arms and intelligence count? I would think so.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Sycamore
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_state-sponsored_terrorism
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link