Paris implications continued

[The guy from the Vale]

The German Verfassungsschutz and BND are also source of mockery around here, and for good reason (i.e. right-sided blindness that led to theVerfassungsschutz probably directly supporting the NSU, as well as the BND helping the NSA spy on us while being paid by our taxes...). Just because an agency is supposed to serve as counterterrorist/security service doesn't make them competent at either.

In the US, the nationalists might not be as much of a threat as Islamists... perhaps. But I do know that in Germany, the death toll from the NSU alone eclipses any threat Islamists have posed so far.

[The guy from the Vale]

Baxus,

I'm sure Arizona Fundamentalist Christians will be rising up over this very soon:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/11/16/christian-pastor-criticizes-paris-terror-attack-victims-for-attending-death-metal-concert/

From the article:

 

Apparently, this man is not just bigoted but also uninformed in general. EoDM are not a (Death) Metal band at all

[baxus]

Baxus,

I'm sure Arizona Fundamentalist Christians will be rising up over this very soon:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/11/16/christian-pastor-criticizes-paris-terror-attack-victims-for-attending-death-metal-concert/

I'm sure it will get some backlash, but I don't really think it will really change anything. The pastor won't lose his position in the church hierarchy, won't be made to attend classes (including music classes that would educate him enough to realize Eagles of Death Metal are not a death metal band) or atone in any real way. I'm sure he'll give some half-assed apology and be back to preaching ignorant things like that one in no time. 

[Free Northman Reborn]

Unless he is encouraging his flock to carry out attacks on death metal concert goers his views are free speech  in the US and require no action to be taken. The implied comparison with Islamic Jihadist clerics is null and void.

[Prosesskrift]

Grant and Sherman against the Confederacy.

Truman using nukes against Japan.

Both were difficult decisions that were absolutely necessary. 

Do you honestly believe those examples are comparable to the ISIS situation? 

[Hayyoth]

ISIS absolutely loves you. You are proposing exactly what they want, perpetual war and conflict. There are 1 billion Muslims in thew world. How many exactly do you propose to kill in order to get their ISIS's of the world to give up and go home because you are killing too many of their people. They don't care about their people dying. The more the better as far as they are concerned. every Muslim death is a gift to Allah, and every Muslim death is a new recruit from that dead person's family or social circle.

 

There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world and a fifth to a quarter are sympathetic to radical Islam. I propose we kill none of them but rather allow them the space to sort out their own problems as they will with the proviso that our governments protect us from the blow back. If this means isolating us from them and halting all Muslim migration to the west it's still a far better alternative than endless war that achieves nothing but make the situation manifestly worse.

Baxus,

I'm sure Arizona Fundamentalist Christians will be rising up over this very soon:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/11/16/christian-pastor-criticizes-paris-terror-attack-victims-for-attending-death-metal-concert/

From the article:

 

You see guys Christians are just as bad as Muslims. Definitely put that in the next thread title.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

If there were manageable solutions someone would have come up with them by now. It would be a generations-long effort to improve conditions all around the Middle East: replace the abusive and backwards despots whose backyards breed these kind of jihadists, like Assad and the House of Saud; implement economic reforms to get more people invested in a stable society rather than be disenfranchised and desperate enough to want to burn everything down; ensure justice and rule of law, if not necessarily democracy, in the region.

It's a pie in the sky set of changes that may well be impossible with current geopolitical realities. But the solution is not to just bomb harder and invade harder until they stop. That has been tried, it hasn't worked. And it's not about the backbone of the locals, as a multitude of other comments pointing out your lazy thinking and moral cowardice have shown.

Well, II'm not too sure its moral cowardice. I tend to think that if a certain group of people is causing your country so many problems, the people in charge should put and end to it. Sorry, I just think that at certain point a more hard line attitude needs to be taking. I guess you guys have convinced me that more bombings are not the answer and would only cause to breed more hate. Sorry, that it was my first reaction to this. I think it does need to start from within these countries and change the way of life overtime. That's what part of what I meant in them growing a backbone. All these countries have government and technology to be able to root out the bad seeds.

OK, I give Afghanistan as an example. We take out the Taliban, give the whole country back to the people. Stick around and try and give some stability. Yet, as our numbers dwindle, the people of Afghanistan are giving large swaths of ground back over to the Taliban. Its like their scared and afraid to fight and keep what is theirs. I hear stories of Afghanistan soldiers layind down their weapons and running, instead of fighting and protecting their people. This is what I mean, by having a backbone and making these countries the good places they can be.

I realize I have a bad habit of posting my feelings instead of thinking things through. That's on me, and it usually comes out wrong. I see where continuing bombing won't do much and appreciate your responses. I truly dont want innocent lives taken. I just want something done so that this way of Islam and their cowardly tactics are put to a stop. And, I think to do so, there is going to have to be a huge change in the way this is are handled. I think there has to be a ruthless and systematic removal of this ideology. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Hayyoth,

There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world and a fifth to a quarter are sympathetic to radical Islam.

What data do you base this statistic upon?

[baxus]

Unless he is encouraging his flock to carry out attacks on death metal concert goers his views are free speech  in the US and require no action to be taken. The implied comparison with Islamic Jihadist clerics is null and void.

Legality is not really a good thing to measure your positions by, since at times slavery was legal, women voting was not, people were burned for opposing Church on scientific issues...

There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world and a fifth to a quarter are sympathetic to radical Islam. I propose we kill none of them but rather allow them the space to sort out their own problems as they will with the proviso that our governments protect us from the blow back. If this means isolating us from them and halting all Muslim migration to the west it's still a far better alternative than endless war that achieves nothing but make the situation manifestly worse.

Source on 1/4-1/5 supporting radical Islam?

Where would you suggest we let them have at it?

How would you suggest innocent civilians are protected during this "sorting out" of "their own problems"?

How would you halt all Muslim migration to the west? And would you halt Muslim migration only? And why?

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Again, maybe I was wrong, speaking out my ass out of anger. OK i can buy that. Tell me what do you propose to stop this? OK, we can't send a strong enough mmessage by bombing, that dont work. You've convinced me. What is it that you propose? Peace and harmony? Their ideology sure as hell doesn't preach that. What, tell me. I'm so open to seeing this end, that I will welcome any and all suggestions. But, you have none. You just dont want to see innocent lives taking, which is a stark reality of any war. And ISIS sure as hell doesn't care about innocent lives. Tell me, what action do we take here.

We should try to negotiate a resolution to the Syrian civil war- and be willing to negotiate with Assad, though his ultimate removal from power remains a necessary goal of negotiation (this is basically happening now, and we appear to be getting closer to a resolution). This instability is the chief cause allowing ISIS to flourish in a region with several powers at odds with one another, and little stability. We should support the somewhat stable and moderate governments of Iraq and the Kurdish regions of Iraq and Syria- they've been unable to defeat ISIS but neither are they likely to collapse, and will no doubt see far greater success if the Syrian civil war is resolved. We should be willing to take in refugees as a matter of humanity.

We should not escalate the conflict and try to pick the winner of the Syrian civil war through an aerial total war campaign. This will further agitate the region, and radicalize locals. The Syrian opposition is a complicated mixture of ideologies and there is little to no hope of an indiscriminate air war sweeping just the moderates opposed to both Assad and ISIS into power.

We should not put ground forces back in the region, where they will be another agitating presence as well as a target for extremists.

Going forward, we should as a rule steer clear of military involvement in the Middle East, which has historically only produced instability and radicalism, and put a target on our backs.

 

[Malik Ambar]

Anyway, focusing on the MO of these terrorists for a second, is this sort of simultaneous firings-hostage taking-bombing the new pattern of terrorist attacks that we will be seeing in urban areas from now ? I think this causes way more damage and is much more difficult to handle than bombings.

Also, is there any word yet on how this all was planned and executed ? This really does take beforehand preparation.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world and a fifth to a quarter are sympathetic to radical Islam. I propose we kill none of them but rather allow them the space to sort out their own problems as they will with the proviso that our governments protect us from the blow back. If this means isolating us from them and halting all Muslim migration to the west it's still a far better alternative than endless war that achieves nothing but make the situation manifestly worse.

 

Yes, I agree with this 100%. This is what I meant by handling their own problems and letting them sort it out. Growing a backbone, so to say. 

 

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

We should try to negotiate a resolution to the Syrian civil war- and be willing to negotiate with Assad, though his ultimate removal from power remains a necessary goal of negotiation (this is basically happening now, and we appear to be getting closer to a resolution). This instability is the chief cause allowing ISIS to flourish in a region with several powers at odds with one another, and little stability. We should support the somewhat stable and moderate governments of Iraq and the Kurdish regions of Iraq and Syria- they've been unable to defeat ISIS but neither are they likely to collapse, and will no doubt see far greater success if the Syrian civil war is resolved. We should be willing to take in refugees as a matter of humanity.

We should not escalate the conflict and try to pick the winner of the Syrian civil war through an aerial total war campaign. This will further agitate the region, and radicalize locals. The Syrian opposition is a complicated mixture of ideologies and there is little to no hope of an indiscriminate air war sweeping just the moderates opposed to both Assad and ISIS into power.

We should not put ground forces back in the region, where they will be another agitating presence as well as a target for extremists.

Going forward, we should as a rule steer clear of military involvement in the Middle East, which has historically only produced instability and radicalism, and put a target on our backs.

 

OAR,

Thank you for your post and insight. It makes sense and is a rational way do deal with ISIS and the problem in Syria. My question, is once we have no presence in the region (which I totally agree with), what then is the answer to erasing this ideology from the world? This is what I meant by growing a backbone. Not letting this take over anymore countries where the majority of people are decent human beings. Because, regardless of what you guys might think, I love and care Muslims I know in my own life. I have no hate for them and would love to see the Middle East a stable peaceful region. But, the reality is that, that will not change until this ideology doesn't exist anymore.

[Hayyoth]

Hayyoth,

 

What data do you base this statistic upon?

You should remove yourself from the echo chamber of feelgoods and see the world for what it is not what you want it to be. There have been countless studies by reputable polling and research organizations examining the attitudes of Muslims, particularly those living in the west. The picture is uniformly depressing with ultra radical and hateful opinions being common place, more so in the younger generation who've grown up in the west than the old.
Here are some

20% of all British Muslims sympathize with the 7/7 bombers and 40$ would like Sharia law in the UK

42% of young French Muslims believe suicide bombings against the enemies of Islam are justifiable

13% of all Muslims support the Taliban and Al Qaeda, 25% refused to say,

38% of American Muslims believe Islamic State is Islamic

Half of British Muslims have a favorable opinion of Islamic State

36% of Arabs believe the 9/11 attacks were justifiable

The reason Islamic State has been able to draw in support from Muslims world wide is because there's a massive audience, numbering in the hundreds of millions, lapping up their message.

 

 

 

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

That's rich. I am wondering if you'd think it unfair of me to call out your lack of backbone, along with the rest of the US for not rising up and putting a collective stomp on say, inner city gang violence?

 

RRL,

By the grace of god we dont have gangs in my town. If we did, I would be at the forefront to put and end to it. If we had suicide bombers and jihadists in America, I would do all I could to eradicate them from the face of the earth. I would not set back and do nothing, that is for sure. And your comparison is utterly off the mark. There are gang wars, they dont strap bombs to themselves and have coordinated attacks on civilians in downtown L.A..

I was wrong and over the top in my thinking of bombing and wiping off swaths of the middle east from the face of the earth. Its was a stupid thing to say and said out of anger. I apologize. Just more needs to be done to remove this from the world. 

[The guy from the Vale]

MSJ: But what should be done? Communism didn't falter because Saint Ronnie had a speech in Berlin, it faltered because it delegitimized itself and failed to adapt to changing economic times. Similarly, I expect Salafism to hold on until its corrupt core has been made absolutely obvious. But that won't happen unless they actually are in power and fail, and even then it won't happen as long as they have a scapegoat available - and the West is doing its very best to once again be typecast into that role. Doing the wrong thing means that we might well be entrenching that ideology by being seen as oppressive, cruel, and hypocritical.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

MSJ: But what should be done? Communism didn't falter because Saint Ronnie had a speech in Berlin, it faltered because it delegitimized itself and failed to adapt to changing economic times. Similarly, I expect Salafism to hold on until its corrupt core has been made absolutely obvious. But that won't happen unless they actually are in power and fail, and even then it won't happen as long as they have a scapegoat available - and the West is doing its very best to once again be typecast into that role.

Well, ISIS isn't truly in control of anything is it? This radical ideology is rampant tthroughout the Islamic world. Hayyoth pointed to studies saying up to 50% of Muslims are cool with the IS and their ideals. Really, if they are OK with it, they should all be isolated to the Middle East and enjoy their radicalism. They can have their little Empire and the rest of the world doesn't have to be bothered by it. But, that's not really the case is it? They will try and spread Islam to the infidels with suicide bombings and who knows what else they have up their sleeve. I have zero idea what will end this nonsense, and either does anyone else. Ask a Muslim who preaches peace on Earth and find out what they think it'll take. Probably every single human submitting to the will of Allah, that'll stop it.

[Wise Fool]

Yes, I agree with this 100%. This is what I meant by handling their own problems and letting them sort it out. Growing a backbone, so to say. 

 

Sorry but "shield me from the bad evil Muslim people" is not "growing a backbone." It's the opposite.

[Fez]

Do you honestly believe those examples are comparable to the ISIS situation? 

The UN estimated in January that 220,000 people have died as a result of the Syrian civil war; and I have no doubt that's approaching 300,000 by now. On October 15, the UN estimated that there were 4.18 million refugees from the war.

That's getting close to the US civil war. Only a third (as of January) of the deaths, but many more refugees (I haven't seen an overall total, but I have seen estimates that there were 200,000 refugees who fled Virginia; and that was certainly the most active area of the war).

The pacific theater of World War II is obviously not comparable (only in terms of scale though; in terms of actions ISIL has been just as vile as the worst of Imperial Japan); but I'm not saying lets drop nukes in the middle east either. Massive conventional bombing of a few high value targets, including Raqqa, is the more proportional response.

ETA: I know ISIL is not the only reason the Syrian civil war still is ongoing, but so long as they exist there will never be a cease-fire. Whereas its possible, albeit unlikely, that Assad and the other rebels could come to a cease-fire.

[LessThanLuke2]

You should remove yourself from the echo chamber of feelgoods and see the world for what it is not what you want it to be. There have been countless studies by reputable polling and research organizations examining the attitudes of Muslims, particularly those living in the west. The picture is uniformly depressing with ultra radical and hateful opinions being common place, more so in the younger generation who've grown up in the west than the old.
Here are some

20% of all British Muslims sympathize with the 7/7 bombers and 40$ would like Sharia law in the UK

42% of young French Muslims believe suicide bombings against the enemies of Islam are justifiable

13% of all Muslims support the Taliban and Al Qaeda, 25% refused to say,

38% of American Muslims believe Islamic State is Islamic

Half of British Muslims have a favorable opinion of Islamic State

36% of Arabs believe the 9/11 attacks were justifiable

The reason Islamic State has been able to draw in support from Muslims world wide is because there's a massive audience, numbering in the hundreds of millions, lapping up their message.

 

 

 

Funny how I've never met a single British Muslim who sympathises with IS. Must have just been super lucky to have only met the good ones huh?