Go to Naut's Thoughts
- Add a comment
- Go to Today let me begin with a comment…Part II
Naut
I am a bit late to the game here. In your Part I post, you asked "How does the Western Left justify supporting the Islamic war effort? Or does that happen inadvertently, because of other pursuits and because of ignorance and stupidity?"
I would say that the Left support of Islam is inadvertent, because they do not recognize the true nature of Islam. They do not realize that once the Muslims gain enough power, the liberals will be among their first victims of oppression.
But the Muslims certainly realize what is going on, and this illustrates it:
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3b543d312e1c9d66d9c30e1e6f44d9f9d6b869ecfd857c341ec537eebdd60a68.jpg?w=800&h=388
posted by
GoldenMean
on June 28, 2017 at 2:32 PM
| link to this | reply
War is something that happens to other people. To those involved it is Hell.
posted by
C_C_T
on June 28, 2017 at 9:35 AM
| link to this | reply
It is amazing just how quickly things have changed in recent years. The pace of change is astounding. Now, too, we also have a social media element to everything, and that is surely affecting war.
posted by
FormerStudentIntern
on June 28, 2017 at 8:36 AM
| link to this | reply
I know what you are saying Naut. Just now my battle is to get Wiley back to a semblance of himself i am sure that you understand that
posted by
Kabu
on June 27, 2017 at 7:46 PM
| link to this | reply
"...Wars and rumors of wars..." -- Not a subject that I like to spend to much time thinking about. Interesting comments.
posted by
TAPS.
on June 27, 2017 at 5:30 PM
| link to this | reply
Another idea is to ramp up our spy program and infiltrate like we did back in the days before satellite images and radar. I like this idea.
posted by
-blackcat
on June 27, 2017 at 12:56 PM
| link to this | reply
Re:
*its leader
posted by
-blackcat
on June 27, 2017 at 12:50 PM
| link to this | reply
Can't wait for part 3. I believe the biggest difference is that in past wars, the leader of an actual country would have attacked (an act of war) and therefore the "other side" would know precisely who to engage against and overpower. Even if the entire country did not support it's leader, they were guilty by association.
Today's enemies (those who wish to harm destroy or exert power over another) are scattered about the world. We can try the isolate them by their God or religion (and guilt by association) but it's almost an impossible quest. In trying to come up with a good comparison, the best I can think of is to equate it to an entity such as the kkk who's mantra would be to hate and/or eliminate all those unlike them. But they wear hoods and you dont know who truly belongs to the group and who does not.
I once read that the best way to extinguish a force is to follow the money and to squeeze them dry. Perhaps that's an idea.
posted by
-blackcat
on June 27, 2017 at 12:49 PM
| link to this | reply
War is hell. I think that pretty much says it all.
warfare of course has changed since the days of war clubs and primitive spears, bows & arrows, etc. Involves hate and suspicion of "the other," and a willingness to kill them either as aggressors or in defense of territory/family/us. Any means used to damage or destroy the enemy is a weapon, whether it blows up, pierces holes in people or attacks the mind.
posted by
Pat_B
on June 27, 2017 at 10:35 AM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
A good post, Naut, though I thought my comment to your previous post did demonstrate that I certainly do comprehend what you are explaining. 
posted by
Sea_Gypsy
on June 27, 2017 at 10:05 AM
| link to this | reply