Who Am I?
No, but one can blame the overall system, which should be able to process these kinds of red flags but has no resources in place to do so.
"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."
GOP Sen. Martha McSally drafts bill making domestic terrorism a federal crime – The bill is likely to acquire some significant co-sponsors in the coming days.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/14/martha-mcsally-domestic-terrorism-1462301
Edited by sgamer82 on Aug 14th 2019 at 12:05:08 PM
That's... a good thing?
God, I feel bad about this, but I'm kinda waiting for some kinda other shoe to drop, just because it's a Republican proposing it. But so far, this seems like a good thing.
Can't wait for it to only count when brown people (or people with left leaning motives like Antifa) are doing it. I expect the wording to make it so it impugns the Dayton shooter but not the El Paso shooter.
Edited by AlleyOop on Aug 14th 2019 at 2:17:11 PM
Eh, to be fair to McSally she's up for re-election in 2020, one of the most vulnerable Republican Senators and probably has some interest into having a resume that is not just "henchwoman of the Evil Turtle".
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Being that she's in Arizona it's possible she's deliberately courting the racists' votes by looking tough on crime.
Organized Canine Bureau Special Agent
Looks like the manifestos used in the shootings in El Paso (at least) are sold and translated for use in Europe.
"Exit muna si Polgas. Ang kailangan dito ay si Dobermaxx!"
Servant of the Omnissiah
Can I just say it's bizarre that there are Slavic people who are neo-Nazis?
I mean, this is an ideology that wants them deader than dead along with everyone else. How stupid do you have to be to sympathize with that? It's Boomerang Bigot writ large.
I hold the secrets of the machine.
Shin Megami Tensei IV
Yeah. Like, they make me think: It's so hard to create their own hate symbols?
Edited by KazuyaProta on Aug 16th 2019 at 1:44:37 PM
Watch me destroying my country
𐀀𐀩𐀯𐀂𐀰𐀅𐀡𐀄
Like the symbols were original in any way
Secret Signature
Shin Megami Tensei IV
Exactly, it's not hard, choose something, give it colors, etc.
Heck, the Crazy Commie Nazis of my country have more original aesthetic and they explicitly based themselves on Nazis.
Watch me destroying my country
It's as much assuming a pre-defined identity as anything else, though, no? Like, they want to be associated with the original Nazis, therefore they take up their symbols. If it was just "I want to create a fresh new hate group" then they'd probably come up with a more original name/brand.
Who Am I?
These people dont identify as Nazi's because they are attracted by the original ideology. They're trolls, they feel powerless, they want to feel powerful, declaring oneself a nazi shocks people, and shocking people feels powerful (as does shooting people). You can't expect consistency from people who are clearly suffering from some sort of violent behavioral disorder.
I see from the photos that they are also fans of the AR-15 rifle.
Edited by DeMarquis on Aug 16th 2019 at 4:47:47 AM
"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."
I mean, that's kind of part of the whole assuming a pre-established identity thing. The word nazi has history, it has connotations. If you say you're a white supremacist, people may look upon you with disgust, but if you say you're a nazi, that's different. A whole different kind of disgust.
Edited by danime91 on Aug 16th 2019 at 1:58:46 AM
In the name of being honest
Russian fascists (then mostly exiled Whites) have been waving the swastika since well before WWII.
Echoing hymn of my fellow passerine | Art blog (under construction)
Organized Canine Bureau Special Agent
There's some uncertainly in Washington that the Taliban can keep their word:
From AFP:
Trump said Friday he was pleased with talks on ending the war, 18 years after the September 11, attacks that prompted the US invasion of Afghanistan in the first place.
In recent days several US officials have suggested that an accord could be imminent in discussions with the Taliban in Qatar.
The US negotiator, Zalmay Khalilzad, is expected to return to the region very soon in hopes of sealing an agreement with the Afghan rebel force.
Such a potentially historic accord has raised an outcry from an eclectic assortment of critics in Washington, ranging from neo-conservatives to former Democratic administration officials to ex-military heroes.
In tweets, interviews and op-ed pieces in newspapers they are cautioning against hastily bringing home the 14,000 US troops in Afghanistan, a warning which some hope will also score points ahead of next year's presidential election.
And they are calling on Trump to treat this war as he did North Korea and its nuclear weapons and insist on no deal rather than a bad deal.
"Under no circumstances should the Trump administration repeat the mistake its predecessor made in Iraq and agree to a total withdrawal of combat forces from Afghanistan," retired general David Petraeus, who used to command those soldiers, warned in a piece for The Wall Street Journal.
He was referring to Barack Obama and how the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq helped fuel the emergence of the Islamic State group.
The main points of the peace accord being negotiated with the Taliban are known: US soldiers would withdraw in exchange for a pledge from them not to let Al-Qaida or the Islamic State group operate in the territory that the Taliban controls.
There would also be an immediate ceasefire, and the Taliban would begin talks with the Afghan government, with which the rebels have until now refused all dialogue.
- A 'messy, forever war' -
Withdrawal of US troops is sought by the American public, has been promised by Trump and is a talking point of several Democratic presidential hopefuls. The risk is that it will intensify the war.
This "will depend on the details," said Laurel Miller, former senior US State Department official responsible for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
There is much speculation as to what those details might entail.
For instance, it seems the Taliban are prepared to call a ceasefire with US troops but not with the Afghan army.
A total, absolute withdrawal of US forces has at least been on the negotiating table and it has never been ruled out in Washington.
"If we leave Afghanistan without a counter-terrorism force, without intelligence-gathering capabilities, ISIS will re-emerge, al Qaida will come back, they will occupy safe havens in Afghanistan, they will hit the homeland, they will come after us all over the world," Senator Lindsey Graham told Fox News.
Graham, who takes credit for persuading Trump to keep some troops in Syria after announcing a total pullout, insisted that Afghanistan needs a "continuing US presence" and America requires a "meaningful counter-terrorism force" there.
Trump has promised only a strong intelligence gathering presence. And some in his administration want any future counter-terrorism operations to be launched from other countries.
"Effective counter-terrorism operations in Afghanistan — and, just as important, in neighboring tribal areas of Pakistan — will prove all but impossible absent an enduring US footprint on Afghan soil," Petraeus wrote in a piece co-signed by Afghanistan expert Vance Serchuk.
Another issue is the timetable of a US withdrawal. Trump, seeking a second term in office, wants to announce the pullout before the election in November 2020.
But there have been signs in recent days pointing to a withdrawal actually completed around the time of the election.
Setting a timetable now "means the Taliban will enter subsequent talks among Afghans having already achieved their main goal and with their stature and bargaining position thereby enhanced," Miller wrote in Foreign Policy.
She argued that there should be a phased US withdrawal linked to specific progress in the Afghan peace process, such as adoption of a revised constitution with power-sharing features and subsequent elections.
Without a clear pledge from the Taliban to repudiate Al-Qaida and respect women's rights, among others, and without verification mechanisms, "we will not be ending the war — we will be retreating and ceding the battlefield to our enemies, including the organization that harbored the terrorists responsible for killing nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11," said Republican lawmaker Liz Cheney.
At the Pentagon, officials are cautious.
"It's an ugly, messy, forever war. It is probably going to be messy to get out," one military source at the Pentagon said.
Okay, I need a reality check here.
Has the United States completely forgotten how peace treaties are actually supposed to work? I mean, the whole idea is you negotiate a deal that people want to follow because the consequences for not agreeing to it are worse than the deal itself.
Has it been so long since one has been negotiated people don't realize what they're for?
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
In the name of being honest
Because America's main priority right now is pulling out of an unpopular war, not sustaining Afghanistan's security after its departure. Corners are going to be cut.
Echoing hymn of my fellow passerine | Art blog (under construction)
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
Afghan security forces have already admitted they're as good as dead after we leave and this is continuing anyway.
Oh really when?
Which is incredibly stupid. If the Taliban take over Kabul then that just means they're all in one place to bomb. US troops are needed to garrison the place to win but that doesn't mean the US needs to endanger a single life to prevent the Taliban from winning themselves.
How fucking stupid do you have to be to break a armistance under those circumstances?
Mind you, Obama was the one who started the treaty process in the first place. I have enough faith in the previous President to believe he knew what he was doing.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Aug 18th 2019 at 8:49:35 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
Could you reword that maybe, I'm having some trouble parsing that first bit.
Oh really when?
In the name of being honest
If US forces fully withdraw and the Taliban takes over the government again, it's going to be politically unfeasible to stage another full-scale intervention. Both sides know that.
Echoing hymn of my fellow passerine | Art blog (under construction)
Sorry,
Basically the Taliban can't take over the country and just throw things back to Pre-9/11 by saying, "haha, you lose!" If they break the treaty then that means that they're going to be going from an insurgent army to a government again and governments need locations to operate from. Government buildings, bases, and so on. All of which can targeted and destroyed in a way that insurgent armies don't have to.
The US can make the country ungovernerable for the Taliban without having to be on the ground even if theyc an't stabilize a regime without troops present.
The Taliban violating the treaty would be very dumb. Which I would assume they would understand.
You don't have to. Just Libya it.
Again, though, for me the issue is that the US can't defeat the Taliban but have plenty of options to make the Taliban's life hell if they do break any agreement.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Aug 18th 2019 at 8:51:46 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
There's no reason to trust the Taliban at this point in time, whatever actions they choose to take however big or small are beyond the scope of the current Afghan government to stop.
Once we leave we're not going back.
Why wouldn't they break the treaty?
Oh really when?
Unfortunate as that ended up being, I don't think one can reasonably blame the police in this case.