Off topic OT Another attack in France Priest killed in a church

[North Buffalo]

So ISIS is escalating this fast, thinking we need to arm a anti-terror muslim army in middle east and or now use full force against ISIS now and start putting pressure on US muslims to act and denounce these acts and advocate peaceful coexistence strongly or be destroyed. These folks need to be evicerated.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/36892785?client=safari#

https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/world/europe/normandy-france-church-attack.amp.html?client=safari#

[K-9]

So ISIS is escalating this fast, thinking we need to arm a anti-terror muslim army in middle east and or now use full force against ISIS now and start putting pressure on US muslims to act and denounce these acts and advocate peaceful coexistence strongly or be destroyed. These folks need to be evicerated.

I would argue that we've done that for years now, especially recently in the form of the Iraqi army, Kurdish militias, and Syrian rebels. Those Muslim populations and those populations alone, have to have the stomach for it as well as the stamina to maintain it for generations to come. 

[North Buffalo]

I would argue that we've done that for years now, especially recently in the form of the Iraqi army, Kurdish militias, and Syrian rebels. Those Muslim populations and those populations alone, have to have the stomach for it as well as the stamina to maintain it for generations to come.

 

And there in lays the problem... they have to be war weary.

[Stoner]

So ISIS is escalating this fast, thinking we need to arm a anti-terror muslim army in middle east and or now use full force against ISIS now and start putting pressure on US muslims to act and denounce these acts and advocate peaceful coexistence strongly or be destroyed. These folks need to be evicerated.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/36892785?client=safari#

 

https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/world/europe/normandy-france-church-attack.amp.html?client=safari#

What do you want American Muslims to do exactly? The vast, vast majority denounce this stuff, maybe without holding a press conference, but they denounce it.

 

Can we keep this stuff to the Politics thread?

[Neo]

I would argue that we've done that for years now, especially recently in the form of the Iraqi army, Kurdish militias, and Syrian rebels. Those Muslim populations and those populations alone, have to have the stomach for it as well as the stamina to maintain it for generations to come.

 

"Those Muslim populations and those populations alone, have .... the stomach for "it" as well as the stamina to maintain "it" for ...."

 

What, exactly, are the two "its" you're referring to solely as an issue for Muslims? What noun(s) replace the pronouns? All due respect ... are you on the verge of saying something out loud?

Edited July 26, 2016 by N'eo

[K-9]

"Those Muslim populations and those populations alone, have .... the stomach for "it" as well as the stamina to maintain "it" for ...."

 

What, exactly, is the "it" you're referring to? What noun(s) replace the pronouns? All due respect ... are you on the verge of saying something out loud?

The stomach to bleed and suffer horrible losses in the face of those terrorists groups within their homelands. The stomach to prosecute what amounts to civil wars and the stamina to do it for decades to come. The will to establish their own freedoms and the tenacity to defend them once gained. 

 

All due respect, are you trying to goad me into saying something out loud?

[Neo]

I will call "terrorist groups within their (Muslim) homelands" progress toward saying something out loud without inquiring further.

 

Wait, you're not saying all Muslims are terrorists, are you?

 

Of course you're not. That question is goading the thousands of others who've implied someone serious did say that.

[K-9]

I will call "terrorist groups within their (Muslim) homelands" progress toward saying something out loud without inquiring further.

 

Wait, you're not saying all Muslims are terrorists, are you?

 

Of course you're not. That question is goading the thousands of others who've implied someone serious did say that.

Sometimes, N'eo, I have a difficult time parsing your language and what it is you're trying to say. 

 

There are muslim terrorists within the homelands of peaceloving muslims. It is that VAST VAST VAST majority of muslims that need to eradicate the problem within their countries and doing so will take generations. I don't know how much clearer I can be. 

[North Buffalo]

I will call "terrorist groups within their (Muslim) homelands" progress toward saying something out loud without inquiring further.

Wait, you're not saying all Muslims are terrorists, are you?

Of course you're not. That question is goading the thousands of others who've implied someone serious did say that.

I cant speak for him, but it seems that there is a leadership void within the muslim community, The only country with any kinda of guts is Iran ironically and given US hx. Iran is only now slowly being seen a trust worthy partner. The Saudis are a passive arrogant bunch whose sunni counterparts are the source of most of this terror. I dont see true leadership from them on the world stage. This shiite sunni split is bedevilling and that it effects the rest of the world will cause greater angst for all but mostly muslims will suffer. Edited July 26, 2016 by North Buffalo

[darksabre]

Here's where I'm at with radical Islam, terrorism, and ME politics: There are two paths that we can take as the United States, neither of them is expedient or easy, and both cost us something. 

 

The first option is patience. We provide training to moderate forces in the nations where radicalism has been and continues to be, we keep our troops out of combat, we use special forces units to "help things along" when needed, we take diplomatic action to try to bring these places and their people into the profits of the global economy, and we accept that the price we have to pay for patience will only be the occasional loss of civilian life in this or other western countries at the hands of terrorists. This wont be the easiest method to stomach, but it will avoid expensive full scale war, loss of military lives, and the associated long term costs of taking care of veterans. 

 

The second option is full scale war and military occupation. Anything short of this will be a waste of time, money, and lives. If we're going to send our soldiers to war, dump countless dollars into the war effort, and give those ISIS bastards what they want, then we better make sure we're in it for the long haul. It aught to be a referendum brought before the American people for a vote. Indefinite commitment to the de-radicalization of the entire ME. If the US is going to "get tough" and take this whole thing into our own hands, we better be really damn sure we know it's going to cost us tremendously and it's going to take a real long time. 

 

For me, there's only one reasonable option. We must approach this problem with dignity and grace. We abandoned our principles with GWB at the helm and the costs outweighed the benefits. We became xenophobic bigots raging against the "towelheads" and the "sandpeople". We didn't take things seriously. The rhetoric of Trump is goading us into doing it again. We should know better by now, no?

 

French, British, German, American lives will be lost over the next 50-100 years. It is inevitable. But we can't overreact. We can't give these radicals what they want. My hope is that our European brethren understand that they cannot allow these attacks to drive them to act in anger. We have to do what makes sense so that those who are victims of terrorism haven't been lost for no reason. 

[Neo]

I like, see, support your entire first option. My impatience is associated with how quickly, how effectively, those non-western forces are stepping up. I acknowledge it ain't easy. My impatience does not move me to option two.

[darksabre]

I like, see, support your entire first option. My impatience is associated with how quickly, how effectively, those non-western forces are stepping up. I acknowledge it ain't easy. My impatience does not move me to option two.

 

I think those non-western forces see that they have our attention. I don't think it's any coincidence they are increasing the frequency of their attacks as our Presidential election season is really getting going. I would imagine any attacks directed by ISIS itself are done with finger on the pulse of western politics. They see they've achieved results with the Brexit vote. They want to see if they can push France, or Germany, or the US, into doing something reactionary as well. I bet they see the nomination of Trump as an excellent opportunity. They would love to manipulate him. They already have. They couldn't achieve that level of espionage if they'd tried. We gifted it to them. 

[Stoner]

d4rk, to your criteria for option 2 I would be more explicit. The draft is reinstated. Congress declares war. Taxes are raised. The VA is razed and rebuilt to truly take care of our men and women when they come home. The people are asked to sacrifice (more than just the families who send their loved one off to war). In World War II, people bought war bonds; they collected scraps of aluminum; meat and gas were rationed; women didn't have silk stockings because silk was needed to make parachutes. Different times, same concept. The people should symbolically suffer. After all, the nation is at war, its survival at stake. Therefore, Internet usage will be curtailed from the hours of 6 p.m. until 2 a.m.

 

You see where I'm going here. If we want it that bad (and really that should always be the criterion for war), then fine, let's have at it.

[darksabre]

d4rk, to your criteria for option 2 I would be more explicit. The draft is reinstated. Congress declares war. Taxes are raised. The VA is razed and rebuilt to truly take care of our men and women when they come home. The people are asked to sacrifice (more than just the families who send their loved one off to war). In World War II, people bought war bonds; they collected scraps of aluminum; meat and gas were rationed; women didn't have silk stockings because silk was needed to make parachutes. Different times, same concept. The people should symbolically suffer. After all, the nation is at war, its survival at stake. Therefore, Internet usage will be curtailed from the hours of 6 p.m. until 2 a.m.

 

You see where I'm going here. If we want it that bad (and really that should always be the criterion for war), then fine, let's have at it.

I appreciate your expansion. Obviously that list could just go on and on, as you have shown.

[K-9]

d4rk, to your criteria for option 2 I would be more explicit. The draft is reinstated. Congress declares war. Taxes are raised. The VA is razed and rebuilt to truly take care of our men and women when they come home. The people are asked to sacrifice (more than just the families who send their loved one off to war). In World War II, people bought war bonds; they collected scraps of aluminum; meat and gas were rationed; women didn't have silk stockings because silk was needed to make parachutes. Different times, same concept. The people should symbolically suffer. After all, the nation is at war, its survival at stake. Therefore, Internet usage will be curtailed from the hours of 6 p.m. until 2 a.m.

 

You see where I'm going here. If we want it that bad (and really that should always be the criterion for war), then fine, let's have at it.

This is an interesting point. I was watching an HBO documentary about terrorism the other day, I joined it in progress and don't have the name handy but what this CIA analyst had to say about it was interesting. Essentially, until terrorism is a tangible threat to US citizens here, then it will never rise to that level of threat previous enemies warranted. Right now, according to the analyst, a person has less than .05% chance of being killed or harmed by a terrorist act in the US. The threat just doesn't move the needle in any real sense so I wonder what it would take for us to be asked to make real sacrifices in the fight against it. I mean other than what GDub asked us to do, which was to just "go shopping." 

[Neo]

While I am not a fan of option two, I completely agree with PA's description of what an option two should require. I "voted" for Bush's leadership into Iraq and Afghanistan. I won't revise my history, as wrong as I was. The deficit funding of the excursion, due to both increased spending and tax cuts, went against my thinking at the time. It still does.

 

Wars are no less free lunches than college educations or cell phones. Cakes and eating .... If you're in, you're in. Austerity time. That'll prioritize a nation.

[dEnnis the Menace]

D4rk, that is a great assessment, and I like how you laid those options out.  I couldn't agree more with you, and honestly, as an Army Brat of an Army Brat (my mom and her dad have a combined 70 years of service in the US Army), hope that option 2 is never reached.  

 

i agree that the American people need to understand the full repercussions of war if it is decided to go to war.  

[LastPommerFan]

"The world is at war because it has lost peace," Pope Francis said.

 

"There is a war of interest, there is a war for money, a war for natural resources, a war to dominate people," he continued.

 

"Some might think it is war of religion. It is not. All religions want peace. Others want war."

[7+6=13]

My only hope through these difficult times is that people that don't know the Lord will allow him to introduce himself - those that do know him will draw closer.

[K-9]

"The world is at war because it has lost peace," Pope Francis said.

 

"There is a war of interest, there is a war for money, a war for natural resources, a war to dominate people," he continued.

 

"Some might think it is war of religion. It is not. All religions want peace. Others want war."

Been saying for years, it's about politics. ISIS and others like them, use religion as a recruiting tool for soldiers to fight for a political agenda. People who insist on believing it's all about religion are playing right into their strategy. 

[LastPommerFan]

Been saying for years, it's about politics. ISIS and others like them, use religion as a recruiting tool for soldiers to fight for a political agenda. People who insist on believing it's all about religion are playing right into their strategy.

Papa Frankie gets it.

[Hank]

(my mom and her dad have a combined 70 years of service in the US Army)

 

I don't question your sincerity at all, but do you realize how incredibly unlikely that is?

[Neo]

I agree it's about politics. The political agenda is an Islamist Caliphate. There. How'd I do?

 

I've seen a lot. I'm old. The intellectual contortion around the phrase radical Islam is an example of what I've come to see as the left's preference for shutting down debate. "This is uncomfortable or inconsistent with our view that everyone's a victim. Let's deny it exists and explain that those who don't deny it exists are closed minded bigots."

 

The Ministry of Truth.

 

We all have views. I'm sure I disappoint others. Offered in the spirit of knowing where I/we come from and in search of the more perfect Union. Words shouldn't scare us. No conversation should be shut down. Broad generalization - the switch from "the left" being the home of free thinkers to "the left" being the home of rigid orthodoxy is one of the great pivots in my life experience. IMHO, of course.

[North Buffalo]

I agree it's about politics. The political agenda is an Islamist Caliphate. There. How'd I do?

I've seen a lot. I'm old. The intellectual contortion around the phrase radical Islam is an example of what I've come to see as the left's preference for shutting down debate. "This is uncomfortable or inconsistent with our view that everyone's a victim. Let's deny it exists and explain that those who don't deny it exists are closed minded bigots."

The Ministry of Truth.

We all have views. I'm sure I disappoint others. Offered in the spirit of knowing where I/we come from and in search of the more perfect Union. Words shouldn't scare us. No conversation should be shut down. Broad generalization - the switch from "the left" being the home of free thinkers to "the left" being the home of rigid orthodoxy is one of the great pivots in my life experience. IMHO, of course.

.

 

On the free thinker deal have to agree the left has become rigid. I like the caliphate term better, those who believe especially in the strict Sunni one are a big problem and the excuse for terrorism within the islamic community. Islam needs to evolve to tolerance of other beliefs and acknowledge them as Jesus did.

Edited July 28, 2016 by North Buffalo

[TrueBlueGED]

I agree it's about politics. The political agenda is an Islamist Caliphate. There. How'd I do?

 

I've seen a lot. I'm old. The intellectual contortion around the phrase radical Islam is an example of what I've come to see as the left's preference for shutting down debate. "This is uncomfortable or inconsistent with our view that everyone's a victim. Let's deny it exists and explain that those who don't deny it exists are closed minded bigots."

 

The Ministry of Truth.

 

We all have views. I'm sure I disappoint others. Offered in the spirit of knowing where I/we come from and in search of the more perfect Union. Words shouldn't scare us. No conversation should be shut down. Broad generalization - the switch from "the left" being the home of free thinkers to "the left" being the home of rigid orthodoxy is one of the great pivots in my life experience. IMHO, of course.

George W. Bush was a leftist? News to me.

 

I disagree that the left's side of the issue is about shutting down debate. That's akin to me saying the right's side of the debate is about satisfying their need to use a sledgehammer in all things foreign policy. Mischaracterizes the point, IMO.