Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Blackie wrote:
Many people have a mistaken perception of ISIS as they consider them as the evil monsters of these days. They're not the real enemy, they're just a part of it. The real enemy if Islamic fondamentalism.

It's like considering SS the real enemy and not the nazi back at WW2 times.

We can destroy ISIS once and for all, but if we don't destroy all islamic fondamentalisms we would achieve nothing, someone else would take their place.

You're absolutely right. It's Saudi Arabia that funds and exports that poison and I just wish we had the balls to call them out on it.

 djones520 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Leathernecks have officially landed in Syria.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/14246/us-marines-just-landed-syria-joshua-yasmeh

Don't forget that Clinton was more likely to get the US into another war than Trump though!

Straw man yay! Because this has nothing to do with the very laid out examples of how Clinton's strategy would have forced conflict with Russia, as posters on here have made clear.

At any rate... this "escalation" has nothing to do with Trump.

It's not a strawman because the counterpoint to that argument was that Trump had said that he wanted to crush ISIS, and that that would require boots on the ground. Turns out that was right.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Leathernecks have officially landed in Syria.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/14246/us-marines-just-landed-syria-joshua-yasmeh

Don't forget that Clinton was more likely to get the US into another war than Trump though!

Straw man yay! Because this has nothing to do with the very laid out examples of how Clinton's strategy would have forced conflict with Russia, as posters on here have made clear.

At any rate... this "escalation" has nothing to do with Trump.

It's not a strawman because the counterpoint to that argument was that Trump had said that he wanted to crush ISIS, and that that would require boots on the ground. Turns out that was right.

I guess he had a point.

You either crush them. Or you do not and you do not fight them. Its kinda binery.
This middleyness that seems to afflict the west means alot is spent and nothing is achieved very fast.

 jhe90 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Leathernecks have officially landed in Syria.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/14246/us-marines-just-landed-syria-joshua-yasmeh

Don't forget that Clinton was more likely to get the US into another war than Trump though!

Straw man yay! Because this has nothing to do with the very laid out examples of how Clinton's strategy would have forced conflict with Russia, as posters on here have made clear.

At any rate... this "escalation" has nothing to do with Trump.

It's not a strawman because the counterpoint to that argument was that Trump had said that he wanted to crush ISIS, and that that would require boots on the ground. Turns out that was right.

I guess he had a point.

You either crush them. Or you do not and you do not fight them. Its kinda binery.
This middleyness that seems to afflict the west means alot is spent and nothing is achieved very fast.

Absolutely, but to argue that Clinton was more likely to get the US into a war because of the no-fly zone against Russia when Trump was calling for a campaign against ISIS is kinda silly, which was my point.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Leathernecks have officially landed in Syria.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/14246/us-marines-just-landed-syria-joshua-yasmeh

Don't forget that Clinton was more likely to get the US into another war than Trump though!

Straw man yay! Because this has nothing to do with the very laid out examples of how Clinton's strategy would have forced conflict with Russia, as posters on here have made clear.

At any rate... this "escalation" has nothing to do with Trump.

It's not a strawman because the counterpoint to that argument was that Trump had said that he wanted to crush ISIS, and that that would require boots on the ground. Turns out that was right.

I guess he had a point.

You either crush them. Or you do not and you do not fight them. Its kinda binery.
This middleyness that seems to afflict the west means alot is spent and nothing is achieved very fast.

Absolutely, but to argue that Clinton was more likely to get the US into a war because of the no-fly zone against Russia when Trump was calling for a campaign against ISIS is kinda silly, which was my point.

True. Either scenario means troops in harms way. Each ain't ideal.
Though I must admit a campaign against ISIS seems a better idea then deciding to challenge Russia. If that went bad that could cause WW3 far easier.

 whembly wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I'm all for slaughtering Isis. I just hope that this doesn't escalate things.

It would almost have to escalate in order to wipeout ISIS... imo.

I just hope we don't get bogged down on "nation building" and all that jazz...

Yeah, because a giant power vacuum after a foreign force comes in and bombs people with no plan to fill it with something stable always turns out great

Seriously, you're advocating destroying ISIS but then not doing anything to prevent the rise of a new, potentially even worse group rising up into the hole you just made.

I would have thought people would have learned the lessons of history by now. I mean it has been almost a century since the end of World War One which demonstrated perfectly what leaving a broken nation does in the long run.

Wr do have something stable. Not Nice but nice won,t run Sryia.

Assad.
He is the legitimate govement.
Not nicest one but it the only established one wr have put these.

Unlike some of the more lunatic mentions like a certain Kim, we can sit down and talk to him.
And we can sit down with Russia too and sort somthibf out that leaves the country stableish.n

Resolving conflicts in iraq and syria is only part of the issue, as most of the isis soldiers come from europe and tunisia. Which means we mostly have to deal with people that radicalized in democracies. In afghanistan the talibans are stronger than 15 years ago and we do nothing to make that country a safer one, despite the usa invaded and controlled that country since then.

We have two ways to deal with the problem, force muslims that live in democracies to accept that the law are more important than religion and include into society the ones that study and work. And then ban and don't allow to entry the other ones, there are no rooms for everyone and people that hasn't got any choices to live in a western country honestly turn into a criminal first and probably into a terrorist later.

Ending wars means nothing, the highest number of foreign fighters comes from tunisia which is a democracy, but also from france, belgium, netherlands, germany, austria, UK, bosnia, albania, cecenia. We also have to stop radicalisms, by don't allowing them in our countries and investing in countries like tunisia to make them civil places.

In sweden and germany media are silent when immigrants commit revolts or heinous crimes, because they fear to make the population racist or to be branded racists themselves. But this is a strong help to those people that can do whatever they want in our countries, and this is actually helping ISIS as those people will carry on living as criminals and outcasts. Then they become terrorists as they realize their life means nothing.

 Blackie wrote:


In sweden and germany media are silent when immigrants commit revolts or heinous crimes, because they fear to make the population racist or to be branded racists themselves.

Which begs the question, how do you know?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Blackie wrote:


In sweden and germany media are silent when immigrants commit revolts or heinous crimes, because they fear to make the population racist or to be branded racists themselves.

Which begs the question, how do you know?

Because news are broadcast via internet, then become public, and police/government can't deny them but still they're not covered properly. Last year in Koln (Germany) over 1000 sexual harassments and rapes were made by africans/middle eastern men and the facts became public only after two weeks because some locals spread the voice around internet, and only then the news was covered by the media. Several crimes were covered abroad more than in those two countries.

Recently a swedish minister had apologized when she said that sexual crimes were decreased, because her lie was spotted. In many swedish cities women can't go out at night alone, everyone knows that but almost nobody can admit that's because of the (fake) refugees. Malmoe has become a swedish favela in which gans of muslims thow granades in the streets, but swedish government do nothing about that. Scandinavian nations are wonderful, I love them, but they're going to get eaten by their political correctness.

Political correctness is making both racism and fondamentalism grow, by allowing some people to live as outcasts with their rules that have nothing in common with a democracy.

 Blackie wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Blackie wrote:


In sweden and germany media are silent when immigrants commit revolts or heinous crimes, because they fear to make the population racist or to be branded racists themselves.

Which begs the question, how do you know?

Because news are broadcast via internet, then become public, and police/government can't deny them but still they're not covered properly. Last year in Koln (Germany) over 1000 sexual harassments and rapes were made by africans/middle eastern men and the facts became public only after two weeks because some locals spread the voice around internet, and only then the news was covered by the media. Several crimes were covered abroad more than in those two countries.

Recently a swedish minister had apologized when she said that sexual crimes were decreased, because her lie was spotted. In many swedish cities women can't go out at night alone, everyone knows that but almost nobody can admit that's because of the (fake) refugees. Malmoe has become a swedish favela in which gans of muslims thow granades in the streets, but swedish government do nothing about that. Scandinavian nations are wonderful, I love them, but they're going to get eaten by their political correctness.

Political correctness is making both racism and fondamentalism grow, by allowing some people to live as outcasts with their rules that have nothing in common with a democracy.

Almighty Walrus, Please blink twice if you need help with your political correctness......

I'm fairly sure that grendade throwing would become major news.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Blackie wrote:


In sweden and germany media are silent when immigrants commit revolts or heinous crimes, because they fear to make the population racist or to be branded racists themselves.

Which begs the question, how do you know?

Because news are broadcast via internet, then become public, and police/government can't deny them but still they're not covered properly. Last year in Koln (Germany) over 1000 sexual harassments and rapes were made by africans/middle eastern men and the facts became public only after two weeks because some locals spread the voice around internet, and only then the news was covered by the media. Several crimes were covered abroad more than in those two countries.

Recently a swedish minister had apologized when she said that sexual crimes were decreased, because her lie was spotted. In many swedish cities women can't go out at night alone, everyone knows that but almost nobody can admit that's because of the (fake) refugees. Malmoe has become a swedish favela in which gans of muslims thow granades in the streets, but swedish government do nothing about that. Scandinavian nations are wonderful, I love them, but they're going to get eaten by their political correctness.

Political correctness is making both racism and fondamentalism grow, by allowing some people to live as outcasts with their rules that have nothing in common with a democracy.

Almighty Walrus, Please blink twice if you need help with your political correctness......

I'm fairly sure that grendade throwing would become major news.

The grenade attacks did happen, and were duly reported on in Swedish mainstream media. It wasn't "gangs of muslims throwing grenades in the streets", but I'm well past expecting honesty and integrity in "debates" like this. Comparing Malmö to a favela is friggin' hilarious, what does that make Chicago? Detroit? The actual favelas in Brazil?

 Blackie wrote:

Recently a swedish minister had apologized when she said that sexual crimes were decreased, because her lie was spotted. In many swedish cities women can't go out at night alone, everyone knows that but almost nobody can admit that's because of the (fake) refugees. Malmoe has become a swedish favela in which gans of muslims thow granades in the streets, but swedish government do nothing about that. Scandinavian nations are wonderful, I love them, but they're going to get eaten by their political correctness.

Citations needed. And by citations I don't mean Avpixlat, Fria Tider, the Gatestone Institute or any other "source" with the intellectual integrity of a dead newt.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Blackie wrote:


In sweden and germany media are silent when immigrants commit revolts or heinous crimes, because they fear to make the population racist or to be branded racists themselves.

Which begs the question, how do you know?

Because news are broadcast via internet, then become public, and police/government can't deny them but still they're not covered properly. Last year in Koln (Germany) over 1000 sexual harassments and rapes were made by africans/middle eastern men and the facts became public only after two weeks because some locals spread the voice around internet, and only then the news was covered by the media. Several crimes were covered abroad more than in those two countries.

Recently a swedish minister had apologized when she said that sexual crimes were decreased, because her lie was spotted. In many swedish cities women can't go out at night alone, everyone knows that but almost nobody can admit that's because of the (fake) refugees. Malmoe has become a swedish favela in which gans of muslims thow granades in the streets, but swedish government do nothing about that. Scandinavian nations are wonderful, I love them, but they're going to get eaten by their political correctness.

Political correctness is making both racism and fondamentalism grow, by allowing some people to live as outcasts with their rules that have nothing in common with a democracy.

Almighty Walrus, Please blink twice if you need help with your political correctness......

I'm fairly sure that grendade throwing would become major news.

The grenade attacks did happen, and were duly reported on in Swedish mainstream media. It wasn't "gangs of muslims throwing grenades in the streets", but I'm well past expecting honesty and integrity in "debates" like this. Comparing Malmö to a favela is friggin' hilarious, what does that make Chicago? Detroit? The actual favelas in Brazil?

 Blackie wrote:

Recently a swedish minister had apologized when she said that sexual crimes were decreased, because her lie was spotted. In many swedish cities women can't go out at night alone, everyone knows that but almost nobody can admit that's because of the (fake) refugees. Malmoe has become a swedish favela in which gans of muslims thow granades in the streets, but swedish government do nothing about that. Scandinavian nations are wonderful, I love them, but they're going to get eaten by their political correctness.

Citations needed. And by citations I don't mean Avpixlat, Fria Tider, the Gatestone Institute or any other "source" with the intellectual integrity of a dead newt.

I couldn't actually remember the grenade incident. probably because the leftist main stream media didn't censor the reports properly and it came out as normal news. It would have been etched on my mind had the real truth been 'reviled'...filthy jihadists running amok in Mal-medina111

There was also the Australian TV crew who were attacked in the street. By Somalian immigrants if I remember correctly.

Still, all the rioting and grenade attacks should be concerning. Unless you're an idiot who just wants to bury their head in the sand and pretend that nothing's wrong.

 jhe90 wrote:
Wr do have something stable. Not Nice but nice won,t run Sryia.

Assad.
He is the legitimate govement.
Not nicest one but it the only established one wr have put these.

Unlike some of the more lunatic mentions like a certain Kim, we can sit down and talk to him.
And we can sit down with Russia too and sort somthibf out that leaves the country stableish.n

Assad's governing of Syria is not stable. If it were then Syria would not be in the middle of a civil war.

Two separate attacks with an axe and a machete in Dusseldorf today. One of the suspects has been described as a Kosovan.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
There was also the Australian TV crew who were attacked in the street. By Somalian immigrants if I remember correctly.

Still, all the rioting and grenade attacks should be concerning. Unless you're an idiot who just wants to bury their head in the sand and pretend that nothing's wrong.

It is, but there cannot be a sensible debate on the issue when people make up a bunch of stuff and then demand that we ban muslims.

Banning Muslims is silly, Europe already has a considerable population of Muslims.

That being said, we need to identify the vectors for radicalization and shut them down. And this doesn't apply only to Muslims, any radicalization cannot be tolerated, regardless of if we are talking of religious radicals or right wing radicals or left wing radicals.

I don't want to ban every muslim, I want to ban all the men from african-middle east countries that can't have the possibilities to live properly in our countries. Because they become criminals and most of them turn into terrorist in a second moment.

I'm saying that we shouldn't tolerate those muslims (strangers or europeans it doesn't matter) that want to live as they were in africa or middle east countries. Radicalization doesn't mean terrorism, terrorists are a consequence of radicalization. There are thousands of radical muslims in europe that are not terrorist but allowing them to live this way it's one of the reasons islamic terrorism exists.

Most of the isis fighters come from europe, people that were born here, some of them were even graduated at universities. They're not cavemen from galaxies far far away.

Political correctness has lead to brexit, donald trump as president of the Usa, and soon we'll see the rise of politicians like Wilders or Le Pen. We're destroying europe by pretending that thousands of those people are not a problem.

We consider ISIS one the biggest monsters of these days, but they're only the most popular faction among dozens of terroristic groups. They're a consequence of letting muslims live like their religion is more important than real laws.

Saudi arabia is nothing different than ISIS, the only exception is that they don't organize massacres in europe. But they rule exactly in the same ways ISIS rules its regions, with the same atrocities.

I think Islam can be part of a civil country but only if muslims live their religion as western people live theirs. I've known several people that actually are muslims but don't care about eating pork, drinking alcohol or wearing the scarf and hang out with catholic dudes regularly. I have nothing against them. But I also met arabs (or people or arab descendants) that only live in their community and despise western society and its people. None of them is a terrorist (yet) but thanks to their way of living they are completely separate from society, creating the basis of new affiliations to terrorist groups.

Well....

I think Islam can be part of a civil country but only if muslims live their religion as western people live theirs.

Europe Is not tolerant of Islam. You treat Muslims as outsiders. You think that Christianity is better than Islam, you think that atheism is better than Islam. But you just do not know how to live in a multicultural environment. How we lived in the Empire, in the Soviet Union and now.

Since when wearing a scarf and not eating pork nor alcohol is considered radical?

 Blackie wrote:
I don't want to ban every muslim, I want to ban all the men from african-middle east countries that can't have the possibilities to live properly in our countries. Because they become criminals and most of them turn into terrorist in a second moment.

I'm saying that we shouldn't tolerate those muslims (strangers or europeans it doesn't matter) that want to live as they were in africa or middle east countries. Radicalization doesn't mean terrorism, terrorists are a consequence of radicalization. There are thousands of radical muslims in europe that are not terrorist but allowing them to live this way it's one of the reasons islamic terrorism exists.

Most of the isis fighters come from europe, people that were born here, some of them were even graduated at universities. They're not cavemen from galaxies far far away.

Political correctness has lead to brexit, donald trump as president of the Usa, and soon we'll see the rise of politicians like Wilders or Le Pen. We're destroying europe by pretending that thousands of those people are not a problem.

We consider ISIS one the biggest monsters of these days, but they're only the most popular faction among dozens of terroristic groups. They're a consequence of letting muslims live like their religion is more important than real laws.

Saudi arabia is nothing different than ISIS, the only exception is that they don't organize massacres in europe. But they rule exactly in the same ways ISIS rules its regions, with the same atrocities.

I think Islam can be part of a civil country but only if muslims live their religion as western people live theirs. I've known several people that actually are muslims but don't care about eating pork, drinking alcohol or wearing the scarf and hang out with catholic dudes regularly. I have nothing against them. But I also met arabs (or people or arab descendants) that only live in their community and despise western society and its people. None of them is a terrorist (yet) but thanks to their way of living they are completely separate from society, creating the basis of new affiliations to terrorist groups.

Where to start, but not get banned again?

Hell, we'll start with the obvious: Brexit and Trump have been fueled by stupidity, not political correctness. Trump is quite the antithesis of Politically correct. ISIS is NOT mostly European. Most refugees are not there to rape or rob you. But the worse you treat them, the more likely they are to do those things. Whether they're Muslim or Christian, or Buddhist for that matter. Where I'm at currently, you'll be shot and robbed (in that order) for your wallet and your shoes. Not one refugee in sight.

Sharia, despite the contempt that most people hold it in, are actually 'real' laws, though ones rooted in a very different idea of how laws are created and what they should accomplish. This seems to be a common belief held by Americans in particular, that other countries don't have 'real' laws. I've seen so many Americans who get themselves in contempt of court when confronted by the Seneca Peacemaker by claiming that the Seneca do not have 'real' laws and those laws do not apply to said Americans and how DARE they fine them further!

Saudi Arabia, and I hate defending them, do not try to kill everyone in an entire city and fill the river with their bodies. So, please do not try and compare ISIS atrocities to the Saudis. It's a very different kettle of fish.

And who the hell got massacred in Europe? Unless you're talking about that truck attack in Germany last year, I have not read anything that i would call a massacre.

 BaronIveagh wrote:


And who the hell got massacred in Europe? Unless you're talking about that truck attack in Germany last year, I have not read anything that i would call a massacre.

Paris, Nice, Bruxelles were massacres. Also american citizens died in these attacks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:


Saudi Arabia, and I hate defending them, do not try to kill everyone in an entire city and fill the river with their bodies. So, please do not try and compare ISIS atrocities to the Saudis. It's a very different kettle of fish.

ISIS doesn't killl everyone in their territories, only those who don't follow their rules or minorities. In saudi arabia is the same, people are forced to live as those sultans want them to live. There are years of prison only for manifesting disagreement and the death penalty for crimes that are not even crimes in many countries. And some death penalties are very cruel like locking people in cages under the sun until they die. Not very different to ISIS executions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:


Hell, we'll start with the obvious: Brexit and Trump have been fueled by stupidity, not political correctness. Trump is quite the antithesis of Politically correct. ISIS is NOT mostly European. Most refugees are not there to rape or rob you. But the worse you treat them, the more likely they are to do those things. Whether they're Muslim or Christian, or Buddhist for that matter. Where I'm at currently, you'll be shot and robbed (in that order) for your wallet and your shoes. Not one refugee in sight.

Europe is not USA where kids shot each other even in schools and there's a huge crime rate, in USA there are only a few refugees or muslim people, in europe they are way more and a significant percentage of crimes is committed by illegal immigrants. You have to compare the illegals that come to europe to the illegals that come to USA, mexicans for example. In USA you have an extremely strict procedure of immigration, the refugees that are in your country are real refugees and just a few people compared to the entire population of the USA.

I know most of the (fake) refugees don't want to be criminal since the beginning but we have a high rate of unemployment, most of them don't have the slightest chance to live properly and they are forced to become slaves to mafia groups, common criminals or even terrorists. The don't have other ways to survive. And the fact that they are all men (more than 90% of them) means that is extremely unlikely that they get a girlfriend/wife. They become outcast because they don't have a future here and their values are distant from democracies too.

In Italy most of the people that cross illegally the border don't get the refugee status because they come from nations that are not at war. I think a politic of social inclusion for the refugees and muslism is necessary but it's also necessary to forbid the entrance to those people that are not refugees and can't have a future here, because there are not any possibilities for them. Also stop tolerating radicalism in our countries.

And many muslims don't want to be included, they just want to live exactly as they lived in their countries but with more money.

Considering you describe Malmö as a favela with gangs of muslims throwing grenades on the streets your ability to decide what is fake and what isn't obviously isn't up to par.

Further, you've painted yourself into a corner. Either Islam is as awful as you're describing it, in which case we should be taking in people wanting to flee from it, or it isn't, in which case your argument is based on being wrong.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Considering you describe Malmö as a favela with gangs of muslims throwing grenades on the streets your ability to decide what is fake and what isn't obviously isn't up to par.

Further, you've painted yourself into a corner. Either Islam is as awful as you're describing it, in which case we should be taking in people wanting to flee from it, or it isn't, in which case your argument is based on being wrong.

No one is fleeing because of islamic governments in which sharia is the law, they flee beacuse in europe they can get more money. In fact they want to recreate their own societies in everything they can. There is no african or arab man/woman that fled his/her country because of Islam. Their reasons are mostly economic factors, sometimes beacuse there are wars in their countries.

Crime rate in Malmoe has increased significantly in the last 2 decades, and each crime gang is from arabic, african or balcanic nations, you can't deny it.

The majority of muslims needs to change if they want to be included in our societies, many of them don't want to be part of it. And I'm talking about regular people and refugees, not common clandenstines. Illegals must be sent off no matter what, like in USA or Australia.

Cause it's definitely not like the vast, vast, vast majority of people that ISIS have murdered have been.... muslim.

 Blackie wrote:
There is no african or arab man/woman that fled his/her country because of Islam.

I don't know where to start. This might be a contender for "most ignorant sentence of the year".

 Blackie wrote:
No one is fleeing because of islamic governments in which sharia is the law, they flee beacuse in europe they can get more money. There is no african or arab man/woman that fled his/her country because of Islam.

Funny thing then that so few of them flee to Saudi Arabia, which by all accounts is a very rich nation where you can get good money. Could it be they're actually leery of the strict Islam practiced there?

And not fleeing because of Islam? In fact quite a few, say, Iraqi claim they're fleeing Iraq due to sectarian violence (Shia vs Sunni) - granted not a country with Sharia law but some of the groups fighting there (like ISIS) would like to have such and even stricter. You have the same sort of crap in many African countries though not on quite the same insane scale yet. Many of the crazy groups also attack Christians and other religious or ethnic minorities who then try to flee somewhere safe.

But there's still hope. It was pretty impressive to see Egyptian muslims turn out to shield local Christians from terror threats during Christmas, for example.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
There is no african or arab man/woman that fled his/her country because of Islam.

I don't know where to start. This might be a contender for "most ignorant sentence of the year".

I think someone should explain to Blackie the Sunni/Shia split. It often makes the Protestant/Catholic divide in Ireland/Northern Ireland look like a petty family squabble.