off topic The politics of terrorism

[darksabre]

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.

I'm not even sure we need to carry it to the extreme of Reformation, since there are so many who should already be classified as reformed. Islam is not in quite so bad of a shape as to require wholesale reformation. But I do think that those who are reformed should be empowered and aided in overcoming the radical, tribal, and unreformed. This should be the goal of any action the United States takes in the ME. It's our moral obligation to protect the freedom of peaceful Muslims should we endeavor to extend our reach beyond our borders. 

[Weave]

I'm not even sure we need to carry it to the extreme of Reformation, since there are so many who should already be classified as reformed. Islam is not in quite so bad of a shape as to require wholesale reformation. But I do think that those who are reformed should be empowered and aided in overcoming the radical, tribal, and unreformed. This should be the goal of any action the United States takes in the ME. It's our moral obligation to protect the freedom of peaceful Muslims should we endeavor to extend our reach beyond our borders. 

 

I don't think a moderate will be safe in power until the hard liners are shamed to the underground and all but made irrelevant, ie. reformation.

[darksabre]

I don't think a moderate will be safe in power until the hard liners are shamed to the underground and all but made irrelevant, ie. reformation.

Maybe we're just arguing semantics, but "reformation" comes across as a little too all-encompassing with respect to Islam. I'm just trying to be careful not to lump all of Islam into the "Reformation" pile. I think we agree though. 

 

I want a better world for the people who practice Islam peacefully. Just like the people who practice any other religion peacefully. And I'm an atheist. 

[JJFIVEOH]

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. 

 

 

 

To me, this is a highly impractical solution.

 

To your first, while it may seem like a good idea to us, to liberate nations, it's really not for us to liberate. What may seem like liberation to us, is hegemonic to others.

 

To your second, instilling the concept of Enlightenment is exactly what Islamists are trying to do to everybody else. By trying to instill an ideology, we're just as bad as they are. Teaching/enforcing Enlightenment either through Christianity, or attaching it to Islam is only going to create more problems. As a few have asked, "Would ISIS exist if we hadn't stuck our nose in the Middle East where it doesn't belong?" Most would agree ISIS wouldn't exist. What makes anybody think getting in deeper into their society is going to make it any better? This is how dictatorships begin, we may not see it that way because to us there is a more plausible end game............then again dictators didn't see themselves as bad either.

 

The Middle East has a population of between 180,000,000-240,000,000 depending on how you define 'Middle East'. In the US, as much as our infrastructure is failing, we still have the framework to further education, utilities, industry, etc..... Yet even with the framework in place we still can't make it work right. If we try to restructure the Middle East, we're going to have to start with the framework before we even get to the point of liberating these nations. On a smaller scale, we are already doing this and it's not working. If we were to take this to a large scale operation it would take trillions of dollars. We don't have it, it's that simple. We're borrowing money from China at an unsustainable rate, we would have to borrow even more to accomplish this and we're not getting any large scale cooperation from our allies to even think they would put a dent in this "restructuring". China can cut off our credit any time they feel like it, and they couldn't care less what happens to the Middle East. If they see that their money is going to rebuild other nations, they'll cut us off and our economy will collapse.

 

Americans are pissed now as it is that we're slowly dropping in the ranks of the world's most prosperous countries. There is no way any administration will get the support to spend OUR money rebuilding nations as we continue to drop. Much less do it for 50-100 year at the expense of trillions of tax payers money. Even if an administration does get support, every time power changes hands from one party to the other, they will try to undermine any rebuilding.

 

I asked for opinions and you answered, I appreciate your views. I just can't get behind them; it's unrealistic.

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.

 

I couldn't agree more. Little progress has been made, at some point you just have to pack up and say 'we did what we could, it's your turn to figure it out if you want to rid yourselves of these radicals that are ruining it for everybody'.

[darksabre]

To me, this is a highly impractical solution.

 

To your first, while it may seem like a good idea to us, to liberate nations, it's really not for us to liberate. What may seem like liberation to us, is hegemonic to others.

 

To your second, instilling the concept of Enlightenment is exactly what Islamists are trying to do to everybody else. By trying to instill an ideology, we're just as bad as they are. Teaching/enforcing Enlightenment either through Christianity, or attaching it to Islam is only going to create more problems. As a few have asked, "Would ISIS exist if we hadn't stuck our nose in the Middle East where it doesn't belong?" Most would agree ISIS wouldn't exist. What makes anybody think getting in deeper into their society is going to make it any better? This is how dictatorships begin, we may not see it that way because to us there is a more plausible end game............then again dictators didn't see themselves as bad either.

 

The Middle East has a population of between 180,000,000-240,000,000 depending on how you define 'Middle East'. In the US, as much as our infrastructure is failing, we still have the framework to further education, utilities, industry, etc..... Yet even with the framework in place we still can't make it work right. If we try to restructure the Middle East, we're going to have to start with the framework before we even get to the point of liberating these nations. On a smaller scale, we are already doing this and it's not working. If we were to take this to a large scale operation it would take trillions of dollars. We don't have it, it's that simple. We're borrowing money from China at an unsustainable rate, we would have to borrow even more to accomplish this and we're not getting any large scale cooperation from our allies to even think they would put a dent in this "restructuring". China can cut off our credit any time they feel like it, and they couldn't care less what happens to the Middle East. If they see that their money is going to rebuild other nations, they'll cut us off and our economy will collapse.

 

Americans are pissed now as it is that we're slowly dropping in the ranks of the world's most prosperous countries. There is no way any administration will get the support to spend OUR money rebuilding nations as we continue to drop. Much less do it for 50-100 year at the expense of trillions of tax payers money. Even if an administration does get support, every time power changes hands from one party to the other, they will try to undermine any rebuilding.

 

I asked for opinions and you answered, I appreciate your views. I just can't get behind them; it's unrealistic.

I readily accept that it's unrealistic. I just also believe it's the only way military intervention is worth doing. Which is why I generally oppose American military involvement. I only want to be there if we're going to do it right.

[JJFIVEOH]

I readily accept that it's unrealistic. I just also believe it's the only way military intervention is worth doing. Which is why I generally oppose American military involvement. I only want to be there if we're going to do it right.

 

I think we can both agree on that one. You mentioned it earlier, they've been doing it half-assed for over a decade and it's done nothing but cost us money.

 

I want to go back to the days where our military was here for our protection, and our protection only. Observe from afar, engage when needed.

[LastPommerFan]

I think step one is for the western world to unequivocally admit that secular liberalism is superior to theocracy in all ways and is an ideal worth defending. That Bill Maher is an ass-hole, but he is at least in part correct about what theocracy is: a tool for the few to control the many. Liberalism (capitalized here only because it starts the sentence) is the idea that all the tools that are used by the few to control the many are bad. Islam is not inherently bad. Theocracy is inherently bad. Militarized religion is a scourge upon our humanity. It has been for 1000 years. 

 

Then we need to take a hard look at the key underlying conditions that drive a population to secular democracy, and decide if we can promote those conditions, whether through the sword or the plowshare. 

 

I believe the above to be an absolute truth. I worry that we are incapable, in our current state, of accepting and announcing the inherent evil of theocracy. I worry that the Left, in it's worship of pluralism, will strive to allow theocracy as a potentially acceptable government to be "tolerated". I worry that the right, in it's pursuit of the Christian Ideal undermines the fight against theocracy by deploying legislation that can only be justified by religious rule. 

 

But more than that, I worry that the middle, with their jobs and families and mortgages and health struggles, will find it easier to occasionally deal with the grief of these violent losses of life than to take a stand against both and actually change the world.

[Hoss]

My foolish thoughts not directed at any one poster or line of conversation here. More a reaction from the today.

 

 

 

There's no one clear way to cope with mass death. Nobody has a hang of this. What happened in Paris and Beirut is scary as hell and so many innocent lives were taken sudden without any legitimate reason aside from terror and destruction.

 

I don't know that there's a right way to cope. Changing your profile picture is absolutely fine. I'm happy to see so many of my friends did, because it's a sign of solidarity despite its simplicity in nature. Those criticizing it are claiming it's a mindless self indulgence, but who are they to say how somebody can or can't quietly cope and support?

 

Unfortunately, though, I'm fairly certain there's an incorrect way to cope. Calling for the deportation and rejection of 1.6 billion people simply because you're afraid of a few bad apples (significantly less than one percent of the Muslim population identifies with murderous extremist groups) is baseless. They are not the enemy. They may be different than what you're used to, but they're humans. Many of them (specifically the Syrian refugees) are attempting to escape from imminent death. Are we that far from compassion that we can't reach out to our fellow human and tell them we're here to help? I know you're worried about your precious tax dollars, but these are human lives we're talking about.

 

I held my newborn nephew in my arms and thought of how I hope he is never put into a life or death situation where his best lifeline turns its back on him out of fear, hate and prejudice.

 

Nobody knows what they're doing right now. A close ally was just attacked. An unfamiliar land was violated and other unfamiliar lands are constantly under attack by terrorists moonlighting as followers of the Islamic faith. They are not representative of the faith and those spreading Islamophobia are (hopefully) not representative of us.

[MattPie]

Catching up...
 

The Marshall Plan won't work because we don't have the military leadership ( MacArthur type) to stand up and speak their minds and let the American people decide. If Petraeus (or similar rank/position) where to act and say as MacArthur did when occupying Japan what could be right now?
 
The nuclear bombs never came close to extinguishing the evil that filled the minds of the civilian population, it it only made it worse. They gave a chance to implement the plan with main land Japan's surrender. The whole of the Japanese Army never fully surrendered to the 1970's. The chances for success that is today's Japan where slim to obtain in the ME. Not because politics are different here in America, but our military leadership is different. It appears as though are military academies do not teach post war tactics, or the end strategy.

 
Is it worth discussing that the population of Japan and Germany (at least as a stereotype) loves order and hierarchy? I'm not sure the Marshall Plan would work even in the same starting conditions if in the ME. I'm not even sure the Marshall Plan would work in the USA given our pretty hard-core "you can't tell me what to do" streak.
 

Kinda like mass shooters and blaming guns.............

 
Not really, the parallel would be blaming all Americans for mass-shootings in the US (I'm presuming at least some of those guys identified as Christian, so you could go there too). Or blaming all South Carolinians for that kid that shot up the church, or blaming all of WNY for Timothy McVeigh.
 

I know no one who's blamed all, or blamed most, Muslims for radical Islam. No one. Zero. Zip. Nada.

I know many who won't recognize radical Islam for fear of being associated with blame no one assigns. It's cowardly and anti-thought.

Before you link me to toothless Bill in Utah with some racist Twitter rant, let me say serious or meaningful person. Someone's said everything, somewhere.

Radical Islam exists. It's significant. It changes our lives. It won't be ignored.

First line: it may not be explicitly in this thread, but nfreeman has come pretty close in the past. I don't have the post quoted, but upthread he said something like, "you know my stance on this" referring to it.
 

Who, exactly, is walking into a concert filled with young people and mowing them down with assault rifles?  Who is blowing up planes of vacationers?  Who is chopping the arms off of children because they were innoculated by Western doctors?  Who is beheading reporters and posting photos online of children holding up the heads?  Who is locking people in cages and then burning them alive?

If we change "concert" to "movie theatres and schools" does it make you pause? You've essentially done the equivalent of someone in (for example) Germany claiming all Americans are to blame and are blood-thirsty lunatics for the few people have shot up public places here.
 

I thought the airforce was in the process of decommissioning the A-10?

The Air Force is trying to because to funnel more money into the F-35. There is some push-back at the political level with Congress passing budgets that prohibit funding A-10 retirement. I'm not sure how that came to be, although it could be Air Force people that don't agree with the official stance whispering to their representatives. The Air Force doesn't like single-role systems, they'd much rather have flexible systems that do an OK job on a lot of roles rather than single-role systems that do a great job. There's logic there, but I'm not sure I entirely buy it.
 

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.

 
The Quran (in my very rudimentary reading) prohibits the taking of, at the very least, innocent Muslim lives (and is often interpreted as all innocent lives), so apparently not that literal. I think they're making the argument (if there's actually any logic in it) that if you're not ISIS, you're not innocent and therefore fair game. Whack jobs.

[JJFIVEOH]

 

Not really, the parallel would be blaming all Americans for mass-shootings in the US (I'm presuming at least some of those guys identified as Christian, so you could go there too). Or blaming all South Carolinians for that kid that shot up the church, or blaming all of WNY for Timothy McVeigh.

 

 

I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of some who think it's not fair to lump all Muslims as radicals just because of a tiny percentage all while vilifying gun owners because of the tiny percentage of mass shootings. Sorry, I wasn't purposely vague.

 

It wasn't directed at anybody in particular, but it's a common theme throughout much of the media.

[Hank]

X - Spot on with your comments regarding Afghanistan. We will never make a significant impact over there due to the reasons you stated.

 

Taro - 100% correct with your comments regarding Iraq. From 08-12 we had a significant positive impact in that country. We were making progress, and contrary to popular belief much of the populace wanted us there. We needed more time.

[LGR4GM]

I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of some who think it's not fair to lump all Muslims as radicals just because of a tiny percentage all while vilifying gun owners because of the tiny percentage of mass shootings. Sorry, I wasn't purposely vague.

 

It wasn't directed at anybody in particular, but it's a common theme throughout much of the media.

It isn't vilifying gun owners, it is vilifying the pervasive influx of guns into American society with 0 checks on who has access.

 

But back to the topic at hand.  Refusing to accept Syrian refugees is simply how a scared child would handle the situation.  Is it worth saving 1million Syrian lives if 100 born in Merica, Mericans might be killed in a random act of terror?  Well if you believe in what America stands for than yes.  We can't be safe all the time from everything. Bad things are going to happen. We should try to stop them the best we can but we can't lose our humanity every single time it happens.  That's difference between a child who can't cope with reality and a leader who can.

Edited November 17, 2015 by LGR4GM

[darksabre]

It isn't vilifying gun owners, it is vilifying the pervasive influx of guns into American society with 0 checks on who has access.

 

But back to the topic at hand.  Refusing to accept Syrian refugees is simply how a scared child would handle the situation.  Is it worth saving 1million Syrian lives if 100 born in Merica, Mericans might be killed in a random act of terror?  Well if you believe in what America stands for than yes.  We can't be safe all the time from everything. Bad things are going to happen. We should try to stop them the best we can but we can't lose our humanity every single time it happens.  That's difference between a child who can't cope with reality and a leader who can.

I can't in good faith refuse people in need. Even with all of my debt, my financial worries, my shoe-string food budget, I am still ready to give the shirt off of my back to people who have it worse than me. And these people have it so much worse. They have it worse in a way we can't even possibly understand. 

 

I welcome them with open arms as well as an extremely thorough background check and vetting process. 

[wjag]

I have to say I am impressed how fast Western Intelligence and media is unwinding this attack.

[nfreeman]

Catching up...

 

 

First line: it may not be explicitly in this thread, but nfreeman has come pretty close in the past. I don't have the post quoted, but upthread he said something like, "you know my stance on this" referring to it.

 

If we change "concert" to "movie theatres and schools" does it make you pause? You've essentially done the equivalent of someone in (for example) Germany claiming all Americans are to blame and are blood-thirsty lunatics for the few people have shot up public places here.

 

 

 

 

So you're going to accuse me of bigotry but not bother to read what I actually said?

 

I suppose that type of rigorous analysis helps explain your moral equivalence view on these matters.

[Claude_Verret]

It isn't vilifying gun owners, it is vilifying the pervasive influx of guns into American society with 0 checks on who has access.

 

But back to the topic at hand.  Refusing to accept Syrian refugees is simply how a scared child would handle the situation.  Is it worth saving 1million Syrian lives if 100 born in Merica, Mericans might be killed in a random act of terror?  Well if you believe in what America stands for than yes.  We can't be safe all the time from everything. Bad things are going to happen. We should try to stop them the best we can but we can't lose our humanity every single time it happens.  That's difference between a child who can't cope with reality and a leader who can.

 

Ok.  What are your thoughts on collateral damage to innocent civilians in the process of taking out ISIS scum?

[Hank]

It isn't vilifying gun owners, it is vilifying the pervasive influx of guns into American society with 0 checks on who has access.

 

  Is it worth saving 1million Syrian lives if 100 born in Merica, Mericans might be killed in a random act of terror?  Well if you believe in what America stands for than yes. 

Is it worth your life? Would you eat a bullet? How about your mother? Would you sacrifice her? How about your child?

[LGR4GM]

Ok.  What are your thoughts on collateral damage to innocent civilians in the process of taking out ISIS scum?

I think that collateral damage should be avoided at all costs because he leads to more terrorists and hatred for the west.

 

Is it worth your life? Would you eat a bullet? How about your mother? Would you sacrifice her? How about your child?

I don't think a bullet would taste good.  Yes, it is worth my life to save 1 million more.  Who am I to condemn the lives of innocent people because of my own fear. It's worth me driving my car every day and living my life even though I could die in a car accident or get shot but a nutjob with a gun.  I am not going to let fear destroy my humanity.

[Claude_Verret]

I think that collateral damage should be avoided at all costs because he leads to more terrorists and hatred for the west.

 

 

 

So does at all costs mean zero tolerance of civilian casualties or is there some level that is acceptable like in your example with innocent American lives?

[LGR4GM]

So does at all costs mean zero tolerance of civilian casualties or is there some level that is acceptable like in your example with innocent American lives?

Oh come on. Now you are bastardizing my original point. My point was about Syrian refugees and the minimal likelihood we would be importing terrorists to the US by allowing some of them in.  Now you are talking about direct military intervention. They are not the same thing.

How about this.  If we don't help these people, won't there be more terrorists and more civilian casualties? 

[Thwomp!]

So does at all costs mean zero tolerance of civilian casualties or is there some level that is acceptable like in your example with innocent American lives?

 

Civilian casualties should be minimized no matter where they reside.  Civilian deaths are the fuel for the fire in this perpetual war we're in.  Cross-posted from "Politics":

 

 

Look at even conservative estimates of how many civilians have been killed in the ME by predominantly US bombings and drone strikes.  Civilians are already considered "collateral damage" in the ME.  How many Syrian or Iraqi civilians are worth a single civilian killed by terrorists?

 

1) This is part of the perpetual cycle we're stuck in.  Terrorists attack. Revenge is taken (short term and long term). Civilians are killed which fuels the radicalization and creation of more terrorists. Terrorists attack.  Both sides consider themselves justified and all it does is create more and more violence.  Many people have said it on here, but bombs and drones are not going to solve the problem, but that's how it's dealt with anyway.

 

2) The number of civilians in "the West" killed by terrorists is dwarfed by the number of civilians that have been killed in the ME so the answer to the bolded is never. 

 

3) Even if somehow ISIS is destroyed, a new group will rise up to take their place over time. Which has happened several times already in the ME.  We're always fighting some group over there. (Perpetual warfare! Yeah!)  because the radicalization problem is never addressed.  We literally cannot kill them all, but while we try, more and more radicalization occurs.

 

4) I should have kept my mouth shut, but I didn't....

 

[wjag]

I've been thinking about this. Do you think the Syrian passport was a deliberate false flag to destabilize the refugee flow? These guys didn't leave much of a trace apparently. Keeping a passport seems way too operationally risky.

[Hank]

I think that collateral damage should be avoided at all costs because he leads to more terrorists and hatred for the west.

 

 

I don't think a bullet would taste good.  Yes, it is worth my life to save 1 million more.  Who am I to condemn the lives of innocent people because of my own fear. It's worth me driving my car every day and living my life even though I could die in a car accident or get shot but a nutjob with a gun.  I am not going to let fear destroy my humanity.

Mighty noble of you to offer up your family as sacrificial lambs to save the Syrians, easy to do when its hypothetical.

[LGR4GM]

Mighty noble of you to offer up your family as sacrificial lambs to save the Syrians, easy to do when its hypothetical.

A little condescending don't you think?  If you would like to make your point Hank then stop beating around the bush and do it.

[MattPie]

So you're going to accuse me of bigotry but not bother to read what I actually said?

 

I suppose that type of rigorous analysis helps explain your moral equivalence view on these matters.

This is an inherently political thread. It's about an act of mass murder carried out by bloodthirsty Muslim lunatics to achieve political ends.

 

SFiNS, it gives me no pleasure to say it, but the pathologies besetting world Islam run far deeper than "a few nutbars."

 

As I've said many times, there is a war going on. Europe is literally being overrun. It has stuck its head in the sand for a generation and is paying the price now -- and it's going to get much worse there before it gets better, if it ever does. And I hope no one here thinks we are immune. They are going to try to attack here too, and they aren't going to stop until they are stopped by force.

 

Fine, I found the post in this thread. I wish I had the gumption to find the one from months ago in the Political thread. I'm calling a spade a spade. Here's a straight question do you believe the actions of jihadists in Paris and other places are indicative of Islam in general?

 

Unrelated:

I learned today that since the US has started attacking ISIS, they've launched over 6000 air strikes against ISIS targets. That's more than anyone other country by something like 4 times.