Trump Got This One Right

[tupac chopra]

Trump Got This One Right

Earlier this year, President Donald Trump was shown a disturbing video of Syrian rebels beheading a child near the city of Aleppo. It had caused a minor stir in the press as the fighters belonged to the Nour al-Din al-Zenki Movement, a group that had been supported by the CIA as part of its rebel aid program.

The footage is haunting. Five bearded men smirk as they surround a boy in the back of a pickup truck. One of them holds the boy’s head with a tight grip on his hair while another mockingly slaps his face. Then, one of them uses a knife to saw the child’s head off and holds it up in the air like a trophy. It is a scene reminiscent of the Islamic State’s snuff videos, except this wasn’t the work of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s men. The murderers were supposed to be the good guys: our allies.

Trump wanted to know why the United States had backed Zenki if its members are extremists. The issue was discussed at length with senior intelligence officials, and no good answers were forthcoming, according to people familiar with the conversations. After learning more worrisome details about the CIA’s ghost war in Syria—including that U.S.-backed rebels had often fought alongside extremists, among them al Qaeda’s arm in the country—the president decided to end the program altogether

 

[Harry Bosch]

Trump Got This One Right

Earlier this year, President Donald Trump was shown a disturbing video of Syrian rebels beheading a child near the city of Aleppo. It had caused a minor stir in the press as the fighters belonged to the Nour al-Din al-Zenki Movement, a group that had been supported by the CIA as part of its rebel aid program.

The footage is haunting. Five bearded men smirk as they surround a boy in the back of a pickup truck. One of them holds the boy’s head with a tight grip on his hair while another mockingly slaps his face. Then, one of them uses a knife to saw the child’s head off and holds it up in the air like a trophy. It is a scene reminiscent of the Islamic State’s snuff videos, except this wasn’t the work of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s men. The murderers were supposed to be the good guys: our allies.

Trump wanted to know why the United States had backed Zenki if its members are extremists. The issue was discussed at length with senior intelligence officials, and no good answers were forthcoming, according to people familiar with the conversations. After learning more worrisome details about the CIA’s ghost war in Syria—including that U.S.-backed rebels had often fought alongside extremists, among them al Qaeda’s arm in the country—the president decided to end the program altogether

Agreed. The entire group should be condemned for this one bad act. We should only support allies that are pure with no history of atrocities, such as the American military.

 

[fromderinside]

Allies and the American military have histories of atrocities. True. We should only conduct war it we are in the right and the other side is clearly in the wrong. True.

Wha....

War is the ultimate civilization destroyer, but, humans have warred since we descended from trees if crushed skulls are to be believed.

The problem with reconciling the above statements and observations has to do with the irrelevance of the initial two statements.

We are not moral animals. Feigning a moral position to avoid making a commitment to bringing murderous clicks to the bar is wrong for civilization..

One hopes that enough upright people maintain sanity in times of fervor to prevent those jumping into the war rave from doing so is all we have and it is the basis for justifying setting standards of civilization and conflict. We need to establish universal standards for uprightness, teach them, practice them, insist on them so when things go wrong, such as pestilence, famine, epidemic, hatred, failure to care for others, that those who want to have a rave are constrained from so doing.

Now is that what Trump is practicing? I think not. He's blame deflecting, ignoring the problem, instead of forming a an executable plan to bring this madness to an end. The problem is the fight need to be fought and won. Identifying a bad apple as reason for saying we won't play isn't going to do that.

Trump didn't get this one right.

 

[repoman]

If Trump did it, it probably is for the wrong reason.

 

[iolo]

It is clear that 'the West' is supporting some very nasty terrorists in Syria to make the country an economic colony, meanwhile driving out vast numbers to destabilise Europe and undermine Christian values concerned with charity.

 

[Opoponax]

If Trump gets anything right, it's by sheer accident, or, in doing something stupid, an unintended consequence was that something good happened.

 

[untermensche]

Some things are evil.

Many of these Muslim fundamentalists are evil.

The US invasion of Iraq was evil. When the US dragged innocent people from their homes and began torturing them, that was evil.

A lot of evil.

But only the biggest fool in the world thinks Donald Trump has a solution to any of it. He is making things worse and will continue to make everything he touches worse.

His plans are as great as his incredible plans he said he had that would replace Obamacare.

 

[fromderinside]

Evil is a human invention. The issue is whether breaking social norms, established that stabilize human tendencies of clan and tribal behaviors beyond such small groups for general benefit, are more destructive than alternatives.

 

[untermensche]

Evil is a human invention. The issue is whether breaking social norms, established that stabilize human tendencies of clan and tribal behaviors beyond such small groups for general benefit, are more destructive than alternatives.

Homosexual behavior breaks social norms.

In the US it is very divisive and even destructive.

But that has no bearing on the good or bad of it.

It is not the same as deliberately killing somebody over oil.

 

[whichphilosophy]

If Trump gets anything right, it's by sheer accident, or, in doing something stupid, an unintended consequence was that something good happened.

Does that mean the others before him got it wrong by accident?

 

[fromderinside]

Evil is a human invention. The issue is whether breaking social norms, established that stabilize human tendencies of clan and tribal behaviors beyond such small groups for general benefit, are more destructive than alternatives.

Homosexual behavior breaks social norms.

In the US it is very divisive and even destructive.

But that has no bearing on the good or bad of it.

It is not the same as deliberately killing somebody over oil.

Social norms change with changes in such as sexual permissiveness and sexual risk. So social norms are changing toward more permissiveness primarily because women are freed up from being compulsory incubators. In this case medicine and courts are the primary actors in making this social change acceptable.

Tribal violence, on the other hand is in decline as it should given societies are now more or less tribe independent. So ME rise in tribalism is to be resisted both in law, practice, and faith, as long as the last one remains.

 

[J842P]

Homosexual behavior breaks social norms.

In the US it is very divisive and even destructive.

But that has no bearing on the good or bad of it.

It is not the same as deliberately killing somebody over oil.

Social norms change with changes in such as sexual permissiveness and sexual risk. So social norms are changing toward more permissiveness primarily because women are freed up from being compulsory incubators. In this case medicine and courts are the primary actors in making this social change acceptable.

Tribal violence, on the other hand is in decline as it should given societies are now more or less tribe independent. So ME rise in tribalism is to be resisted both in law, practice, and faith, as long as the last one remains.

So, if we want to resist the rise in tribalism in the ME, why are we trying to topple the Pan-Arab faction, and support sectarian Sunni factions?

 

[iolo]

Social norms change with changes in such as sexual permissiveness and sexual risk. So social norms are changing toward more permissiveness primarily because women are freed up from being compulsory incubators. In this case medicine and courts are the primary actors in making this social change acceptable.

Tribal violence, on the other hand is in decline as it should given societies are now more or less tribe independent. So ME rise in tribalism is to be resisted both in law, practice, and faith, as long as the last one remains.

So, if we want to resist the rise in tribalism in the ME, why are we trying to topple the Pan-Arab faction, and support sectarian Sunni factions?

Profit.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Trump Got This One Right

Earlier this year, President Donald Trump was shown a disturbing video of Syrian rebels beheading a child near the city of Aleppo. It had caused a minor stir in the press as the fighters belonged to the Nour al-Din al-Zenki Movement, a group that had been supported by the CIA as part of its rebel aid program.

The footage is haunting. Five bearded men smirk as they surround a boy in the back of a pickup truck. One of them holds the boy’s head with a tight grip on his hair while another mockingly slaps his face. Then, one of them uses a knife to saw the child’s head off and holds it up in the air like a trophy. It is a scene reminiscent of the Islamic State’s snuff videos, except this wasn’t the work of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s men. The murderers were supposed to be the good guys: our allies.

Trump wanted to know why the United States had backed Zenki if its members are extremists. The issue was discussed at length with senior intelligence officials, and no good answers were forthcoming, according to people familiar with the conversations. After learning more worrisome details about the CIA’s ghost war in Syria—including that U.S.-backed rebels had often fought alongside extremists, among them al Qaeda’s arm in the country—the president decided to end the program altogether

I will have to assume a lot here because I'm not familiar with the facts on the ground.

So, in defense of the CIA, I can see how it could be useful to help the enemy of our enemy. Rebels are rebels against Assad and Assad is identified with our enemy, so let's help those rebels, not because they are our buddies but because they oppose our enemy. Makes sense and quite obviously so.

Clearly, there may be problems with this. If the rebels we help are true nasties then we are seen as supporting nasties and it's bad for our image in the world even though it's only a communication disaster rather than anything really bad.

Also, helping nasties may actually get them in power in the end, which is not what we should want. Like in Afghanistan with the Talibans. If we are not good at it maybe it's better to abstain, or help only the few good rebels there must be somewhere.

Now, I don't know, as I said. But the judgement should be about whether helping bad guys is necessarily, or certainly in the particular case in question, bad overall.

Perhaps the main point should be whether we have any clear path to reach a good outcome overall. If we did, whether we have to help bad guys to do it should be seen as an important but secondary issue.

Of course, what we remember from the past doesn't suggest these guys know what they are doing but, as I said, I'm not a specialist.
EB
EB

 

[J842P]

Trump Got This One Right

I will have to assume a lot here because I'm not familiar with the facts on the ground.

So, in defense of the CIA, I can see how it could be useful to help the enemy of our enemy. Rebels are rebels against Assad and Assad is identified with our enemy, so let's help those rebels, not because they are our buddies but because they oppose our enemy. Makes sense and quite obviously so.

Clearly, there may be problems with this. If the rebels we help are true nasties then we are seen as supporting nasties and it's bad for our image in the world even though it's only a communication disaster rather than anything really bad.

Also, helping nasties may actually get them in power in the end, which is not what we should want. Like in Afghanistan with the Talibans. If we are not good at it maybe it's better to abstain, or help only the few good rebels there must be somewhere.

Now, I don't know, as I said. But the judgement should be about whether helping bad guys is necessarily, or certainly in the particular case in question, bad overall.

Perhaps the main point should be whether we have any clear path to reach a good outcome overall. If we did, whether we have to help bad guys to do it should be seen as an important but secondary issue.

Of course, what we remember from the past doesn't suggest these guys know what they are doing but, as I said, I'm not a specialist.
EB
EB

There are two things the CIA/US State Department cares about here:

1) Sticking their thumb in Russia's eye
2) Related to (1): overthrowing Assad

As long as we can be clear about the motivations, I am perfectly willing to discuss whether "helping bad guys is necessarily, or certainly in the particular case in question, bad overall."

As long as we understand, the motivations are not a good outcome qua helping the Syrian people.

So to be clear, a "good outcome" to the CIA/Us State Department has **nothing to do** with preventing death and misery for the Syrian people, quelling sectarian tensions (quite the opposite in fact), nor preventing chemical attacks. All of those are red-herrings, used to grease the wheels of public perception.

Regime change in Syria has been US policy since at least 2005.

http://www.truth-out.org/progressiv...d-regime-change-in-syria-igniting-a-bloodbath

 

[KeepTalking]

If Trump gets anything right, it's by sheer accident, or, in doing something stupid, an unintended consequence was that something good happened.

Does that mean the others before him got it wrong by accident?

I think people rarely get things wrong on purpose, so yes, that is probably a fair statement. I'm not sure what your point is though.