How it is to be young, or caught in the crossfire.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVUCMBuAQNs

There is nothing else to be said to someone engaged in philosophical masturbation in the wake of this tragedy. You mention Kundus as some sort of shield, but what's the point? That was also an inexcusable act of violence, but it doesn't lessen any other acts of violence. You can call both terror if you like, but to say that none is, is silly. Though the difference is that in Kundus there at least was a possibility that the intention was to kill potential terrorist, armed forces. In Paris the attackers knew exactly whom they were targeting. So you can pity me all you like, you will not get that in return from me should you one day become a direct victim. But at least then you'll get to cry. Or not.

Not sure what is so difficult.

We need to help the refugees; the good people who represent the regions only hope for a peaceful future.

ISIS cannot be allowed to walk the face of the Earth and are more than overdue for an absolute pummeling.

They are taking the fight to us. We just cannot let it change who we are or what we stand for.

Who we are, what we value, what we think and how we treat others affects all our decisions and their consequences. All our mistakes, intentions, and regrets. Only an unsolvable problem (like old age and death currently) is not preventable.

It's human nature and history on the march, as much as you might hate me thinking that. Condemn Kim Jong Un all you like, but you won't understand what it is like to be born to his father. If you wish, believe that NK could have a leader you would like if only they were a good person. There is no time I do not consider good for so-call 'philosophical masterbation'. I never see a need for it more than in an atmosphere like this.

Killing one person will always be similar to destorying the world, but even if I prefer abortion and drugs never to be used, I am never united with Republicans on them.

It's stupidly hilarious that religo's are calling for not letting Muslims in, and have condemned them all... when they "conveniently" forget that the KKK is a Christian group. Sure am glad we killed all Christians!

I'm also anti KKK. But which iteration of the KKK are you talking about?

The first that targeted blacks and white republicans.

The second that opposed blacks, Catholics, Jews and immigrants from Southern Europe.

Or the third that forged alliances with members of the Democratic Party like George Wallace.

All?

I don't hate you, I just have a distaste for people engaging in kitchen sink philosophy and sputing fortune cookies banalities. Weren't you the dude who sieappered for a while from BOM (or was it already WOKJ) after spouting some inane conspiracy theories and experiencing some sort of a mental breakdown? Serious question, BTW.

This would be a very different plan and much bigger since the army would be made up of Arab and Iranian troops using our weapons and assisted by air strikes by U.S. Europe, and Russia. The reason the other invasions didn't work was because it was U.S troops doing it.

Yes, because training and arming the Taliban against the Soviets has worked out so very well long term.

I rather have Iran in control over ISIS at this point. At least we know Iran won't do too many batshit things.

The USA thought the same about Taliban in the 80s.

What you describe sounds like repeating the EXACT same thing that turned out to be a major mistake in the past.

Time to pop the weasels. They only want to die for a cause.
They'll thank you for it!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/ ... AM20151116

Ok, you asked for a long post, so warning.

If something is preventable it involves a detectable pattern. Otherwise it would involve unknowable variables (deserving no credit or blame: aka luck) or ones that can't be solved (even if detectable). Our brains and culture have evolved for the sake of pattern recognition. It's as relevant from an evolutionary perspective as anything. Banal enough, I'm sure. Can all possible problems then be solved? Of course not, but if so, it is because you fail to detect or use the pattern (even if someone else could). You are unable or unwilling. The appearance of randomness depends on your own state of knowledge/understanding. Different weathermen can give a different chance of rain tomorrow and some might be better than others on average. So there are two questions: is a problem solvable for anyone under ideal conditions? Is it solvable for you?

What then is risk? Risk involves opportunity costs. Opportunity costs, as typically found in industrial society, depend on a scarcity of information, but an abundance of attractive options/opportunities. The more specific your information, the better your information, the more predictable, the clearer your choice (diminishing opportunity costs). The usefulness of options depends on the law of diminishing returns. If the low hanging fruit is picked, the reward from risk intensive, but rewarding behavior diminishes (bad analogy, in this case, since there is little risk in picking fruit, but the point is that on average, the 'low hanging fruit' offers the highest reward for risk taken). When the law of diminishing returns sets in (through evolution), risk becomes less and less significant because there are fewer outliers and data points tend closer to average (when comparing predictions to results). You get better, you evolve, you understand more, and you face less risk. Industrial society is relatively young of course. So, there are many new, relatively easy opportunities and resources available to be exploited. We may assume our concept of risk is the same as nature's, but that is our normal, which has yet to mature like nature.

Anyway, industrial society and military plays with risk quite a bit. Did they have the opportunity to be the ideal player who could avoid mistakes at a near optimal level? Probably not quite. But there is a choice on some level between short term rewards (with risk) and investing in a more sustainable strategy/model. That may involve sacrifice of some rewards. Those paths can diverge, and here we come back to opportunity costs. There is the option of using risk with profit in mind, and the option of taking control of your destiny.

If you ask me, someone as proud as Obama should expect to be held to the highest standard. Could they have avoided the mistake in Kunduz? Their approach probably couldn't have helped. But another strategy could have enabled a different result. At a hospital without confirmation of a military target. I suspect that the sort of country that never bombed Japan would not have hit that hospital.

I hope that wasn't too banal. I tried to keep it as concise and clear as I could manage. Questions?

Oh, and I thought I was on some sort of truman show thing or the illuminati were watching me. I'm certain now neither is true. Even if the Illuminati exists I'm sure they don't need to stalk members of the public. Maybe you think I enjoyed Dan Brown too much, but I'll leave the burden of proof on you that they don't exist, because I could see something like that being useful to its members and some political/economic/social agenda. I mean, why do they even have Skull and Bones and why aren't they allowed to talk about it?

Um....are there not Iranian militias and commanders on the ground right now? The US just avoids cooperating with them. Meanwhile there is an Arab, American trained army in Iraq.

ISIS said it will also attack the USA!!

I love how this video looks:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -Isil.html

I am an athiest and don't want to let them in or if we do, I would prioritize the Christian refugees.

If a bunch of white people fled the South in the Civil War and declared themselves refugees, and you were a country in Africa (not controlled by Europe), would you have said "come on in!" Or would you perhaps have said "no" knowing that although a small percentage were sympathic to the Confederacy it was a risk you did not want to take?

Did Israel have an obligation in 1948 to accept what remained of the German refugees of non-Jewish background? Even though only a small part may have had Nazi synpathies?

CNN just had an a riveting interview of a survivor. He was describing how he was at the concert and how at first he thought the shots were a joke or part of the show. Then people were falling around him and blood was going everywhere. Somehow he ended up hiding in a bathroom with three others. He apparently heard the terrorists talking about preparing bombs or something. Then the swat teams moved in and there was gunfire and then explosions as they blew themselves up. A swat member pointed a gun straight at his head when he first appeared as they were rescued. He ended up walking out of that bloodbath seeing bodies all over the place, blood everywhere, and two of his friends died that day. It was very vivid and very sad. Scary.

I think he thinks the difference between Iran and the Taliban is state vs. non-state actors.

States change, especially in the region.

The state of Iran has been rather stable with its theocratic election committee.

Do you think added screening and identification process for the refugees from Syria would help minimize the risk to an acceptable level?

And wasn't the US-led coalition engaging in a proxy war in Syria with Russia? (Not sure if that is an accurate description. Correct me if I am wrong.) Should the US bear some responsibility for the people displaced by the war?