1206
Post by: Easy E
ISIS has forced all the other militant groups to up their brutality game in order to attract more foreign recruits in a grim arms race. What levels of brutality will appear next?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/04/22/hazara_beheadings_in_afghanistan_isis_has_set_off_an_arms_race_of_competitive.html
Earlier this week I wrote about how ISIS’s strategy of broadcasting its most horrific acts of violence to the world is an integral part of its recruiting strategy. While it alienates the vast majority of the public, even people who might otherwise be sympathetic to the group’s political goals, for a certain kind of potential recruit, beheadings and the mass murder of civilians are selling points.
Competing jihadi groups now seem to be taking a page out of ISIS’s book. The New York Times reports Wednesday that the Taliban have been carrying out a wave of kidnappings and beheadings of members of Afghanistan’s Hazara ethnic group. Beheading hasn’t traditionally been a Taliban tactic, but as a Hazara member of parliament tells the paper, “The Taliban are trying to send out a new message that they are similar in their brutality to ISIS. … They’re trying to show they are as bad as ISIS.” Why? ISIS carried out its first attack in Afghanistan last weekend and has reportedly been making inroads among Taliban supporters. The veteran group may now feel it has to adjust to the times.
Advertisement
Some experts believe ISIS’s influence may also have played a part in al-Shabaab’s massacre of 147 people, mainly Christian students at a Kenyan university, on April 2. The Atlantic Council’s Bronwyn Bruton pointed out that al-Shabaab had previously moved away from attacks on students due to public backlash in Somalia, and the fact that it was re-embracing the tactic could be “a sign of a final evolution where it is no longer interested in maintaining political credibility or gaining the support of local communities.” The Somali group has reportedly been losing ground to the Islamic State in the competition for foreign recruits, so the attack may have been an effort to re-establish its credibility to an international audience. This could be part of an effort by the traditionally al-Qaida-linked group to either compete with ISIS or pivot to an alliance with it.
In other words, we’re getting to the point where al-Qaida’s brand of murder just isn’t dramatic enough.
63623
Post by: Tannhauser42
It's things like this that make me think we might all be better off if we just busted out the nukes and glassed that entire region.
51383
Post by: Experiment 626
 Tannhauser42 wrote:It's things like this that make me think we might all be better off if we just busted out the nukes and glassed that entire region.
I'd rather use something that would at least leave what little is left of the historical sites & treasures of that region intact...
4817
Post by: Spetulhu
Tannhauser42 wrote:It's things like this that make me think we might all be better off if we just busted out the nukes and glassed that entire region.
The locals are fighting these groups, even if some do control much land. And these terror groups get a lot (maybe even most) of their support and fighters from other "civilized" countries - maybe we should nuke everyone just to be sure?
No, probably not a good idea. Even empires fall and these guys are far from empires - their brutality might work for a time but eventually they'll go the way of Al-Quaeda. When bin Laden was killed his worst concerns weren't carrying out terror missions, it was how to get enough money and recruits to at least continue looking dangerous.
34906
Post by: Pacific
Another issue for those living in the developed world is when some of the individuals involved in the fighting start filtering back to their countries of origin. I think this is most likely already happening.
In the UK at least, with the exception of 7/7 and some horrific isolated incidents, we have had to deal with people setting themselves on fire and accidentally crashing into gateways of airports, and declarations of Jihad from individuals that were on the borderline of being declared mentally disabled by doctors in terms of their IQ.
Replace these with psychopaths who have been trained how to fight, have murdered, learned how to use various weapons and have no regard for the lives of innocents.
I fear that we have created a hornet's nest in the Middle East following the military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, there is a strong possibility that both the frequency and potency of terrorist attacks in Europe and the US are going to increase.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
It might be prudent to blockade air travel to those locations to slow them filtering back.
Experiment 626 wrote: Tannhauser42 wrote:It's things like this that make me think we might all be better off if we just busted out the nukes and glassed that entire region.
I'd rather use something that would at least leave what little is left of the historical sites & treasures of that region intact...
That's easy. Airburst the nukes so just the fallout hits them. 
80673
Post by: Iron_Captain
We need to build a huge wall around the Middle East and Africa. Truly that will solve it.
But to be honest, I think the best course of action is for the West to completely ignore the fact that the Middle East and Africa even exist. Absolutely no interaction allowed. Given time, they will be able to sort the mess themselves. Western meddling only creates an even bigger mess (and is responsible for the current mess already).
Western civilisation has been able to develop without foreign involvement. Other civilisations should be allowed to do the same.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
So what happens when international shipping (cargo/container ships) starts getting nailed the Suez Canal, Gulf of Aden, Red Sea, Persian Gulf, Gulf of Oman and Arabian Sea eh
5470
Post by: sebster
Probably the best way to explain the brutality of these groups is by noting the very first response talks about nuclear annihilation of everyone in the region, and the first response to that expressed concern… for artifacts, but none for the hundreds of millions of people who would be annihilated.
feth it. No good will come of this thread. The OP’s article is interesting and worth discussion, but it won’t happen here.
91292
Post by: DarkLink
 Pacific wrote:
I fear that we have created a hornet's nest in the Middle East following the military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, there is a strong possibility that both the frequency and potency of terrorist attacks in Europe and the US are going to increase.
People have been violently murdering each other in large quantities for literally thousands of years over there. This is nothing new.
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
Read his post again.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Religion of...?
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Pie?
I want a religion of pie
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 sebster wrote:Probably the best way to explain the brutality of these groups is by noting the very first response talks about nuclear annihilation of everyone in the region, and the first response to that expressed concern… for artifacts, but none for the hundreds of millions of people who would be annihilated.
Nope nope nope nope nope, motyak
221
Post by: Frazzled
 DarkLink wrote: Pacific wrote:
I fear that we have created a hornet's nest in the Middle East following the military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, there is a strong possibility that both the frequency and potency of terrorist attacks in Europe and the US are going to increase.
People have been violently murdering each other in large quantities for literally thousands of years over there. This is nothing new.
Cyrus the Great agrees with you.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Here's a funny suggestion: what if we (the US and the EU) stopped flooding Africa with subsidized food and agricultural products that's sold at below-break-even prices? I have a feeling that people in Africa would be slightly less incentivized to become radicalized if we weren't taking their livelihoods from them in the first place.
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Maybe because they are backward savages who kill people who dont believe in what they preach, use religion to hold onto their societal dominance over women, they kill our soldiers.
These people are not human. They are disgusting. I say bomb the region to all hell.
Good job, you're now worse than the evil you wanted to destroy in the first place.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:Here's a funny suggestion: what if we (the US and the EU) stopped flooding Africa with subsidized food and agricultural products that's sold at below-break-even prices? I have a feeling that people in Africa would be slightly less incentivized to become radicalized if we weren't taking their livelihoods from them in the first place.
So your solution to terrorism is...starvation? How very Tamerlame of you.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
I know, at least I will give them a swift warriors death.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
 Frazzled wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:Here's a funny suggestion: what if we (the US and the EU) stopped flooding Africa with subsidized food and agricultural products that's sold at below-break-even prices? I have a feeling that people in Africa would be slightly less incentivized to become radicalized if we weren't taking their livelihoods from them in the first place.
So your solution to terrorism is...starvation? How very Tamerlame of you.
No, we're already causing starvation by driving local peasants out of business. The exports of EU- and US-subsidized agricultural products is driving people into unemployment, where they cannot afford even the subsidized food. If we're so set on having our farming subsidies in place and we're dead set on dumping the excess on Africa, at least we could give it to them for free. The African peasants would still be out of jobs, but at least they'd have food.
221
Post by: Frazzled
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Frazzled wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:Here's a funny suggestion: what if we (the US and the EU) stopped flooding Africa with subsidized food and agricultural products that's sold at below-break-even prices? I have a feeling that people in Africa would be slightly less incentivized to become radicalized if we weren't taking their livelihoods from them in the first place.
So your solution to terrorism is...starvation? How very Tamerlame of you.
No, we're already causing starvation by driving local peasants out of business. The exports of EU- and US-subsidized agricultural products is driving people into unemployment, where they cannot afford even the subsidized food. If we're so set on having our farming subsidies in place and we're dead set on dumping the excess on Africa, at least we could give it to them for free. The African peasants would still be out of jobs, but at least they'd have food.
I don't know about you evilz Uropans but us Americans give away lots of free food. Because America Hurr.
Blaming terrorism on food aid is...a unique viewpoint.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Frazzled wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote: Frazzled wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:Here's a funny suggestion: what if we (the US and the EU) stopped flooding Africa with subsidized food and agricultural products that's sold at below-break-even prices? I have a feeling that people in Africa would be slightly less incentivized to become radicalized if we weren't taking their livelihoods from them in the first place.
So your solution to terrorism is...starvation? How very Tamerlame of you.
No, we're already causing starvation by driving local peasants out of business. The exports of EU- and US-subsidized agricultural products is driving people into unemployment, where they cannot afford even the subsidized food. If we're so set on having our farming subsidies in place and we're dead set on dumping the excess on Africa, at least we could give it to them for free. The African peasants would still be out of jobs, but at least they'd have food.
I don't know about you evilz Uropans but us Americans give away lots of free food. Because America Hurr.
Blaming terrorism on food aid is...a unique viewpoint.
Hardly. Food riots aren't exactly rare throughout history.
221
Post by: Frazzled
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Frazzled wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote: Frazzled wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:Here's a funny suggestion: what if we (the US and the EU) stopped flooding Africa with subsidized food and agricultural products that's sold at below-break-even prices? I have a feeling that people in Africa would be slightly less incentivized to become radicalized if we weren't taking their livelihoods from them in the first place.
So your solution to terrorism is...starvation? How very Tamerlame of you.
No, we're already causing starvation by driving local peasants out of business. The exports of EU- and US-subsidized agricultural products is driving people into unemployment, where they cannot afford even the subsidized food. If we're so set on having our farming subsidies in place and we're dead set on dumping the excess on Africa, at least we could give it to them for free. The African peasants would still be out of jobs, but at least they'd have food.
I don't know about you evilz Uropans but us Americans give away lots of free food. Because America Hurr. Blaming terrorism on food aid is...a unique viewpoint.
Hardly. Food riots aren't exactly rare throughout history.
WHEN THERE ISN'T ENOUGH. BLAMING COUNTRIES FOR PROVIDING FREE FOOD TO STARVING PEOPLE IS ABOUT AS ASININE AS YOU CAN GET. Please cite one instance where the terrorists were unemployed farmers. *France? *ISIL fighters? *Boko Haram You're just blowing smoke out your ass boyo.
51383
Post by: Experiment 626
 Iron_Captain wrote:We need to build a huge wall around the Middle East and Africa. Truly that will solve it.
But to be honest, I think the best course of action is for the West to completely ignore the fact that the Middle East and Africa even exist. Absolutely no interaction allowed. Given time, they will be able to sort the mess themselves. Western meddling only creates an even bigger mess (and is responsible for the current mess already).
Western civilisation has been able to develop without foreign involvement. Other civilisations should be allowed to do the same.
Russia has had a rather big hand in helping to create the giant clusterfeth that is currently the Middle East...
Besides, building a giant wall and ignoring them also means we effectively give the green light to let them make their dream of nuking Israel & eradicating the Jews come true.
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
It's no one's job to defend Israel sans Israel though. Comes with the territory of being a sovereign nation.
91292
Post by: DarkLink
Which they do. Then people give them crap for it, but they don't care because they'd rather be alive than liked by naive US liberal college students.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Frazzled wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote: Frazzled wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote: Frazzled wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:Here's a funny suggestion: what if we (the US and the EU) stopped flooding Africa with subsidized food and agricultural products that's sold at below-break-even prices? I have a feeling that people in Africa would be slightly less incentivized to become radicalized if we weren't taking their livelihoods from them in the first place.
So your solution to terrorism is...starvation? How very Tamerlame of you.
No, we're already causing starvation by driving local peasants out of business. The exports of EU- and US-subsidized agricultural products is driving people into unemployment, where they cannot afford even the subsidized food. If we're so set on having our farming subsidies in place and we're dead set on dumping the excess on Africa, at least we could give it to them for free. The African peasants would still be out of jobs, but at least they'd have food.
I don't know about you evilz Uropans but us Americans give away lots of free food. Because America Hurr.
Blaming terrorism on food aid is...a unique viewpoint.
Hardly. Food riots aren't exactly rare throughout history.
WHEN THERE ISN'T ENOUGH. BLAMING COUNTRIES FOR PROVIDING FREE FOOD TO STARVING PEOPLE IS ABOUT AS ASININE AS YOU CAN GET.
Please cite one instance where the terrorists were unemployed farmers.
*France?
*ISIL fighters?
*Boko Haram
You're just blowing smoke out your ass boyo.
We aren't providing free food, that's the problem. You're conflating aid to famine-stricken areas with unfair trade practices in areas where the local farmers cannot compete with the cheap imports, and they can't export their goods because both the EU and the US have massive trade barriers in place.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/eu-subsidies-deny-africas-farmers-of-their-livelihood-478419.html
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/oct/11/eu-agriculture-hurts-developing-countries
http://www.ifpri.org/blog/hidden-costs-us-and-eu-farm-subsidies
http://www.dw.de/eu-doesnt-consider-effects-of-farming-policies/a-16310008
If you honestly cannot understand that taking away people's livelihood is going to have a destabilizing effect on the region then I cannot help you, but I'm going to demand an apology from you. Accusing someone of "blowing smoke out his ass" when you yourself have absolutely no clue what you are talking about is rather infuriating, to say the least.
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
DarkLink wrote:Which they do. Then people give them crap for it, but they don't care because they'd rather be alive than liked by naive US liberal college students.
Apparently not, since Benji's been visibly butthurt at Obama's lack of willingness to blow up Iran for months.
80451
Post by: Sienisoturi
AlmightyWalrus wrote:Here's a funny suggestion: what if we (the US and the EU) stopped flooding Africa with subsidized food and agricultural products that's sold at below-break-even prices? I have a feeling that people in Africa would be slightly less incentivized to become radicalized if we weren't taking their livelihoods from them in the first place.
Maybe because some groups fiercly oppose such suggestions. Automatically Appended Next Post: AlmightyWalrus wrote: Frazzled wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote: Frazzled wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote: Frazzled wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:Here's a funny suggestion: what if we (the US and the EU) stopped flooding Africa with subsidized food and agricultural products that's sold at below-break-even prices? I have a feeling that people in Africa would be slightly less incentivized to become radicalized if we weren't taking their livelihoods from them in the first place.
So your solution to terrorism is...starvation? How very Tamerlame of you.
No, we're already causing starvation by driving local peasants out of business. The exports of EU- and US-subsidized agricultural products is driving people into unemployment, where they cannot afford even the subsidized food. If we're so set on having our farming subsidies in place and we're dead set on dumping the excess on Africa, at least we could give it to them for free. The African peasants would still be out of jobs, but at least they'd have food.
I don't know about you evilz Uropans but us Americans give away lots of free food. Because America Hurr.
Blaming terrorism on food aid is...a unique viewpoint.
Hardly. Food riots aren't exactly rare throughout history.
WHEN THERE ISN'T ENOUGH. BLAMING COUNTRIES FOR PROVIDING FREE FOOD TO STARVING PEOPLE IS ABOUT AS ASININE AS YOU CAN GET.
Please cite one instance where the terrorists were unemployed farmers.
*France?
*ISIL fighters?
*Boko Haram
You're just blowing smoke out your ass boyo.
We aren't providing free food, that's the problem. You're conflating aid to famine-stricken areas with unfair trade practices in areas where the local farmers cannot compete with the cheap imports, and they can't export their goods because both the EU and the US have massive trade barriers in place.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/eu-subsidies-deny-africas-farmers-of-their-livelihood-478419.html
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/oct/11/eu-agriculture-hurts-developing-countries
http://www.ifpri.org/blog/hidden-costs-us-and-eu-farm-subsidies
http://www.dw.de/eu-doesnt-consider-effects-of-farming-policies/a-16310008
If you honestly cannot understand that taking away people's livelihood is going to have a destabilizing effect on the region then I cannot help you, but I'm going to demand an apology from you. Accusing someone of "blowing smoke out his ass" when you yourself have absolutely no clue what you are talking about is rather infuriating, to say the least.
I completely agree...which is weird.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Funny how none of the countries mentioned in those articles is the source for these terrorists. But hey, you're from Sweden so everything that happens all over the world is the West's fault, right?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Evidently.
Also no mention of the tariff structures for those countries. But again its all the evil West, even though half the food I get isn't made here.
But hey its never the Evil Chinese is it...
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
I mean, providing supplies deny people the ability to create their own infrastructure and industrialization. many sociologista believe the only way for a country to modernize is to go through the industrial revolution itself because that bring societal evolution that is sorely needed.
But it being the source of terrorist I doupt.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
So we're not past page 1 yet and you've still managed 2 ad hominems (one based on my nationality, classy!) and enough strawmen to bring the dead horse back to life. Please point out where I'm blaming "the West" for everything. Go ahead, I'll wait.
For what it's worth, China's actions in Africa are worrying too, but they've not had 30+ years of doing it.
Put it like this then: do you or do you not agree that driving people out of employment (and thus out of food) contributes to destabilizing a region or not? If no, why not?
EDIT: Damn it, this post just had to push it to page 2, didn't it? 
80673
Post by: Iron_Captain
hotsauceman1 wrote: Maybe because they are backward savages who kill people who dont believe in what they preach, use religion to hold onto their societal dominance over women, they kill our soldiers. These people are not human. They are disgusting. I say bomb the region to all hell.
And how are you any better than those so-called savages if you things like this? In fact, I think it makes you just as bad, if not worse. What you write is absolutely disgusting. Why do the moderators even allow sick Hitler-like rambling like this on the forum? "they are backward savages who kill people who dont believe in what they preach" Just like the US you mean? Many times, the US has attacked places that did not share American values in order to "liberate them from their dictators and bring them democracy" which invariably leads to bloodshed. "use religion to hold onto their societal dominance over women" Women's rights are culturally subjective. Many muslim women do not even want to have more rights.
"they kill our soldiers." Seriously? Of course they do! They are invaders. If they don't fight back, your soldiers are going to kill them (which they are going to do anyways, because the fight is anything but fair). Maybe if you did not want your soldiers killed, you should not have send them there in the first place.
"These people are not human. They are disgusting. I say bomb the region to all hell" HEIL the glorious American master race! Death to the sub-human Islamic vermin! I really hope you realise how horrible you sound here... In any case, I wish you the best of luck in bombing disgusting non-human children like these to hell:  I sincerely hope you are trolling here and this is Poe's Law in effect, because if not, it is absolutely pathethic. Maybe it would be better if the moderators lock this thread. I do not feel anything good is going to come out of it.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
AlmightyWalrus wrote:So we're not past page 1 yet and you've still managed 2 ad hominems (one based on my nationality, classy!) and enough strawmen to bring the dead horse back to life. Please point out where I'm blaming "the West" for everything. Go ahead, I'll wait. For what it's worth, China's actions in Africa are worrying too, but they've not had 30+ years of doing it. Put it like this then: do you or do you not agree that driving people out of employment (and thus out of food) contributes to destabilizing a region or not? If no, why not? EDIT: Damn it, this post just had to push it to page 2, didn't it?
It wasn't an ad-hominem, Sweden is developing some weird self blame complex, probably because of your PC culture gone mad. I was just saying that you seem to be the perfect example of that culture. As for the rest: European and US governments have a mandate to do what is best for their citizens. If that causes some kind of adverse affect on the citizens of some other country half way around the world: tough cookies. Protecting them is the responsibility of their own governments not ours. Also you've yet to provide any link between agricultural tariffs and subsidies and the growing brutality of Islamic terrorist groups. If you are going to continue along this line of argument, it would be nice if you provided any evidence of that link.
221
Post by: Frazzled
AlmightyWalrus wrote:So we're not past page 1 yet and you've still managed 2 ad hominems (one based on my nationality, classy!) and enough strawmen to bring the dead horse back to life. Please point out where I'm blaming "the West" for everything. Go ahead, I'll wait.
For what it's worth, China's actions in Africa are worrying too, but they've not had 30+ years of doing it.
Put it like this then: do you or do you not agree that driving people out of employment (and thus out of food) contributes to destabilizing a region or not? If no, why not?
EDIT: Damn it, this post just had to push it to page 2, didn't it?
So any time employment is bad we should expect terrorism? Strangely I don't remember the Dust Bowl as a hotbed of suicide bombers.
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
It's almost as if you two are going out of your way to ignore what he's saying and prop up false assertions to rail against. How strange.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 BlaxicanX wrote:It's almost as if you two are going out of your way to ignore what he's saying and prop up false assertions to rail against. How strange.
Because saying its the west's fault for ISIL beheading Ethipian Christians on video is as asinine as it is stupid. There's a fundamental concept in law and philosophy called "intervening actor." Generally you cannot blame a third because of the evil acts of an intervening actor. You can't blame the hammer manufacturer for a murderer using the hammer to murder someone.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Iron_Captain wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote:
Maybe because they are backward savages who kill people who dont believe in what they preach, use religion to hold onto their societal dominance over women, they kill our soldiers.
These people are not human. They are disgusting. I say bomb the region to all hell.
And how are you any better than those so-called savages if you things like this? In fact, I think it makes you just as bad, if not worse. What you write is absolutely disgusting.
Why do the moderators even allow sick Hitler-like rambling like this on the forum?
"they are backward savages who kill people who dont believe in what they preach"
Just like the US you mean?
Many times, the US has attacked places that did not share American values in order to "liberate them from their dictators and bring them democracy" which invariably leads to bloodshed.
"use religion to hold onto their societal dominance over women"
Women's rights are culturally subjective. Many muslim women do not even want to have more rights.
"they kill our soldiers."
Seriously? Of course they do! They are invaders. If they don't fight back, your soldiers are going to kill them (which they are going to do anyways, because the fight is anything but fair). Maybe if you did not want your soldiers killed, you should not have send them there in the first place.
"These people are not human. They are disgusting. I say bomb the region to all hell"
HEIL the glorious American master race! Death to the sub-human Islamic vermin!
I really hope you realise how horrible you sound here...
In any case, I wish you the best of luck in bombing disgusting non-human children like these to hell:
I sincerely hope you are trolling here and this is Poe's Law in effect, because if not, it is absolutely pathethic.
Maybe it would be better if the moderators lock this thread. I do not feel anything good is going to come out of it.
Wrong, they are objectively bad people. It isn't a culture difference like how in Sweden they don't kill people for murdrr.
They chop heads of live, burn people, steal school girls to be raped, impregnated and used for being a wife to some 50 year old man.
I know good muslims, but the east aren't muslims, they areally using Muslim doctrine for self gain. Like republicans.
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
1. He never stated nor even implied that Western interference is solely responsible for Muslim extremism.
2. Pretending that Western interference is not a major influence on Muslim extremism is even more stupid.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Explain Muslim extremism in Thailand. Is that the West's fault too?
Msuslim extremism in Sudan-thats the West's fault?
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Frazzled wrote:Explain Muslim extremism in Thailand. Is that the West's fault too?
Msuslim extremism in Sudan-thats the West's fault?
No Frazz, it is your fault, if your people never discovered fire, we would not have gun powder.
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
Frazzled wrote:Explain Muslim extremism in Thailand. Is that the West's fault too?
Msuslim extremism in Sudan-thats the West's fault?
So you're trolling? Gotcha.
221
Post by: Frazzled
I told them fire was just a fad, but NOOOOO they didn't believe me.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
BlaxicanX wrote:1. He never stated nor even implied that Western interference is solely responsible for Muslim extremism.
This was his original post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:Here's a funny suggestion: what if we (the US and the EU) stopped flooding Africa with subsidized food and agricultural products that's sold at below-break-even prices? I have a feeling that people in Africa would be slightly less incentivized to become radicalized if we weren't taking their livelihoods from them in the first place.
So since the OP of the thread is the increase in brutality in Islamic terrorist organizations and this was his very first post in it without any other context, yes, he did heavily imply that agricultural protectionist measures in western nations were directly responsible for the increased brutality in Islamic terrorist organizations.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Think some of you all need to do some research how a individual becomes influence, motivated, and dedicated to a cause to where we would consider them Extremists, Insurgents, and/or Radicals.
Employment is part of it
Food is part of it
Education is part of it
Ambition is part of it
Hatred is part of it
Propaganda is part of it
1206
Post by: Easy E
I think it boils down to:
If you are so marginalized by society due to:
Economics
Belief systems
Emotions
etc.
that following the rules of said society no longer serve a purpose, you are naturally going to stop playing by that societies rules. There is no point to do so anymore. It is a game rigged against you, so you might as well turn away from said rules and break them and try to remake them to rules that fit your needs better.
Hence, why the rise in Brutality. They are tryign to prove he can "break the rules" of society the most. That is what will attract those who feel they are no longer part of the larger society.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Society is a key word. Who's "society" are you using? Are you applying western society standards to a Muslim country?
1206
Post by: Easy E
Even in their own Muslim society, they are marginalized, because they want to go EVEN FURTHER than the larger society is willing to go.
And let's be honest, the recruits they are trying to pull in aren't local to their region. They are looking for foreign fighters from outside the conflict zones. The marginalized people in the conflict zones themselves have all ready joined up. The only source for new recruits is the marginalized outside of the area.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Easy and Jihadin more or less summed my point of view up. BlaxicanX explains why the current discussion is pointless.
Seriously, there's people in this very thread suggesting we just nuke millions of people to death, but apparently the mere notion that the EU or the US could be involved in perpetuatiing the poverty in Africa is "PC culture gone mad".
221
Post by: Frazzled
SO you respond to an asinine statement with an equally asinine one? Dude thats my job.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Frazz this is your OFF Day so kick back will you
I am not knocking all Muslims in general. I just want to point out western way of thinking is not ME/Muslim countries way of thinking
4817
Post by: Spetulhu
AlmightyWalrus wrote:the mere notion that the EU or the US could be involved in perpetuating the poverty in Africa is " PC culture gone mad".
Not mad as such. The countries receiving aid in food and products haven't really gone anywhere, while those that receive help in "help them to help themself" form (often education and small projects to improve life quality like wells) are getting along much better. It's the old charity method where poor people are poor because they deserve it and shouldn't seek to improve their station. Give a beggar a coin for food, you look good, and you can give him another coin tomorrow! But if you help him get a job he'll be able to get along without you...
Many aid organisations would be out of a job if they actually fixed things.
47547
Post by: CthuluIsSpy
Tannhauser42 wrote:It's things like this that make me think we might all be better off if we just busted out the nukes and glassed that entire region.
Too much collateral damage. Neutron bombs are better.
Still unpleasant though. Non-feth heads might get caught up in the fallout.
84405
Post by: jhe90
There is real issues out there. However the likes of Isis need to know there messed up actions will not be tolerated and there Is a response.
Stop them before they bring there messed up thinking to western cities.
43066
Post by: feeder
 jhe90 wrote:There is real issues out there. However the likes of Isis need to know there messed up actions will not be tolerated and there Is a response.
Stop them before they bring there messed up thinking to western cities.
That messed up thinking is already here. We have enlightened, civilised Westerners ITT calling for the total destruction of the Middle East because the inhabitants are not human. Truly, this thread is a low point for Dakka.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
 feeder wrote: jhe90 wrote:There is real issues out there. However the likes of Isis need to know there messed up actions will not be tolerated and there Is a response.
Stop them before they bring there messed up thinking to western cities.
That messed up thinking is already here. We have enlightened, civilised Westerners ITT calling for the total destruction of the Middle East because the inhabitants are not human. Truly, this thread is a low point for Dakka.
While its still important to not lose sight of humanity, there has to be a point where you say enough is enough.
We can't just let these terrible things continue to happen.
Stopping something terrible by doing something which is also terrible isn't a bad thing. Its the hard decision that is ultimately the right one.
These people have to learn that they can't hide behind the lives of innocent people. There is a point where the life of a hostage becomes worth less than the damage that the hostage taker will do if they get away with what they're doing. And people only take hostages because they know that it will shield them. If it no longer works and we prove that we are perfectly willing to shoot through the hostage to kill you, they will stop doing that. They'll go and hide in the hills where we can track them down without innocent blood being shed.
You can't get away with spilling no innocent blood. It needs to shift to where instead you simply pick the path which ends with the bad guy dead and the fewest innocent casualties. We need to ditch the mindset of innocent blood being a non-option.
43066
Post by: feeder
 Grey Templar wrote: feeder wrote: jhe90 wrote:There is real issues out there. However the likes of Isis need to know there messed up actions will not be tolerated and there Is a response.
Stop them before they bring there messed up thinking to western cities.
That messed up thinking is already here. We have enlightened, civilised Westerners ITT calling for the total destruction of the Middle East because the inhabitants are not human. Truly, this thread is a low point for Dakka.
While its still important to not lose sight of humanity, there has to be a point where you say enough is enough.
We can't just let these terrible things continue to happen.
Stopping something terrible by doing something which is also terrible isn't a bad thing. Its the hard decision that is ultimately the right one.
These people have to learn that they can't hide behind the lives of innocent people. There is a point where the life of a hostage becomes worth less than the damage that the hostage taker will do if they get away with what they're doing. And people only take hostages because they know that it will shield them. If it no longer works and we prove that we are perfectly willing to shoot through the hostage to kill you, they will stop doing that. They'll go and hide in the hills where we can track them down without innocent blood being shed.
You can't get away with spilling no innocent blood. It needs to shift to where instead you simply pick the path which ends with the bad guy dead and the fewest innocent casualties. We need to ditch the mindset of innocent blood being a non-option.
There is plenty of innocent blood being spilled already in the name of stopping Terrorism.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
feeder wrote: Grey Templar wrote: feeder wrote: jhe90 wrote:There is real issues out there. However the likes of Isis need to know there messed up actions will not be tolerated and there Is a response.
Stop them before they bring there messed up thinking to western cities.
That messed up thinking is already here. We have enlightened, civilised Westerners ITT calling for the total destruction of the Middle East because the inhabitants are not human. Truly, this thread is a low point for Dakka.
While its still important to not lose sight of humanity, there has to be a point where you say enough is enough.
We can't just let these terrible things continue to happen.
Stopping something terrible by doing something which is also terrible isn't a bad thing. Its the hard decision that is ultimately the right one.
These people have to learn that they can't hide behind the lives of innocent people. There is a point where the life of a hostage becomes worth less than the damage that the hostage taker will do if they get away with what they're doing. And people only take hostages because they know that it will shield them. If it no longer works and we prove that we are perfectly willing to shoot through the hostage to kill you, they will stop doing that. They'll go and hide in the hills where we can track them down without innocent blood being shed.
You can't get away with spilling no innocent blood. It needs to shift to where instead you simply pick the path which ends with the bad guy dead and the fewest innocent casualties. We need to ditch the mindset of innocent blood being a non-option.
There is plenty of innocent blood being spilled already in the name of stopping Terrorism.
I wouldn't say that at all. Very few people get hurt relatively speaking, and we're way too sensitive about it when it does happen.
We need to ramp the game up honestly. Make it clear they have nowhere to hide, literally nowhere.
43066
Post by: feeder
Grey Templar wrote:
I wouldn't say that at all. Very few people get hurt relatively speaking, and we're way too sensitive about it when it does happen.
We need to ramp the game up honestly. Make it clear they have nowhere to hide, literally nowhere.
US military's own sources put it at 66,000 civilian to 23,000 combatant deaths in the Iraq war alone. Is that "very few"? That is a nearly 3 to 1 'oops' ratio.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Given that we are fighting a foe who is deliberately trying to cause collateral damage, yes its very few.
And just look at other wars in the past.
WW2: An estimated 62% of the total deaths were civilian. The Iraq and Afghan war isn't particularly egregious in that.
43066
Post by: feeder
Grey Templar wrote:Given that we are fighting a foe who is deliberately trying to cause collateral damage, yes its very few.
And just look at other wars in the past.
WW2: An estimated 62% of the total deaths were civilian. The Iraq and Afghan war isn't particularly egregious in that.
Well, at least we are on pace with the most destructive conflict in history. 
My point is, we have people in our society proudly calling for the total eradication of the Middle East based on the extremely horrifying actions of a tiny minority of it's inhabitants. That is seven shades of backward-ass, fethed up nonsense.
2711
Post by: boyd
hotsauceman1 wrote: Iron_Captain wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote:
Maybe because they are backward savages who kill people who dont believe in what they preach, use religion to hold onto their societal dominance over women, they kill our soldiers.
These people are not human. They are disgusting. I say bomb the region to all hell.
And how are you any better than those so-called savages if you things like this? In fact, I think it makes you just as bad, if not worse. What you write is absolutely disgusting.
Why do the moderators even allow sick Hitler-like rambling like this on the forum?
"they are backward savages who kill people who dont believe in what they preach"
Just like the US you mean?
Many times, the US has attacked places that did not share American values in order to "liberate them from their dictators and bring them democracy" which invariably leads to bloodshed.
"use religion to hold onto their societal dominance over women"
Women's rights are culturally subjective. Many muslim women do not even want to have more rights.
"they kill our soldiers."
Seriously? Of course they do! They are invaders. If they don't fight back, your soldiers are going to kill them (which they are going to do anyways, because the fight is anything but fair). Maybe if you did not want your soldiers killed, you should not have send them there in the first place.
"These people are not human. They are disgusting. I say bomb the region to all hell"
HEIL the glorious American master race! Death to the sub-human Islamic vermin!
I really hope you realise how horrible you sound here...
In any case, I wish you the best of luck in bombing disgusting non-human children like these to hell:
I sincerely hope you are trolling here and this is Poe's Law in effect, because if not, it is absolutely pathethic.
Maybe it would be better if the moderators lock this thread. I do not feel anything good is going to come out of it.
Wrong, they are objectively bad people. It isn't a culture difference like how in Sweden they don't kill people for murdrr.
They chop heads of live, burn people, steal school girls to be raped, impregnated and used for being a wife to some 50 year old man.
I know good muslims, but the east aren't muslims, they areally using Muslim doctrine for self gain. Like republicans.
You had me until Republicans. You must be a northerner so I will forgive you - only northern democrats think that the republicans are like southern democrats.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
feeder wrote: Grey Templar wrote:Given that we are fighting a foe who is deliberately trying to cause collateral damage, yes its very few.
And just look at other wars in the past.
WW2: An estimated 62% of the total deaths were civilian. The Iraq and Afghan war isn't particularly egregious in that.
Well, at least we are on pace with the most destructive conflict in history.
My point is, we have people in our society proudly calling for the total eradication of the Middle East based on the extremely horrifying actions of a tiny minority of it's inhabitants. That is seven shades of backward-ass, fethed up nonsense.
That tiny minority isn't as tiny as many people are claiming.
Its more like a large minority, backed up by at best an apathetic majority who passively support them but aren't quite willing to go over.
And that minority is growing at a worrying pace.
43066
Post by: feeder
Estimates put ISIS at 20,000 fighters. That's barely a small town.
80673
Post by: Iron_Captain
Grey Templar wrote: feeder wrote: jhe90 wrote:There is real issues out there. However the likes of Isis need to know there messed up actions will not be tolerated and there Is a response. Stop them before they bring there messed up thinking to western cities.
That messed up thinking is already here. We have enlightened, civilised Westerners ITT calling for the total destruction of the Middle East because the inhabitants are not human. Truly, this thread is a low point for Dakka.
While its still important to not lose sight of humanity, there has to be a point where you say enough is enough. We can't just let these terrible things continue to happen. Stopping something terrible by doing something which is also terrible isn't a bad thing. Its the hard decision that is ultimately the right one.
"If you gaze into the abyss for too long, the abyss gazes back into you" "When fighting a dragon, take care not to become one yourself". Stopping something terrible by doing something also terrible is not possible. It would be like stopping a nosebleed by cutting of the nose. Grey Templar wrote: feeder wrote: Grey Templar wrote:Given that we are fighting a foe who is deliberately trying to cause collateral damage, yes its very few. And just look at other wars in the past. WW2: An estimated 62% of the total deaths were civilian. The Iraq and Afghan war isn't particularly egregious in that.
Well, at least we are on pace with the most destructive conflict in history. My point is, we have people in our society proudly calling for the total eradication of the Middle East based on the extremely horrifying actions of a tiny minority of it's inhabitants. That is seven shades of backward-ass, fethed up nonsense.
That tiny minority isn't as tiny as many people are claiming. Its more like a large minority, backed up by at best an apathetic majority who passively support them but aren't quite willing to go over. And that minority is growing at a worrying pace.
ISIS is a very tiny minority of total Middle Eastern population. But even if 99% of Middle East was ISIS, it would still not be justified to nuke them.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
This isn't just ISIS you know.
Islamic extremism is all over the world, and it has tacit support from a huge chunk of the population. And its only growing in popularity. Automatically Appended Next Post: Iron_Captain wrote: Grey Templar wrote: feeder wrote: jhe90 wrote:There is real issues out there. However the likes of Isis need to know there messed up actions will not be tolerated and there Is a response.
Stop them before they bring there messed up thinking to western cities.
That messed up thinking is already here. We have enlightened, civilised Westerners ITT calling for the total destruction of the Middle East because the inhabitants are not human. Truly, this thread is a low point for Dakka.
While its still important to not lose sight of humanity, there has to be a point where you say enough is enough.
We can't just let these terrible things continue to happen.
Stopping something terrible by doing something which is also terrible isn't a bad thing. Its the hard decision that is ultimately the right one.
"If you gaze into the abyss for too long, the abyss gazes back into you" "When fighting a dragon, take care not to become one yourself".
Stopping something terrible by doing something also terrible is not possible. It would be like stopping a nosebleed by cutting of the nose.
The analogy is cute, but it really doesn't apply to this type of situation.
43066
Post by: feeder
It sort of does.
What I am hearing from you is, "These terrorists are monsters! Beheadings and rapes of innocents must stop at all costs! If we kill a few innocents while stopping these monsters, so what, the ends justify the means."
Am I misreading you?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
When the end result is less innocent people getting hurt overall, yes it does.
If these people have their way, they would conquer the world and spread their terror to every corner. Realistically, we have a portion of the globe that just churns out terrorists that will make civilized life a living hell with the constant threat of bombs and other attacks until they are stopped. And we always risk them actually uniting behind one banner and becoming a new evil empire like the USSR or Nazi Germany, a small but definite threat.
War is already a nasty business. Attempting to make it civilized only results in you hampering yourself when the other guy doesn't have the same morals. Rules only make sense when everyone follows them, we're fighting people who have no rules. And that lets them fight us on an even playing field when it really shouldn't.
80673
Post by: Iron_Captain
Grey Templar wrote:When the end result is less innocent people getting hurt overall, yes it does.
If these people have their way, they would conquer the world and spread their terror to every corner. Realistically, we have a portion of the globe that just churns out terrorists that will make civilized life a living hell with the constant threat of bombs and other attacks until they are stopped. And we always risk them actually uniting behind one banner and becoming a new evil empire like the US or Nazi Germany, a small but definite threat.
War is already a nasty business. Attempting to make it civilized only results in you hampering yourself when the other guy doesn't have the same morals. Rules only make sense when everyone follows them, we're fighting people who have no rules. And that lets them fight us on an even playing field when it really shouldn't.
So in order to stop the terrorists, you want to become like them? Mate, what are you smoking?
2711
Post by: boyd
Grey Templar wrote:When the end result is less innocent people getting hurt overall, yes it does.
If these people have their way, they would conquer the world and spread their terror to every corner. Realistically, we have a portion of the globe that just churns out terrorists that will make civilized life a living hell with the constant threat of bombs and other attacks until they are stopped. And we always risk them actually uniting behind one banner and becoming a new evil empire like the USSR or Nazi Germany, a small but definite threat.
War is already a nasty business. Attempting to make it civilized only results in you hampering yourself when the other guy doesn't have the same morals. Rules only make sense when everyone follows them, we're fighting people who have no rules. And that lets them fight us on an even playing field when it really shouldn't.
He is kind of like Cable from the Marvel universe. He would rather some innocents die now in order to save more innocent people further down the road. Too bad we don't have innocent people that can heal as fast as wolverine...
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Who said anything about becoming like them?
We're not going to be deliberately targeting civilians like they do. We'll simply stop letting them hide behind civilians. And you know what that will do? They'll stop hiding behind them, because they'll either be dead OR they'll smarten up and go and actually hide somewhere. End result is they'll stop doing that.
When something stops working, they'll stop doing it. They hide behind civilians because it works, because we lack the stomach to do the right thing and kill the bad guy.
You'd rather let someone get away with killing, raping, and generally making life hell for hundreds or even thousands of people than kill a couple innocent people because the terrorist is standing behind them. Thats really the choice here.
43066
Post by: feeder
Grey Templar wrote:When the end result is less innocent people getting hurt overall, yes it does.
If these people have their way, they would conquer the world and spread their terror to every corner. Realistically, we have a portion of the globe that just churns out terrorists that will make civilized life a living hell with the constant threat of bombs and other attacks until they are stopped. And we always risk them actually uniting behind one banner and becoming a new evil empire like the USSR or Nazi Germany, a small but definite threat.
War is already a nasty business. Attempting to make it civilized only results in you hampering yourself when the other guy doesn't have the same morals. Rules only make sense when everyone follows them, we're fighting people who have no rules. And that lets them fight us on an even playing field when it really shouldn't.
Well, we not going to agree on this one. Thanks for the discussion. 
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
feeder wrote: Grey Templar wrote:When the end result is less innocent people getting hurt overall, yes it does.
If these people have their way, they would conquer the world and spread their terror to every corner. Realistically, we have a portion of the globe that just churns out terrorists that will make civilized life a living hell with the constant threat of bombs and other attacks until they are stopped. And we always risk them actually uniting behind one banner and becoming a new evil empire like the USSR or Nazi Germany, a small but definite threat.
War is already a nasty business. Attempting to make it civilized only results in you hampering yourself when the other guy doesn't have the same morals. Rules only make sense when everyone follows them, we're fighting people who have no rules. And that lets them fight us on an even playing field when it really shouldn't.
Well, we not going to agree on this one. Thanks for the discussion.
Fair enough, but you'll never win against people as nasty as these by playing nice.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
*Breaks out the popcorn*
Morality of Warfare.
80673
Post by: Iron_Captain
Grey Templar wrote:Who said anything about becoming like them?
We're not going to be deliberately targeting civilians like they do. We'll simply stop letting them hide behind civilians. And you know what that will do? They'll stop hiding behind them, because they'll either be dead OR they'll smarten up and go and actually hide somewhere. End result is they'll stop doing that.
When something stops working, they'll stop doing it. They hide behind civilians because it works, because we lack the stomach to do the right thing and kill the bad guy.
You'd rather let someone get away with killing, raping, and generally making life hell for hundreds or even thousands of people than kill a couple innocent people because the terrorist is standing behind them. Thats really the choice here.
So you are going to stop the terrorist from hiding behind the civillian by blowing the civillians up? And somehow you still think that is not deliberately targetting them?
Maybe you should ask the civillians first whether they prefer being killed by the West over being killed by ISIS?
The thing is that you can't stop this with just killing a couple of innocent people. Depending on the weapons used, a military campaign against ISIS would lead to hundreds of thousands if not millions of civillian casualties. And how are you going to tell terrorists and civillians apart in the first place? Is the person who joins ISIS to fight the West after the West bombed his kids really evil? Is he a terrorist? Things are never black and white, and the West loses any claim to the moral high ground if it deliberately targets civillians (which is what you are doing when you kill them along with the terrorist that hides behind). And if the West is just as bad as ISIS, than what is the justification for the bombings in the first place?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Iron_Captain wrote: Grey Templar wrote:Who said anything about becoming like them?
We're not going to be deliberately targeting civilians like they do. We'll simply stop letting them hide behind civilians. And you know what that will do? They'll stop hiding behind them, because they'll either be dead OR they'll smarten up and go and actually hide somewhere. End result is they'll stop doing that.
When something stops working, they'll stop doing it. They hide behind civilians because it works, because we lack the stomach to do the right thing and kill the bad guy.
You'd rather let someone get away with killing, raping, and generally making life hell for hundreds or even thousands of people than kill a couple innocent people because the terrorist is standing behind them. Thats really the choice here.
So you are going to stop the terrorist from hiding behind the civillian by blowing the civillians up? And somehow you still think that is not deliberately targetting them?
Maybe you should ask the civillians first whether they prefer being killed by the West over being killed by ISIS?
The thing is that you can't stop this with just killing a couple of innocent people. Depending on the weapons used, a military campaign against ISIS would lead to hundreds of thousands if not millions of civillian casualties. And how are you going to tell terrorists and civillians apart in the first place? Is the person who joins ISIS to fight the West after the West bombed his kids really evil? Is he a terrorist? Things are never black and white, and the West loses any claim to the moral high ground if it deliberately targets civillians (which is what you are doing when you kill them along with the terrorist that hides behind). And if the West is just as bad as ISIS, than what is the justification for the bombings in the first place?
There is nothing to discuss with you if you can't tell the difference between targeting a terrorist and happening to catch some civilians in the crossfire and deliberately targeting those civilians in the first place.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Think "Collateral" is the word
171
Post by: Lorek
While trying to pin a simple solution on a complex, multi-faceted problem is fun, can we at least try to do it without:
- Demonizing anyone (including groups), aside from the people doing the actual killing
- Recommending orbital bombardment
- Victim blaming (haven't seen this yet, but needed a third bullet point)
Also off limits is defending moral relativism, but that holds true in all circumstances.
I know that the Off Topic Forum is a cesspool of.... cess? But please have evidence to back up statements on incendiary topics like this. It's nice to see that we all agree that what ISIS is doing is utterly deplorable, but many arguments thread need a *Citation Needed tag (and I'm pretty sure that there is no citation available).
It's easy to get worked up about stuff like this. Please keep it at least semi-civil.
221
Post by: Frazzled
feeder wrote: jhe90 wrote:There is real issues out there. However the likes of Isis need to know there messed up actions will not be tolerated and there Is a response. Stop them before they bring there messed up thinking to western cities.
That messed up thinking is already here. We have enlightened, civilised Westerners ITT calling for the total destruction of the Middle East because the inhabitants are not human. Truly, this thread is a low point for Dakka.
To quote Tony Stark: We both know you've caught me doing far worse. Automatically Appended Next Post: feeder wrote: Grey Templar wrote:Given that we are fighting a foe who is deliberately trying to cause collateral damage, yes its very few. And just look at other wars in the past. WW2: An estimated 62% of the total deaths were civilian. The Iraq and Afghan war isn't particularly egregious in that.
Well, at least we are on pace with the most destructive conflict in history. My point is, we have people in our society proudly calling for the total eradication of the Middle East based on the extremely horrifying actions of a tiny minority of it's inhabitants. That is seven shades of backward-ass, fethed up nonsense.
You're ignorant or illiterate. The Soviets alone lost up to 25,000,000 people in WWII. Everything since has been a cakewalk. Its like they don't even teach history any more.
47598
Post by: motyak
Put politeness into your posts Frazzled, you're toeing Rule 1. He probably meant in terms of ratios. Chill, maybe step away from the keyboard for a few minutes
80673
Post by: Iron_Captain
Grey Templar wrote: Iron_Captain wrote: Grey Templar wrote:Who said anything about becoming like them?
We're not going to be deliberately targeting civilians like they do. We'll simply stop letting them hide behind civilians. And you know what that will do? They'll stop hiding behind them, because they'll either be dead OR they'll smarten up and go and actually hide somewhere. End result is they'll stop doing that.
When something stops working, they'll stop doing it. They hide behind civilians because it works, because we lack the stomach to do the right thing and kill the bad guy.
You'd rather let someone get away with killing, raping, and generally making life hell for hundreds or even thousands of people than kill a couple innocent people because the terrorist is standing behind them. Thats really the choice here.
So you are going to stop the terrorist from hiding behind the civillian by blowing the civillians up? And somehow you still think that is not deliberately targetting them?
Maybe you should ask the civillians first whether they prefer being killed by the West over being killed by ISIS?
The thing is that you can't stop this with just killing a couple of innocent people. Depending on the weapons used, a military campaign against ISIS would lead to hundreds of thousands if not millions of civillian casualties. And how are you going to tell terrorists and civillians apart in the first place? Is the person who joins ISIS to fight the West after the West bombed his kids really evil? Is he a terrorist? Things are never black and white, and the West loses any claim to the moral high ground if it deliberately targets civillians (which is what you are doing when you kill them along with the terrorist that hides behind). And if the West is just as bad as ISIS, than what is the justification for the bombings in the first place?
There is nothing to discuss with you if you can't tell the difference between targeting a terrorist and happening to catch some civilians in the crossfire and deliberately targeting those civilians in the first place.
Maybe you'd care to explain yourself for once rather than making statements without arguments.
54233
Post by: AduroT
It's very true though, if we just nuke the whole region then they won't be able to kill any more innocents since well already have killed them all ourselves.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 AduroT wrote:It's very true though, if we just nuke the whole region then they won't be able to kill any more innocents since well already have killed them all ourselves.
Nuking the whole region, besides being morally repugnant, is not logically feasible. On a purely "enlightenened self interest" view, many of the recent nutjobs have come from Europe and the US. You would have to nuke them too. This would lead to MAD response. As we would be launching the first strike, we would have to nuke ourselves. I feel a Peter Sellers moment approaching.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
Just nuke everybody!
221
Post by: Frazzled
microwaves for everyone! remember counter top models seem to last longer than overhead ones.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Iron_Captain wrote: Grey Templar wrote: Iron_Captain wrote: Grey Templar wrote:Who said anything about becoming like them?
We're not going to be deliberately targeting civilians like they do. We'll simply stop letting them hide behind civilians. And you know what that will do? They'll stop hiding behind them, because they'll either be dead OR they'll smarten up and go and actually hide somewhere. End result is they'll stop doing that.
When something stops working, they'll stop doing it. They hide behind civilians because it works, because we lack the stomach to do the right thing and kill the bad guy.
You'd rather let someone get away with killing, raping, and generally making life hell for hundreds or even thousands of people than kill a couple innocent people because the terrorist is standing behind them. Thats really the choice here.
So you are going to stop the terrorist from hiding behind the civillian by blowing the civillians up? And somehow you still think that is not deliberately targetting them?
Maybe you should ask the civillians first whether they prefer being killed by the West over being killed by ISIS?
The thing is that you can't stop this with just killing a couple of innocent people. Depending on the weapons used, a military campaign against ISIS would lead to hundreds of thousands if not millions of civillian casualties. And how are you going to tell terrorists and civillians apart in the first place? Is the person who joins ISIS to fight the West after the West bombed his kids really evil? Is he a terrorist? Things are never black and white, and the West loses any claim to the moral high ground if it deliberately targets civillians (which is what you are doing when you kill them along with the terrorist that hides behind). And if the West is just as bad as ISIS, than what is the justification for the bombings in the first place?
There is nothing to discuss with you if you can't tell the difference between targeting a terrorist and happening to catch some civilians in the crossfire and deliberately targeting those civilians in the first place.
Maybe you'd care to explain yourself for once rather than making statements without arguments.
You couldn't tell the difference between deliberately targeting civilians, which is what terrorists do, and targeting terrorists and happening to cause some collateral damage.
Basically, we need to be less sensitive to collateral damage.
If we make the previously safe areas terrorists like to hide in suddenly unsafe, they'll stop hiding there. If they can no longer sit next to schools, hospitals, and houses and be safe, they'll instead go and hide where they're not in plain sight. Our restrictive ROE basically allows them to get away with doing what they do, which is hurt innocent people.
See the difference now? Its all about intent. We're shouldn't to go out of our way to cause harm to civilians, but neither should we allow terrorists to escape.
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
Glassing the middle east to kill all the terrorists, which is the suggestion that started this discussion, is targeting civilians.
Don't be stupid.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
I wasn't suggesting we glass the entire middle east. And I think Nukes would simply be unfeasible.
But we can use heavier handed air attacks in general.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Think we can ease up nuking the Middle East now. Think we played out the scene from Aliens (Hicks, Hudson, Vasquez, etc etc etc....A Corporal would not have the codes to launch a nuke).
80673
Post by: Iron_Captain
Grey Templar wrote: Iron_Captain wrote: Grey Templar wrote: Iron_Captain wrote: Grey Templar wrote:Who said anything about becoming like them? We're not going to be deliberately targeting civilians like they do. We'll simply stop letting them hide behind civilians. And you know what that will do? They'll stop hiding behind them, because they'll either be dead OR they'll smarten up and go and actually hide somewhere. End result is they'll stop doing that. When something stops working, they'll stop doing it. They hide behind civilians because it works, because we lack the stomach to do the right thing and kill the bad guy. You'd rather let someone get away with killing, raping, and generally making life hell for hundreds or even thousands of people than kill a couple innocent people because the terrorist is standing behind them. Thats really the choice here.
So you are going to stop the terrorist from hiding behind the civillian by blowing the civillians up? And somehow you still think that is not deliberately targetting them? Maybe you should ask the civillians first whether they prefer being killed by the West over being killed by ISIS? The thing is that you can't stop this with just killing a couple of innocent people. Depending on the weapons used, a military campaign against ISIS would lead to hundreds of thousands if not millions of civillian casualties. And how are you going to tell terrorists and civillians apart in the first place? Is the person who joins ISIS to fight the West after the West bombed his kids really evil? Is he a terrorist? Things are never black and white, and the West loses any claim to the moral high ground if it deliberately targets civillians (which is what you are doing when you kill them along with the terrorist that hides behind). And if the West is just as bad as ISIS, than what is the justification for the bombings in the first place?
There is nothing to discuss with you if you can't tell the difference between targeting a terrorist and happening to catch some civilians in the crossfire and deliberately targeting those civilians in the first place.
Maybe you'd care to explain yourself for once rather than making statements without arguments.
You couldn't tell the difference between deliberately targeting civilians, which is what terrorists do, and targeting terrorists and happening to cause some collateral damage. Basically, we need to be less sensitive to collateral damage. If we make the previously safe areas terrorists like to hide in suddenly unsafe, they'll stop hiding there. If they can no longer sit next to schools, hospitals, and houses and be safe, they'll instead go and hide where they're not in plain sight. Our restrictive ROE basically allows them to get away with doing what they do, which is hurt innocent people. See the difference now? Its all about intent. We're shouldn't to go out of our way to cause harm to civilians, but neither should we allow terrorists to escape.
If it is by accident, than yes, there is a difference. But if you target a terrorist while knowing that in that same airstrike civillians are also likely to die, and this is something you accept, than you are deliberately targetting not only the terrorist, but the civillians also.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
Well, it's a bit different (it's not killing civilians, for the point of killing civilian), but it's not good.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Grey Templar wrote: Iron_Captain wrote: Grey Templar wrote: Iron_Captain wrote: Grey Templar wrote:Who said anything about becoming like them?
We're not going to be deliberately targeting civilians like they do. We'll simply stop letting them hide behind civilians. And you know what that will do? They'll stop hiding behind them, because they'll either be dead OR they'll smarten up and go and actually hide somewhere. End result is they'll stop doing that.
When something stops working, they'll stop doing it. They hide behind civilians because it works, because we lack the stomach to do the right thing and kill the bad guy.
You'd rather let someone get away with killing, raping, and generally making life hell for hundreds or even thousands of people than kill a couple innocent people because the terrorist is standing behind them. Thats really the choice here.
So you are going to stop the terrorist from hiding behind the civillian by blowing the civillians up? And somehow you still think that is not deliberately targetting them?
Maybe you should ask the civillians first whether they prefer being killed by the West over being killed by ISIS?
The thing is that you can't stop this with just killing a couple of innocent people. Depending on the weapons used, a military campaign against ISIS would lead to hundreds of thousands if not millions of civillian casualties. And how are you going to tell terrorists and civillians apart in the first place? Is the person who joins ISIS to fight the West after the West bombed his kids really evil? Is he a terrorist? Things are never black and white, and the West loses any claim to the moral high ground if it deliberately targets civillians (which is what you are doing when you kill them along with the terrorist that hides behind). And if the West is just as bad as ISIS, than what is the justification for the bombings in the first place?
There is nothing to discuss with you if you can't tell the difference between targeting a terrorist and happening to catch some civilians in the crossfire and deliberately targeting those civilians in the first place.
Maybe you'd care to explain yourself for once rather than making statements without arguments.
You couldn't tell the difference between deliberately targeting civilians, which is what terrorists do, and targeting terrorists and happening to cause some collateral damage.
Basically, we need to be less sensitive to collateral damage.
If we make the previously safe areas terrorists like to hide in suddenly unsafe, they'll stop hiding there. If they can no longer sit next to schools, hospitals, and houses and be safe, they'll instead go and hide where they're not in plain sight. Our restrictive ROE basically allows them to get away with doing what they do, which is hurt innocent people.
See the difference now? Its all about intent. We're shouldn't to go out of our way to cause harm to civilians, but neither should we allow terrorists to escape.
And how much more sympathy do the terrorists get when we start blowing innocent families to bits? How many more become radicalized?
50512
Post by: Jihadin
We started straight out targeting innocent families now?
51383
Post by: Experiment 626
 Jihadin wrote:We started straight out targeting innocent families now?
Apparently it's only the big bad West who ever commit genocidal war crimes...
Good to know that using civvies as human shields is perfectly within reason however, and means that if they die, it's entirely our fault because... "Reasons."
Alongside all the other mass murders, racial/faith cleansing & intolerance, burning captured enemy soldier alive, beheadings as entertainment, burying children alive for giggles, rapping girls as young as 8 or 9 half to death, etc, etc...
80673
Post by: Iron_Captain
Experiment 626 wrote: Jihadin wrote:We started straight out targeting innocent families now?
Apparently it's only the big bad West who ever commit genocidal war crimes...
Good to know that using civvies as human shields is perfectly within reason however, and means that if they die, it's entirely our fault because... "Reasons."
Alongside all the other mass murders, racial/faith cleansing & intolerance, burning captured enemy soldier alive, beheadings as entertainment, burying children alive for giggles, rapping girls as young as 8 or 9 half to death, etc, etc...
Maybe you should read. Nobody in this thread actually said anything like that.
No one said that that any of those things were ok. They are not. But using it as an excuse to target civillians along with the terrorists is also not ok.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
The only way to fight terrorism is to have an overwhelming presence on the ground in the area. When Shabak (elite Israeli intelligence unit) was operating in Gaza, most incidents of terrorism were confined to the area, and it was MUCH better behaved than it is today. As soon as Israel withdrew, after building the Arabs greenhouses and other infrastructure, the Arabs destroyed everything they were given and went right back to being death cultists.
Long story short, if you want to stop terrorism, it takes an overwhelming presence of force on the ground, and very strong intelligence networks. Israel didn't (and doesn't, IMO) have a choice but to put boots on the ground in Gaza if they want to stop terrorist attacks on their own soil. But is that really what we're going for with ISIS? Do we have the capability or will to do so?
1206
Post by: Easy E
No, if you want to stop terrorism you need to battle it politically and ideologically. Military force is only one tool in the tool box, and plays a role; but to think you can solve these issues ONLY with military force is delusional.
51383
Post by: Experiment 626
 Easy E wrote:No, if you want to stop terrorism you need to battle it politically and ideologically. Military force is only one tool in the tool box, and plays a role; but to think you can solve these issues ONLY with military force is delusional.
Most of the time yes. Against the likes of radical Islamist filth like IS who are pretty much nothing more than a giant death cult, the only option is to wipe them from the face of the earth before they can do it to us.
There is no negotiation or political process here. These are not groups fighting to establish an independent nation like the Palestinian conflict. IS, Boko-haram, al-Shadaab... these groups have only a single ideology and a single goal; the establishment of a world-wide Islamic Caliphate built across the ashes of human civilisation.
These guys literally are an even more extreme and savage group than what Nazi Germany was. The only reason IS hasn't grown into a true worldwide threat yet, is simply logistics and geographical isolation.
The only ideological battle to be fought here is to try and stop the radicalisation of western youth in order to help cut down the flow of foreign fighters.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
ISIS/ISIL is far from being a Death Cult
1206
Post by: Easy E
Yet, the Islamic Caliphate( and Nazi GermanY) were both political and ideological constructs. Did our defeat of Germany in WWII end Fascism or Nazi ideology?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Easy E wrote:Yet, the Islamic Caliphate( and Nazi GermanY) were both political and ideological constructs. Did our defeat of Germany in WWII end Fascism or Nazi ideology?
As a threat on the world stage, yes.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
Those who use fear to conquer are no different than the beasts we have slayed.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Easy E wrote:No, if you want to stop terrorism you need to battle it politically and ideologically. Military force is only one tool in the tool box, and plays a role; but to think you can solve these issues ONLY with military force is delusional.
Sounds a lot like "hearts and minds." How well is that working for 'Merica?
94992
Post by: Aszubaruzah Surn
Tannhauser42 wrote:It's things like this that make me think we might all be better off if we just busted out the nukes and glassed that entire region.
Killing all people there would prevent them from being murdered by ISIS and other groups. Very logical. There may be a tiny problem with your plan, though...
80673
Post by: Iron_Captain
 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote: Tannhauser42 wrote:It's things like this that make me think we might all be better off if we just busted out the nukes and glassed that entire region.
Killing all people there would prevent them from being murdered by ISIS and other groups. Very logical. There may be a tiny problem with your plan, though...
No, no problem at all. Nuking the entire region would make the US even more despicable than ISIS. That means they should also be nuked, but the US can't be trusted to kill themselves, now can they? Besides, they just have used all their nukes on the Middle East. Seems like problem, yes? Well, do not fear, Russia is here. We will gladly assist them in nuking the evil empire of the US into oblivion before its evil can spread and kill more people. Now we just need to find someone willing to nuke Russia after we nuke the US after they nuke ISIS thus becoming even more evil than that which we sought to destroy. How many nukes does Britain have?
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Usually that's a pretty damn good reason to fear, especially if you're a hostage!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric_weapon#Military_use
It is theorized that a multitude of hand-held thermobaric weapons were used by the Russian Armed Forces in their efforts to retake the school during the 2004 Beslan school hostage crisis. The RPO-A and either the TGB-7V thermobaric rocket from the RPG-7 or rockets from either the RShG-1 or the RShG-2 is claimed to have been used by the Spetsnaz during the initial storming of the school.[50][51][52] At least 3 and as many as 9 RPO-A casings were later found at the positions of the Spetsnaz.[53][54] The Russian Government later admitted to the use of the RPO-A during the crisis.[55]
50512
Post by: Jihadin
 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Usually that's a pretty damn good reason to fear, especially if you're a hostage!
School rescue attempt?
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Can't really fault em for Beslan - that was a no win situation. The movie theater on the other hand...
1206
Post by: Easy E
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Easy E wrote:No, if you want to stop terrorism you need to battle it politically and ideologically. Military force is only one tool in the tool box, and plays a role; but to think you can solve these issues ONLY with military force is delusional.
Sounds a lot like "hearts and minds." How well is that working for 'Merica?
Not hearts and minds. I don't we need to be building them much of anything, but just challenging their assumptions by showing them laternatives.
@Grey Templar- As for Nazism/Fascism not being a threat on the world stage, I think Europe (France, Germany) and even some groups of people in America might feel a bit differently. It is still an ideology that many, many people adhere too despite its complete military defeat in WWII. Some would argue it is even on the rise.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Easy E wrote:
Not hearts and minds. I don't we need to be building them much of anything, but just challenging their assumptions by showing them laternatives.
This is essentially the George Bush Jr. approach to conducting business: Introduce them to McDonalds and Freedom ( tm) and they will see the light.
The problem is that, while they may be getting some infrastructure improvements from the US, we can't guarantee their safety. The Taliban only have to maintain a transient presence in each area in order to reduce the extent to which the civilian population is willing to cooperate.
Can you provide examples of where this approach has ever worked?
I submit that Israel's current control over the West Bank is evidence of my approach working. In addition, Gaza was comparatively very well behaved before Israel withdrew ground forces. Now it's completely infested with terrorists and a constant source of problems. The IDF and Shabak should have maintained a strong presence in Gaza despite the complaints of the international community.
59141
Post by: Elemental
Experiment 626 wrote:Most of the time yes. Against the likes of radical Islamist filth like IS who are pretty much nothing more than a giant death cult, the only option is to wipe them from the face of the earth before they can do it to us.
He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 Elemental wrote:Experiment 626 wrote:Most of the time yes. Against the likes of radical Islamist filth like IS who are pretty much nothing more than a giant death cult, the only option is to wipe them from the face of the earth before they can do it to us.
He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.
Pfft.
"Anything comes through those trees, you  ing waste 'em."
-Sergeant Elias
"Blastermen! To your stations!"
-Forbidden Planet
4817
Post by: Spetulhu
Nukes are a bit too big for showing people they can't hide, and besides the drone program is already doing pretty much that. Al-quaeda "second-in-command" number 315 is hiding in a house? Wiping out the dozen other people in it to get him (be they his family or just someone else who can't say no) doesn't seem to be a problem.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Easy E wrote:
Not hearts and minds. I don't we need to be building them much of anything, but just challenging their assumptions by showing them laternatives.
This is essentially the George Bush Jr. approach to conducting business: Introduce them to McDonalds and Freedom ( tm) and they will see the light.
The problem is that, while they may be getting some infrastructure improvements from the US, we can't guarantee their safety. The Taliban only have to maintain a transient presence in each area in order to reduce the extent to which the civilian population is willing to cooperate.
Can you provide examples of where this approach has ever worked?
Japan. Germany. South Korea.
23
Post by: djones520
All states that had a national identity prior to our coming. Afghanistan is only a nation because some dudes in the west says it was. The people are not really united. They still largely hold to their tribal roots, not their national roots.
Now, that sense is growing over here, but thousands of years of not having a national identity isn't going to change in a matter of years. It may take decades before the people fully embrace it.
|
|
