Ok let's not call it respect . Call it fear. They need to know that assassinating an American Ambassador comes with a heavy price. They "respect " the "strong horse" .
The Strong Horse: Power, Politics, and the Clash of Arab Civilizations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Ok let's not call it respect . Call it fear. They need to know that assassinating an American Ambassador comes with a heavy price. They "respect " the "strong horse" .
The Strong Horse: Power, Politics, and the Clash of Arab Civilizations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

The problem is the, "strong horse" doesn't actually exist. It is a ideological construct for the convenience of domestic and foreign policy.

Academia.edu - Share research

It happens to be a premise that has been followed since the days of Ibn Khaldun ,and probably before Mohammed in the Middle East.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

It happens to be a premise that has been followed since the days of Ibn Khaldun ,and probably before Mohammed in the Middle East.

---

That may well be the case. But how you actually translate that into domestic and foreign policy is a world apart.

Read the link I provided

Hello again,

Watching Issa on FOX breaking news on Benghazi. We were attacked by terrorists..

Duh!

excon

Owebama for weeks was trying to convince everyone it was all about some damn movie nobody ever watched... in fact they arrested some poor man for making it for no reason at all... other than admit the fact... they screwed up. And Hillary Clinton was drunk and never even answered the phone when that 3am call came.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

That may well be the case. But how you actually translate that into domestic and foreign policy is a world apart.

Read the link I provided

---

OK ,I'll give it a go although I know that you are aware that Post-structuralism is just another ism . I see it as a sort of academic circle jerk created by 1960s mushroom eaters trying to deconstruct standard logic and replace it with relativist mush. It's sort of a theory looking for a theory ;simular to Intelligent Design... which serves a useful purpose in poking holes in Evolutionary Theory ;but does not propose an alternate scientific explanation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again,

Watching Issa on FOX breaking news on Benghazi. We were attacked by terrorists..

Duh!

excon

---

That's what we said 8 months ago while Obama was putting his shills out there saying it was spontaneous outrage at a video.

Duh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

That may well be the case. But how you actually translate that into domestic and foreign policy is a world apart.

Read the link I provided

---

Interesting ;a 20 page dissection of a fallacy of terminology . I guess a graduate student at Georgia State has too much time on his hand.
In a world that strives for political correctness ,terms like "War on Terrorism" are acceptable alternatives to actually naming an enemy . He is correct that Terrorism is a tactic and not an enemy .Nor does calling an organization a 'terrorist organization ' explain their goals (unless of course they are nihilists with no purpose except that they have a pathology to blowing things up).

But everyone knows that there is a real enemy out there . Some call it radical Islam . I prefer to call it jihadistan . Sept.11,2001 was a terrorist attacks on our nation by Islamist Jihadis . Sept.11,2012 was a terrorist attacks on our nation by Islamist Jihadis. It makes no difference to me if it was on our shores ;or an attack on foreign shores . The enemy is the same.

Nick J. Sciullo calls it a battle against abstraction. I say that we have real identifiable enemies in this fight . Perhaps he'd better spend his time learning about the difference between the Westphalian state and the Islamic concept of the Califate . In fact our leaders fall into the same trap. Our enemy does not recognize national borders . He spends 20 pages knocking down an abstract . In 3 paragraphs I call out the flaw in his thesis. Truth be told ,he knows who the real enemy is. But as a graduate student ,he has to write something . When he or someone he cares about gets attacked by that abstract maybe he'll rethink his position.

The only flaw in your thinking Tom is that the enemy has a name but no zip code to drop a bomb on. Jihadist are so widespread that conventional warfare in so many countries that you cannot just invade one and destroy it, or even react with swiftness to a location. You do have to recognize that not only we as a country are targets, but many Islamic governments are also through out the Arab world and beyond.

To deny those many conflicts is to lose sight when trying to applying your type of single target retaliation. Benghazi was a terrible event, but there were bigger more devastating targets in sight that required resources besides a small isolated "mission" at the same time. We just have to wait for the full picture to be made clearer.

Unfortunately confusion and misdirection are the weapons that terrorist use. But our reactions cannot be to be effective.

What bigger more devastating target was more urgent than that terrorist attack?

Quote:

---

The only flaw in your thinking Tom is that the enemy has a name but no zip code to drop a bomb on.

---

If the report of the whistleblower is true then we do know where and who. We cannot let an attack like this go unanswered.

Quote:

---

Benghazi was a terrible event, but there were bigger more devastating targets in sight that required resources besides a small isolated "mission" at the same time. We just have to wait for the full picture to be made clearer.

---

You still don't get the significance of an Ambassador being assassinated ;and if what I think is true about the purpose of the mission ,it has far ranging implications.

Dems don't give a crap about any of it, they have one agenda in this and that's to protect Hillary at all cost. Who gives a rip about a dead ambassador when they have more elections to win?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Ok let's not call it respect . Call it fear. They need to know that assassinating an American Ambassador comes with a heavy price. They "respect " the "strong horse" .
The Strong Horse: Power, Politics, and the Clash of Arab Civilizations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

And who has paid that price? No one, and do you think you are the strong horse, I think you are more like the old grey nag. You may as well chase a puff of wind as chase those who did the deed or attempt to find those who ordered it

You saw how Ronald Regan Got Blohard Kadaffi to shut up and toe the line back in the day, And you saw how quick the Towelheads in Iran handed over the hostages when he got elected.. . Owebama could never do that because he defines the term Wishy-washy. Taking it away from Jimmy Carter.

So BO is on the nose in the strong horse stakes but everything isn't about strong arm or horse tactics

Reagan ran when 300 marine were killed and wounded by terrorist in Lebanon and paid the ransom for the hostages in Iran. And you guys are freakin' over Benghazi? How quickly you forget.

They are freaking out because they have no one to blame so they want to blame Evita, just in case she emerges as a candidate. This thing was SNAFU no doubt about that and there isn't someone you can drop a cruise missile on.

This is what you get when you don't follow the normal processes and are ering around in the backblocks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

ok ,I'll give it a go although I know that you are aware that Post-structuralism is just another ism . I see it as a sort of academic circle jerk created by 1960s mushroom eaters trying to deconstruct standard logic and replace it with relativist mush. It's sorta a theory looking for a theory ;simular to Intelligent Design ...which serves a useful purpose in poking holes in Evolutionary Theory ;but does not propose an alternate scientific explanation.

---

Obviously you don't think much post-structuralism in terms of its origins.

Firstly. The origins of a theory have nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the theory itself. So I think we can dispense with that style of criticism.

Secondly. I am not sure what you call, "standard logic." Perhaps you can provide an explanation.

Thirdly. Post-structuralism is very much concerned with providing alternative explanations when it comes to the social sciences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Nick J. Sciullo calls it a battle against abstraction. I say that we have real identifiable enemies in this fight . Perhaps he'd better spend his time learning about the difference between the Westphalian state and the Islamic concept of the Califate . In fact our leaders fall into the same trap. Our enemy does not recognize national borders . He spends 20 pages knocking down an abstract . In 3 paragraphs I call out the flaw in his thesis. Truth be told ,he knows who the real enemy is. But as a graduate student ,he has to write something . When he or someone he cares about gets attacked by that abstract maybe he'll rethink his position.

---

Tom, I can live with anyone( such as yourself) who deals in abstractions. However, we should draw the line when we start to believe these concepts actually have a particular existence of their own. That is to say in the same way as particular things have an actual existence.

This idea is fundamentally flawed because it is a category error. I believe Gilbert Ryle was mentioned in the article as the person who came up with that particular insight.

Category errors make for bad political policy. The enemy can also gradually become your own social, legal and political institutions.