off topic The politics of terrorism

[Doohicksie]

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.

 

If you got 'em use 'em.... right?

[LastPommerFan]

Turning the Refugees back, or leaving them for Turkey (Full NATO member) to deal with alone, is a huge mistake with massively negative ramifications. These people are our hope. These are the people who chose, at risk of death and the cost of everything they couldn't carry on their backs to NOT join Daesh. These are our friends.

[Doohicksie]

I am not going to let fear destroy my humanity.

 

:worthy:

[Claude_Verret]

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":

 

 

Yes they should be minimized, however if you aren't willing to accept civilian deaths, collateral damage etc. on some level, as it appears that this administration is not, then I'd submit that you aren't really fighting a war anyway.    

[Hank]

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.

I thought I did, but I'll be more blunt. It's easy to sacrifice Mericans for the greater good when they are random and hypothetical. It's not so easy when those Americans are YOUR Americans. Your full of sh!t, and sometimes you post just to see yourself post.

Turning the Refugees back, or leaving them for Turkey (Full NATO member) to deal with alone, is a huge mistake with massively negative ramifications. These people are our hope. These are the people who chose, at risk of death and the cost of everything they couldn't carry on their backs to NOT join Daesh. These are our friends.

Good post.

[Thwomp!]

Yes they should be minimized, however if you aren't willing to accept civilian deaths, collateral damage etc. on some level, as it appears that this administration is not, then I'd submit that you aren't really fighting a war anyway.    

I'll have to disagree with you there.  Plenty of civilians are being killed and it's fuel for the fire on both sides.  I just want the cycle we're stuck in to be broken.

 

Obama walks a tightrope.  He is hawkish on bombing and drones (civilian deaths), but can't outwardly appear that way to appease his base.  Since he doesn't outwardly appear that way, the right attacks him too.

[X. Benedict]

A few thoughts:

 

Referring to these terrorists as masterminds is a little wacky. All it really took was munitions and ill intent. 

I'm not going to call the kids who attacked the Columbine school masterminds either.

 

 

There was nothing relatively clever or innovated about  these things other than it is possible to do,

and they showed a rudimentary synchronization. 

It is not sophisticated. 

 

Terrorists really have little ability to project power over time. 

ISIS as a movement is weak. But they have the capability to do things like this. 

 

France is set to vote next month. Enter Marine Le Pen of the National Front.   :(

 

I spent the morning consoling a French friend. 

Her family is well. Her sister was walking the Champs Elysee when it happened - safe but rattled. 

I had the profound sense from her that it is hard to be here (in the US), when your heart is there. 

They will close the borders even if it means pulling out of the EU she thinks. 

When the French say enough, it happens all at once, she said. You'll see, she said with some sadness. You'll see. 

[Claude_Verret]

Turning the Refugees back, or leaving them for Turkey (Full NATO member) to deal with alone, is a huge mistake with massively negative ramifications. These people are our hope. These are the people who chose, at risk of death and the cost of everything they couldn't carry on their backs to NOT join Daesh. These are our friends.

 

 

I largely agree even if I'm not convinced at all that we have the ability to properly vet these refugees.  Why would ISIS need to bother with smuggling in terrorists disguised as refugees when it's much easier to just walk across our southern border.

[LastPommerFan]

I largely agree even if I'm not convinced at all that we have the ability to properly vet these refugees.  Why would ISIS need to bother with smuggling in terrorists disguised as refugees when it's much easier to just walk across our southern border.

 

Even easier just to land at JFK with a Turkish passport.

[Claude_Verret]

Even easier just to land at JFK with a Turkish passport.

 

Easier but somewhat riskier from the ISIS perspective.  Either way they're already here.

[LGR4GM]

 

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.

 

Turning the Refugees back, or leaving them for Turkey (Full NATO member) to deal with alone, is a huge mistake with massively negative ramifications. These people are our hope. These are the people who chose, at risk of death and the cost of everything they couldn't carry on their backs to NOT join Daesh. These are our friends.

 

I thought I did, but I'll be more blunt. It's easy to sacrifice Mericans for the greater good when they are random and hypothetical. It's not so easy when those Americans are YOUR Americans. Your full of sh!t, and sometimes you post just to see yourself post.

 

Good post.

My point originally was that we should not deny Syrian refugees, refuge in America because we are fearful of that .1% who might manage a terror attack on US soil. That statistically unlikely event might kill 100 people but in reality we would be saving many more people by helping.  You seem to agree with that principle judging from the fact you liked a similar post mere seconds after telling me how full of s#!t I was. That post says we should help these refugees.

 

I was then asked an honest question about what if I was one of those 100 people that might die in a, again statistically unlikely, terror attack. I responded that I accepted that risk for myself and my loved ones.  I would guess you know someone or maybe multiple people who have been killed in a terror attack or fighting in the ME.  I can't imagine that. 

 

I will say though that I can't dismiss the millions of innocent people who are trying to escape ISIS.  We should vet them the best we can and then accept we could miss 1 person who is one of these crazy asshats.  Even then we have a good chance of catching them once they are in the US because we have a very thorough domestic surveillance system. 

 

My point was one of acceptable risks. I understand those will not be the same for everyone.

[Hank]

My point originally was that we should not deny Syrian refugees, refuge in America because we are fearful of that .1% who might manage a terror attack on US soil. That statistically unlikely event might kill 100 people but in reality we would be saving many more people by helping.  You seem to agree with that principle judging from the fact you liked a similar post mere seconds after telling me how full of s#!t I was. That post says we should help these refugees.

 

I was then asked an honest question about what if I was one of those 100 people that might die in a, again statistically unlikely, terror attack. I responded that I accepted that risk for myself and my loved ones.  I would guess you know someone or maybe multiple people who have been killed in a terror attack or fighting in the ME.  I can't imagine that. 

 

I will say though that I can't dismiss the millions of innocent people who are trying to escape ISIS.  We should vet them the best we can and then accept we could miss 1 person who is one of these crazy asshats.  Even then we have a good chance of catching them once they are in the US because we have a very thorough domestic surveillance system. 

 

My point was one of acceptable risks. I understand those will not be the same for everyone.

Very well stated. I appreciate you taking the high road, sometimes I can be an ass. No, I'm not against helping refugees.

[nfreeman]

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?

 

 

Do you think that this:

 

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

 

 

i.e. stating that there are pathologies besetting world Islam that are deeper than the existence of a few nutbars?

 

is the same as this:

 

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

 

 

i.e. blaming all or most Muslims for radical Islam?

 

And what does "gumption" have to do with not bothering to look up what I said in the politics thread?

[MattPie]

Do you think that this:

 

 

i.e. stating that there are pathologies besetting world Islam that are deeper than the existence of a few nutbars?

 

is the same as this:

 

 

i.e. blaming all or most Muslims for radical Islam?

 

And what does "gumption" have to do with not bothering to look up what I said in the politics thread?

 

You win, I'm not going to go through 100s of posts to find what I believe read. As I don't have any evidence, I retract my post. Feel free to delete any and all posts on this subject from me.

[LGR4GM]

Very well stated. I appreciate you taking the high road, sometimes I can be an ass. No, I'm not against helping refugees.

I honestly don't think you are.  I also honestly wrote a couple other responses that were shrouded in anger.  This is a tough decision and place all of us Americans are placed in. 

[JJFIVEOH]

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.

 

What I said may not be on topic but it certainly is a valid point in the way people think. 'Bad things are going to happen' but we can't stop doing them out of being scared. Funny how that logic isn't used in support of gun rights and mass shootings (we can't be safe all the time from everything)  for those who ARE American citizens. Sad that refugees and immigrants get more support than Americans. 

 

Our leader is supposed to protect us. We haven't had a real leader since 9/11. Bringing in refugees is not about who we are. No, it's not worth the risk of losing American lives when we know there is a legitimate threat from the outside. 

But, that's just my opinion. 

Edited November 17, 2015 by JJFIVEOH

[Doohicksie]

do you believe the actions of jihadists in Paris and other places are indicative of Islam in general?

 

Frame this as something people might be more familiar with:  is it fair to refer to "Christianity in general"?  Catholics and Baptists agree on some things, sure, but they bitterly disagree on others.  Now drag in Eastern Rite and Coptic Christians, LDS etc., and then include Christian apocalyptic cults.  From the standpoint of each of those individual churches, they feel they themselves represent Christianity in general (are the "true faith"), and those churches that disagree on certain issues aren't Christian at all.  So when you say "in general" you have recognize that in general defined based on the sect a person belongs to.  Each group fervently believes they represent the faith accurately, even the apocalyptic cults.

 

So it is with Islam- there are major divisions (Sunni, Shia, Wahabi or whatever) that are long established.  Then there is ISIS, which is a reconstructionist cult that seeks to emulate the version of Islam practiced in its earliest days, when it fought for its very survival.  While other sects decry their tactics, they look to their prophet and founder for their example.  Is that Islam "in general"?  Most people would say no, but some tens of thousands would disagree and in fact insist that they are the only ones doing Islam the right way.  They might even agree that their methods are harsh, but would counter that it is not man's place to question Allah.

 

They are akin to a Christian cult that would literally stone disrespectful children or adulterers because some OT passage tells them to.

Easier but somewhat riskier from the ISIS perspective.  Either way they're already here.

 

You may remember the Lackawanna Six, an Al Qaeda sleeper cell in WNY.  They and their parents were born here.  Some level of radicalization can be done remotely to disaffected members of the population.  I think even the family of the Belgian brothers involved with the Paris attacks were surprised their boys were part of it.  You don't need to dress them up as refugees.

I think the US should support their defeat, but I hope another country/entity (France, maybe the UN) actually leads the whole thing.  I'm just not sure what the right way to defeat them is.

Edited November 17, 2015 by The Big Johnson

[Weave]

 

I think the US should support their defeat, but I hope another country/entity (France, maybe the UN) actually leads the whole thing.  I'm just not sure what the right way to defeat them is.

 

Right now the Kurds and Iraqi forces teamed up with iranians (with air support from us) seem to be working well in Iraqi territory.  ISIS has given up something like 25% of the land it occupied earlier to Kurds and Iraqi forces.  The bigger problem seems to be in Syria where organised forces opposing ISIS are not as well coordinated and equipped.

[darksabre]

Would anyone be willing to entertain a parallel to be drawn between theories on how young men take to crime in the United States and how young Muslim men seem to be attracted to radical Islamist groups? 

I would posit that these two things happen for many of the same reasons. Frustration with expectations about life, frustration with economic situations, frustration with relationships, and general immaturity of rationality. 

We know there is a lot of evidence that favors an "aging-out" theory of criminality for young men in America (and other western nations); that by their mid to late 20s many of them are no longer as likely to commit crimes because they've simply outgrown it for a number of reasons. I would posit that this is also true for many of the young men attracted to groups like ISIS. 

 

I think there is a lot of conflict in most young men. I think those pressures, coupled with the pressures of faith, and then mixed with the "temptation" of western life, causes a lot of inner conflict. I don't doubt there is a way to explain why many well to do young men are suddenly joining up with what is essentially a religious gang. 
 

I refuse to think of these young men as pure evil. They might be sick, but I don't think they're evil. I think the ideas that they fall prey to are evil.

[Doohicksie]

I agree with much of what you wrote.... until the end.  At some point they cross a threshold and go from perhaps self-centered/uncaring/unsympathetic to evil through their actions.  The Paris attackers?  Evil.  Beheading another human being?  Evil.  Not sick, evil.

[Weave]

Would anyone be willing to entertain a parallel to be drawn between theories on how young men take to crime in the United States and how young Muslim men seem to be attracted to radical Islamist groups? 

 

I would posit that these two things happen for many of the same reasons. Frustration with expectations about life, frustration with economic situations, frustration with relationships, and general immaturity of rationality. 

 

We know there is a lot of evidence that favors an "aging-out" theory of criminality for young men in America (and other western nations); that by their mid to late 20s many of them are no longer as likely to commit crimes because they've simply outgrown it for a number of reasons. I would posit that this is also true for many of the young men attracted to groups like ISIS. 

 

I think there is a lot of conflict in most young men. I think those pressures, coupled with the pressures of faith, and then mixed with the "temptation" of western life, causes a lot of inner conflict. I don't doubt there is a way to explain why many well to do young men are suddenly joining up with what is essentially a religious gang. 

 

I refuse to think of these young men as pure evil. They might be sick, but I don't think they're evil. I think the ideas that they fall prey to are evil.

 

The Atlantic article I posted a couple days ago had interviews with jailed ISIS members.  The interesting thing was the common theme among those interviewed.  They joined ISIS because they wanted the fighting around them to end.  The aftermath of our invasion of Iraq was that young men were willing to sign up with ISIS to get a sense of stability back.  Not quite what I would call similar to the young criminals of our inner cities, but not altogether different either.

[MattPie]

Would anyone be willing to entertain a parallel to be drawn between theories on how young men take to crime in the United States and how young Muslim men seem to be attracted to radical Islamist groups?

I think you're on to something and have thought similarly in the past. Their level of destitution is so much higher than anything we see in the US; if you take someone looking at scratching out a living for the next 40-60 years hoping they don't end up dying in some bombing attack in the local market and you give them an option to control their own destiny it would be very attractive.

[darksabre]

I agree with much of what you wrote.... until the end.  At some point they cross a threshold and go from perhaps self-centered/uncaring/unsympathetic to evil through their actions.  The Paris attackers?  Evil.  Beheading another human being?  Evil.  Not sick, evil.

It's all a result of ideas though. Ideas are so powerful. We should certainly condemn men for the evil ideas they act upon. I just think it's essential to dissect this relationship between these young men and the ideas they're buying into. We have to do this to understand that if we want to fight wars they'll be wars on ideas, not just men. 

The Atlantic article I posted a couple days ago had interviews with jailed ISIS members.  The interesting thing was the common theme among those interviewed.  They joined ISIS because they wanted the fighting around them to end.  The aftermath of our invasion of Iraq was that young men were willing to sign up with ISIS to get a sense of stability back.  Not quite what I would call similar to the young criminals of our inner cities, but not altogether different either.

 

There is certainly a different order of magnitude involved. But I think the underlying theme is relatively similar. 

I think you're on to something and have thought similarly in the past. Their level of destitution is so much higher than anything we see in the US; if you take someone looking at scratching out a living for the next 40-60 years hoping they don't end up dying in some bombing attack in the local market and you give them an option to control their own destiny it would be very attractive.

 

All of our Enlightenment criminology theories crashing together. 

[Doohicksie]

It's all a result of ideas though. Ideas are so powerful. We should certainly condemn men for the evil ideas they act upon. I just think it's essential to dissect this relationship between these young men and the ideas they're buying into. We have to do this to understand that if we want to fight wars they'll be wars on ideas, not just men.

 

Sorry, I slept through philosophy class.  Still working to parse out what you said.  :huh:

[darksabre]

Sorry, I slept through philosophy class.  Still working to parse out what you said.  :huh:

Can I get you a welding torch instead?  :P

I'm not going to argue that some of these guys aren't totally f*cked in the head. That would be naive. I think the most royally f*cked dudes are the ones leading this whole thing. 

 

But I think there are also just as many people involved who aren't psychopaths. They're victims. And they cause a lot of damage because of it.