off topic The politics of terrorism

[...]

I wished I would have saved all of the tit-for-tat, hyperbolic responses I wrote but deleted prior to hitting the "POST" button.  Amusement for days!  It's difficult, I'm sure, for anyone when the stakes are so high.

[nfreeman]

I wished I would have saved all of the tit-for-tat, hyperbolic responses I wrote but deleted prior to hitting the "POST" button.  Amusement for days!  It's difficult, I'm sure, for anyone when the stakes are so high.

 

Indeed.  This is why I try to stay out of the politics thread.

 

And with that, I think it's time to retire from this one as well.

[Weave]

Indeed.  This is why I try to stay out of the politics thread.

 

And with that, I think it's time to retire from this one as well.

 

No need to retire.  You communicate all too well to have to lean on incivility or just bow out as the only options.

[SwampD]

I wished I would have saved all of the tit-for-tat, hyperbolic responses I wrote but deleted prior to hitting the "POST" button.  Amusement for days!  It's difficult, I'm sure, for anyone when the stakes are so high.

:lol:  I did the same thing. I'm really glad they are gone into the ether. Especially the ones written at 2 in the morning.

 

Indeed.  This is why I try to stay out of the politics thread.

 

And with that, I think it's time to retire from this one as well.

I too am sorry for offending anyone. I should have spoken in generalities when trying to make my points, not singling you out.

[Weave]

Anonymous now waging war on ISIS.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/anonymous-isis_5649610ae4b045bf3defc173

 

Make no mistake: Anonymous is at war with Daesh," the enigmatic hacker group wrote on Twitter over the weekend, using an alternative name for ISIS.

 

[Ross Rhea]

We need to help those 100's of thousands of men, women children trying to escape the violence. I'm sorry, your post is the exact type of reaction that terrorists are hoping for.  

No we don't. There are over 200 other countries in the world, let them start helping for once. I'm ok if the USA stopped helping/paying to help other countries. Enough is enough! I can't afford it anymore.

Edited November 16, 2015 by bobis

[JJFIVEOH]

No we don't. There are over 200 other countries in the world, let them start helping for once. I'm ok if the USA stopped helping/paying to help other countries. Enough is enough! I can't afford it anymore.

 

Including their own governments. 

[darksabre]

No we don't. There are over 200 other countries in the world, let them start helping for once. I'm ok if the USA stopped helping/paying to help other countries. Enough is enough! I can't afford it anymore.

If you don't want to help these people then you're in favor of the terrorism that their circumstance breeds. You want to snuff out terrorism? You have to do the work. And humanitarian aid is a much larger portion of the job than any military campaign.

[JJFIVEOH]

If you don't want to help these people then you're in favor of the terrorism that their circumstance breeds. You want to snuff out terrorism? You have to do the work. And humanitarian aid is a much larger portion of the job than any military campaign.

 

We've been doing the work, where has it gotten us? 

[darksabre]

We've been doing the work, where has it gotten us?

If you think we've been doing the work you're kidding yourself. Half measures are not sufficient. Sending our soldiers to die for nothing is not sufficient. If we're going to be involved in the ME then we need to do it whole-assed.

[JJFIVEOH]

If you think we've been doing the work you're kidding yourself. Half measures are not sufficient. Sending our soldiers to die for nothing is not sufficient. If we're going to be involved in the ME then we need to do it whole-assed.

 

It's not our government's responsibility to solve the problems of other countries. It's their responsibility to protect us. We don't have the money to keep solving problems. 

 

I agree we need to do it whole-assed,  but my 'it'  might not coincide with yours. 

[WildCard]

It's not our government's responsibility to solve the problems of other countries. It's their responsibility to protect us. We don't have the money to keep solving problems.

 

I agree we need to do it whole-assed, but my 'it' might not coincide with yours.

We spend a ton of money, domestically, on stupid ######. It's not a matter of how much money you spend here or there, but how efficiently you spend it. We spend the most on education, but our system blows. And it's cheaper to solve a problem once than to keep solving it

Edited November 16, 2015 by WildCard

[JJFIVEOH]

Serious question to those who think we need to get more involved. What do you propose we do about it? I'd like some basic details, I've heard a couple of ideas tossed around. I'd like to hear more. 

[darksabre]

It's not our government's responsibility to solve the problems of other countries. It's their responsibility to protect us. We don't have the money to keep solving problems.

 

I agree we need to do it whole-assed, but my 'it' might not coincide with yours.

The problem here is that other countries problems continue to be our problems whether we like it or not. Threats against the US require our active involvement, not passive "well let them solve their own problems" thinking. I WISH it were that simple. It just isn't.

[JJFIVEOH]

We spend a ton of money, domestically, on stupid ######. It's not a matter of how much money you spend here or there, but how efficiently you spend it. We spend the most on education, but our system blows. And it's cheaper to solve a problem once than to keep solving it

 

EXACTLY! 

Edited November 16, 2015 by JJFIVEOH

[darksabre]

Serious question to those who think we need to get more involved. What do you propose we do about it? I'd like some basic details, I've heard a couple of ideas tossed around. I'd like to hear more. 

I think there are two major things that need to happen.

 

The first is occupation and toppling of theocratic governments. 

 

The second is the teaching/reinforcement of Enlightenment principles where religion must be practiced peacefully and separately from government. Principles that we borrowed from France when we drafted our Constitution. Principles that define what the United States stands for. And principles that radical religious types are attacking us and our allies over. 

 

 

Now, this doesn't happen quickly or easily. It requires control of government funds, restructuring of national economies, establishment of democracies, building of schools, reduction of poverty, and most importantly the suppression of violent conservative religious factions. 

 

 

We're talking maybe 50 years of work here. Maybe 100. But I don't see any other way if we want to do this right. If we want the loss of American lives to mean something. 

 

 

[Iron Crotch]

Stumbled across this today.  http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

 

I have no idea how accurate it is.  I am unfamiliar with the author, and can't say I know much about the leanings of The Atlantic.  It is a chilling article expanding upon the goals of IS.  Certainly thought provoking.  I imagine our friend, SFiNS, may take issue with some of what's written in the article.

 

This is an older article and my understanding is it is pretty dead on as to what ISIS is about.  The movement is based on a literal and hard-line interpretation of the Quran.  ISIS will take responsibility for the Paris attacks, but the attacks don't really fit into the ideology of the ISIS movement.

 

Would ISIS exist had the US never invaded Iraq?  ...probably not.

[Drunkard]

Serious question to those who think we need to get more involved. What do you propose we do about it? I'd like some basic details, I've heard a couple of ideas tossed around. I'd like to hear more. 

 

Your question isn't intended for me since I think we should be less involved but I'd propose that we get the hell out and let the Arab world have their civil war and redraw their own territories. Maybe if the various sects (sunni, shia, etc.) could rule over themselves as separate nations the region could stabilize instead of them having to coexist within arbitrary lines that we drew however long ago and where one side holds power over the other due to the demographics that exist within the arbitrary lines. The middle east is a giant cluster largely because of the US and the involvement of western nations. We've tried being overly involved with Bush and less involved with Obama and the place is still a disaster. The sides are ever evolving and they end up using the arms we provide against us and our allies. We are supposed to be at war with ISIS and enemies with Iran yet those 2 groups are fighting each other.

[K-9]

This is an older article and my understanding is it is pretty dead on as to what ISIS is about.  The movement is based on a literal and hard-line interpretation of the Quran.  ISIS will take responsibility for the Paris attacks, but the attacks don't really fit into the ideology of the ISIS movement.

 

Would ISIS exist had the US never invaded Iraq?  ...probably not.

ISIS would not exist in Iraq, but it may still have organized in Syria. They took advantage of a popular movement against Assad and took control of its major oil fields in the process. Ironically Assad helps to fund his enemies in ISIS by buying from them the very same oil he no longer controls. You can't make this schit up.

[Drunkard]

I think there are two major things that need to happen.

 

The first is occupation and toppling of theocratic governments. 

 

The second is the teaching/reinforcement of Enlightenment principles where religion must be practiced peacefully and separately from government. Principles that we borrowed from France when we drafted our Constitution. Principles that define what the United States stands for. And principles that radical religious types are attacking us and our allies over. 

 

 

Now, this doesn't happen quickly or easily. It requires control of government funds, restructuring of national economies, establishment of democracies, building of schools, reduction of poverty, and most importantly the suppression of violent conservative religious factions. 

 

 

We're talking maybe 50 years of work here. Maybe 100. But I don't see any other way if we want to do this right. If we want the loss of American lives to mean something. 

 

 

 

So you want to sign the US Military up to occupy a foreign country for the next 50 to 100 years? Do you plan on signing up to fight because I sure as hell ain't going to. Or are you taking the chickenhawk approach that thinks war is ok as long as it's somebody else doing the fighting and dying?

[darksabre]

So you want to sign the US Military up to occupy a foreign country for the next 50 to 100 years? Do you plan on signing up to fight because I sure as hell ain't going to. Or are you taking the chickenhawk approach that thinks war is ok as long as it's somebody else doing the fighting and dying?

Not at all. What I'm arguing is that our involvement in most other capacities will likely not be enough. I don't want this plan. I just don't think anything else will be productive. 

[WildCard]

Not at all. What I'm arguing is that our involvement in most other capacities will likely not be enough. I don't want this plan. I just don't think anything else will be productive. 

Thank you, I couldn't think of a way to express this.

[Weave]

I'm of the opinion that it won't matter what we do until the Islamic world has their Reformation.  Hard line Christianity was pretty violent about how it did things until the Reformation.  Could our involvement with troops on the ground and rebuilding of communities speed along their Reformation?  I dunno.  Maybe.  Seems like a Saddam Hussein type dictator is just as likely to give the world what it needs in that region, a strong leader with his thumb on the people.

[K-9]

Your question isn't intended for me since I think we should be less involved but I'd propose that we get the hell out and let the Arab world have their civil war and redraw their own territories. Maybe if the various sects (sunni, shia, etc.) could rule over themselves as separate nations the region could stabilize instead of them having to coexist within arbitrary lines that we drew however long ago and where one side holds power over the other due to the demographics that exist within the arbitrary lines. The middle east is a giant cluster###### largely because of the US and the involvement of western nations. We've tried being overly involved with Bush and less involved with Obama and the place is still a disaster. The sides are ever evolving and they end up using the arms we provide against us and our allies. We are supposed to be at war with ISIS and enemies with Iran yet those 2 groups are fighting each other.

Those lines may appear arbitrarily drawn, but they weren't. It was a result of a compromise for oil comcessions among a host of big oil companies and other financial interests from around the world, chief among them Standard of New Jersey (EXXON), BP, and Royal Dutch/Shell. A red line was literally drawn from the northern Turkish border South to the Arabian Sea, west to the Red Sea, and east to the Persian Gulf.

[WildCard]

So, France is angry. Vows to destroy ISIS, meets with UN security council, meeting with Obama and Putin, and has sweeping legislative changes in France to deal with modern terrorist threats

http://www.politico.eu/article/attack-on-paris-francois-hollande-calls-for-un-security-council-meeting/

Edited November 16, 2015 by WildCard