After 9/11, there was a free-thinker (I can't remember his name unfortunately) who wrote a very informed article on "Why they hate us", they being terrorists and us being the USA.
He basically said that groups of like-minded individuals often get together and discuss "stuff".
If that group becomes a closed group that does not get diverse views added to it, then what typically happens is not what you might expect. They do not reach some middle ground consensus, they will tend to move to a more extreme view.
That, in itself, is not a bad thing. It has allowed humanity to evolve. I won't go into why here.
However, it is a phenomenon that has been recognised by some extremist leaders and they foster groups of impressionable individuals (usually young males) and create the right environment for them to develop extreme views. They manipulate the conversations and discussions and control the new views that are introduced to such a degree that they are able to radicalise the group.
The members of the group compete with each other, steady moving to more extreme views and acts. They allow perceived slights and injustices to fester then urge the group to "redress the balance" - to fight back.
These groups are not all based in Raqqa and nor are the leaders.
The US has been trying to take out key figures (the ones raising and manipulating these groups) using drones but its like trying to cut off the head of the Lernaean Hydra.
However, a lot has been learned about drone technology through testing them in the field.
Bombing the oilwells will stop their source of income but, tbh, they already have enough money to keep going for a good while and they'll just move to another area and exploit the resources of that area. If they take over a diamond rich area, how are they going to bomb their mines ?
Still, it will allow a lot to be learned about the latest blanket bombing technology through testing them in the field.
If you look at it objectively, the key to finding a solution to any problem is to understand the problem, develop a coherent solution, test it in theory then test it in practice.
There is very little evidence that bombing Raqqa will solve the problem but it made the French feel a little less powerless after they suffered such a tragedy.
There is very little evidence that bombing the oilfields will solve the problem but its been voted for so its happening.
I'm not a Labour supporter (in case anyone wonders) but I do think that Corbyn is being misjudged as what he has consistently said is that the bombing idea isn't well thought out and it should be before it is approved.
Because he has pointed that out, he is being painted as a terrorist sympathiser ??? That's a cheap shot IMO.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Mark
