How about this as a response to terrorism: No response.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**AlmightyWalrus**

It took 50 years for East Germany to collapse, and that's a country that had a previous experience with democracy. There's going to be informants everywhere, you don't know who you'll be able to trust.

Furthermore, if it's going to take time and be bloody, how do we know that's not what's currently happening?

**CptJake**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
It took 50 years for East Germany to collapse, and that's a country that had a previous experience with democracy. There's going to be informants everywhere, you don't know who you'll be able to trust.

Furthermore, if it's going to take time and be bloody, how do we know that's not what's currently happening?

Are you really using East Germany as a comparison to what I and others are discussing?

**AlmightyWalrus**

CptJake wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
It took 50 years for East Germany to collapse, and that's a country that had a previous experience with democracy. There's going to be informants everywhere, you don't know who you'll be able to trust.

Furthermore, if it's going to take time and be bloody, how do we know that's not what's currently happening?

Are you really using East Germany as a comparison to what I and others are discussing?

Explain why the comparison doesn't work please. There were plenty of moderates in the GDR, but the Stasi still seemed to be able to crack down on dissenters rather efficiently.

**skyth**

Frazzled wrote:
Not too many western nations where radicals are firebombing the houses of moderates to keep them quiet. And frankly if it does happen (and it just might, again, I pointed out in my original post that you can expect radicals to strike out) it is even more reason for the moderates to identify the radical elements to the LEAs, hopefully on a prevent time frame, but if not in a catch/punish after the fact time frame.

You are correct. I was referring to regions in the ME, North Africa, and Asia.

To your own statement on what to do. Well I could say for countries not in that region substantially increased police work and social policies to foster people reporting this or actively pushing against it (as you noted earlier). For the ME, thats hard.

skyth wrote:
Considering how often 9/11 is used by conservatives here as a pretext to be intentionally offensive to Muslims, is it any wonder western interference in the middle east is used as a pretext for revenge terrorism?

You sure seem to push that a lot.

Please explain Ivory Coast. Please explain India. Please explain the conflicts in Thailand. How do you have a pretext for killing your own people for something that is theoretically happening thousands of miles away and countries that have nothing to do with you?

One time is a lot? And I was talking about middle eastern terrorists that target western powers. The fact is acts of violence will radicalize people and give them motivation to strike back.

**Formosa**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Formosa wrote:
OgreChubbs wrote:
Formosa wrote:
AncientSkarbrand wrote:
The religion is violent, and justifies violence.

There is no easy answer. The religions we have today need to finally be accepted as pure myth, which will completely remove their ability to psychologically spur people into using their lives as a tool for some metaphysical ideal. They need to join the Mythology sections in libraries with titles like "Christian Mythology" and "Islamic Mythology". The Romans and Greeks are already there, just to name a couple. Nobody bombs anything screaming "For Aries!" Or "For the glory of Odin!"

I'm sorry to say this, because I feel like it won't ever happen, but global scientific literacy and a scientific paradigm that throws the metaphysical baby out with the bathwater is the only thing that can possibly stop these kinds of things from happening. Humans need to stop pretending things exist, and instead replace those thoughts with ones about how things actually are and how the universe actually works and what the feth we should ACTUALLY DO to solve problems.

If there wasn't a religion, these people would instead legitimately carry out attacks for ACTUAL REASONS. Then, we as the initial wrongdoer can think about objective ways to solve the problem or accept our wrongdoing and the inevitable fallout. As it is now, it's all just way too ridiculous, and they present their religion as a shield against moral judgement and preventative action even though it's actually invalidating any other claims they could make about western culture. A large part of the reason terrorists throw their lives away for the ideal is because they think there's something better afterwards, I wager.

"What's that? We've been exploiting your homeland and people for personal gain and you're angry about it? Geeze we're sorry, let's look at ways to decrease unrest and undo or atone for the mistakes of those before us." Is what it should be. If we as wrongdoers fail this task we should accept their bombings as a consequence of our greed and entitlement.

Instead it's "What's that? A completely fictional entity promises you reward for carrying out an attack against those who aren't of your metaphysical belief system, and you consider this completely justifiable and morally correct as well as worth your own lives? You trust this entity to treat you well in your afterlife even though it clearly is of an incredibly violent and vindictive nature and doesn't care about the suffering and pain of those infidels it also apparently created? Well then... there is no reasoning with you. I think we should back away from this conversation and explore other methods of dealing with our differences."

Really, we should just do our part for now and be incredibly pacifist and helpful. Quit taking their oil, cutting forests, taking all manner of resources and leaving them with nothing, and instead help them build up from the wasteland we've left them. It is more powerful to demonize them by making them look like they're killing us when we're trying to help them. This would cause them to dramatically lose recruitment power and coercion power, and cause other Muslims to abhor their actions. We know if they ever organize and attempt a real war, it wont go well for them at all. But as long as Islam has any footing in culture other than Mythology, there will be a reason for jihad, a justification for jihad, and thus jihad itself.

TL: DR- The entire world needs to advance towards a much more practical, scientific entity without metaphysical justification for actions. Then cultural differences can be worked out without large scale destruction and suffering.

Agreed
Childish point of view at best, people have been mass murdering each other since the dawn of time. They make up reglion or saying space mem are coming for you if you do this and so on. The average person reglious or not will not do harm on other people for no reason. To blame reglion is a folly of those who do not understand human nature.

People want what other people have and to get ahead by working together. Saying because he said islam they are terrorist is dumb. There is millions of reglious people in the world who do good far more then do bad.

There is more examples of non reglious people doing crimes then reglious so ya.... Dont go throwing stones in a glass house.

Actually it's a well thought out and put post, we're told constantly that Islam (and other religions) are peaceful, contrary to all evidence, remove religion, remove the excuse.

At which point the terrorists will kill people for some other reason. Islam is not the root cause of the violence.

Ah but you have missed the point, yes people will still kill people, but not in the name of some fictitious entity with the backing of there piers, remove the excuse and all they will have is "Im insane, a dick, want power" etc

And for clarity, I care nothing for Islam, Christianity etc. They are all equally worthless to modern society. Got no issues with people who want to believe in that stuff, just keep it in your own homes and no other facet of society, goverment, education (other than Mythology) or any kind of power.

**Iron_Captain**

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
The religion is violent, and justifies violence.

There is no easy answer. The religions we have today need to finally be accepted as pure myth, which will completely remove their ability to psychologically spur people into using their lives as a tool for some metaphysical ideal. They need to join the Mythology sections in libraries with titles like "Christian Mythology" and "Islamic Mythology". The Romans and Greeks are already there, just to name a couple. Nobody bombs anything screaming "For Aries!" Or "For the glory of Odin!"

Okay, we can get rid of religion, but not until we get rid of atheism and non-religion first. Or else it will just go like it went in Russia or China where the non-religious people started persecuting everyone else "For the glory of science and progress!"

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
If there wasn't a religion, these people would instead legitimately carry out attacks for ACTUAL REASONS.

Thanks for making the funniest quote on Dakka this month. It is signature-worthy.

But now I do get into problems with Poe's Law again. Not sure if this is meant to be serious.

**AncientSkarbrand**

Ah, the classic "all atheists are the exact same person as terrible governments" comment. Very enlightening. I now see the error of my ways, because i am the exact same as the government of china and russia during that time period.

I've heard that one before a million times, and unsurprisingly it still makes the exact same amount of sense. My complete lack of belief in any particular metaphysical ideology doesn't equate me to anything. There shouldn't even be a word for atheists. There isn't a word for people who don't believe in the tooth fairy. And if there was, it would cause exactly zero association to anyone else who doesn't believe in the tooth fairy, aside from sharing whatever term was invented. You couldn't claim anything about that person because of their lack of belief in the tooth fairy. Furthermore, if the tooth fairy was never invented, no one would ever have the discussion in the first place. If no one invented gods, we wouldn't run around calling everyone atheists.

I'm interested to hear about how you plan on getting rid of religion, while simultaneously getting rid of a lack of any religious belief. You can't get rid of something that is the lack of a quality unless you give them that quality. I kinda think you were making a joke here, but I'm not sure if you just don't have the right idea about atheism.

There was nothing aggressive about my post. I have zero thoughts of persecution. You're picking a fight where there is none. You will find that my original post never equated any of these radicals to the moderates. You have the wrong idea about what I proposed. I didn't say "I think all the atheists should be in charge" I said "religiously justified terrorist attacks will be a phenomenon in human society until society learns and grows out of it."

Think what you want about me, but I'm not the only atheist in the world. For the record I never said I wanted to "get rid" of religion. I said these kinds of things are an inevitability of our society when it's split up into groups that believe in metaphysical deities, and the only way I believe it can be stopped altogether is if we as a society, learn and grow out of it.

I don't see what's funny about what you quoted there. Methinks this may be off topic a bit at this point. We aren't here to discuss how much I'm like communist china, or the level of humour present in my posts.

**godardc**

No response is what has been done for decades.
If you stop fighting something just because it is difficult, then make rape legal because we never succeeded in stopping rape.
Make murder legal, we never succeeded in stopping murders from happening.
Etc etc...
Renouncing is the beggining of the end of the state of law.
No state should have made drugs legal.
Maybe it is time, at last, to beggin to handle the issue with terrorism ?

Guantanamo bay is a good exemple of what is needed.
Ok, maybe, sometimes, you arrest innocent people. But how many terrorists or futur terrorists, could we arrest with something like this ?
Arresting 1 innocent is bad, but by arresting 1 terrorist you save tens of innocents.

We are at war for so long, and no real measure has been made to handle the issue until now.

Seriously, almost, if not all, of the terrorists were "known" by the Police forces and had "fiches S" (were noted for being dangerous people).
Just arrest every dangerous, terrorsit supposed, guy, DO NOT LET THEM OUT OF THE JAIL, never, and suddenly, you have no more attack.

But no, let just millions of people come from the ennemy territory without any control, let make an ad campagin against amalgams, everything is fine.

**CptJake**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
CptJake wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
It took 50 years for East Germany to collapse, and that's a country that had a previous experience with democracy. There's going to be informants everywhere, you don't know who you'll be able to trust.

Furthermore, if it's going to take time and be bloody, how do we know that's not what's currently happening?

Are you really using East Germany as a comparison to what I and others are discussing?

Explain why the comparison doesn't work please. There were plenty of moderates in the GDR, but the Stasi still seemed to be able to crack down on dissenters rather efficiently.

Because, if there is ANY comparison, the 'dissenters' would be analogous to the radical Islamists. The state with informers easily kept them suppressed and kept the informers protected. The Stasi had probably the best Counter Intel and HUMINT in the era at their disposal.

But the reality is it is not a comparable situation. East Germany is not a comparison to Muslim communities in the West. It was a separate nation under the protection/control of the Soviet Union (and all the resources that entails). It was a relatively homogeneous people who culturally fit into the place they were. They did not have problems with small communities (generally of immigrants) who were economically suppressed and which refused to culturally assimilate. There are so many reasons it is a gakky comparison I can't believe you are arguing it.

**OgreChubbs**

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
Ah, the classic "all atheists are the exact same person as terrible governments" comment. Very enlightening. I now see the error of my ways, because i am the exact same as the government of china and russia during that time period.

I've heard that one before a million times, and unsurprisingly it still makes the exact same amount of sense. My complete lack of belief in any particular metaphysical ideology doesn't equate me to anything. There shouldn't even be a word for atheists. There isn't a word for people who don't believe in the tooth fairy. And if there was, it would cause exactly zero association to anyone else who doesn't believe in the tooth fairy, aside from sharing whatever term was invented. You couldn't claim anything about that person because of their lack of belief in the tooth fairy. Furthermore, if the tooth fairy was never invented, no one would ever have the discussion in the first place. If no one invented gods, we wouldn't run around calling everyone atheists.

I'm interested to hear about how you plan on getting rid of religion, while simultaneously getting rid of a lack of any religious belief. You can't get rid of something that is the lack of a quality unless you give them that quality. I kinda think you were making a joke here, but I'm not sure if you just don't have the right idea about atheism.

There was nothing aggressive about my post. I have zero thoughts of persecution. You're picking a fight where there is none. You will find that my original post never equated any of these radicals to the moderates. You have the wrong idea about what I proposed. I didn't say "I think all the atheists should be in charge" I said "religiously justified terrorist attacks will be a phenomenon in human society until society learns and grows out of it."

Think what you want about me, but I'm not the only atheist in the world. For the record I never said I wanted to "get rid" of religion. I said these kinds of things are an inevitability of our society when it's split up into groups that believe in metaphysical deities, and the only way I believe it can be stopped altogether is if we as a society, learn and grow out of it.

I don't see what's funny about what you quoted there. Methinks this may be off topic a bit at this point. We aren't here to discuss how much I'm like communist china, or the level of humour present in my posts.

Really reglion split up the groups?

Think about it amoungst Americans U.S.A.

There is sub group made up by people who hate the other for what ever reason

Income
Rich
Middle Class
Poor

Races
Black
White
Asian
Latino

Class of person I guess
goth
emo
punk
rocker
what ever else I missed

Then there is extremists like
Black Panthers
KKK

People always have a large group they belong to then break themselves into smaller and smaller. It is what we do. So to say religions is the leading cause or what ever is well wrong.

**sebster**

And once again we have people responding to the actions of a small number of people with talk about mass bombings and large scale warfare that would kill millions. Ridiculous.

Anyway, if ever anyone wanted a decent explanation for where terror comes from, just read threads like this. Notice how little actual threat there needs to be before people want to respond with total war. Not that everyone, or many people actually, will go from hating on some random ‘other’ to actually killing them. But once you factor in desperate social and economic circumstances, and a social network that actually pushes a person towards action, it isn’t hard to see how it happens.

As for actually solving the problem, well the answer is a dull grind. A crazy large pile of money poured in to security processes that make attacks more difficult, but never impossible. Constant work to degrade and dismantle terror networks, at home and abroad. And constant work done with Muslim groups at home and abroad to distance the terror groups from their natural bases of support. Which is what is happening.

It doesn’t have the satisfying carnage that some people need for revenge, of course. But that’s how useful things get done in the real world.

**DutchWinsAll**

Cothonian wrote:
Formosa wrote:
I have a counter proposal, give them what they want, a full scale war, we should treat these people like we treated the nazis and systematically wipe them out, then make sure they know for generations to come, don't feth with Europe.

I'll second this assessment.

I feel like people demonize the Nazis so much because its an easy target. They want to forget all the other countries that had a very helping hand in those atrocities. Eastern Europe, for example,supplied large percentages of the death squads prior to the extermination camps. Depending on geography this went from full support to partisan guerillas in the extremes against it.

Either way Islamic supremacy has almost nothing to do with Nazism. You can't bomb out the infrastructure of a millenia old beliefs system like the steel plants of the Ruhr Valley. And just like those massive bombing campaigns, ultimately the change came from within.

Until the takfiri school of Islam is defeated, there will be violence in its name, to the detriment of all Muslims, and more than a few non-Muslims.

**LethalShade**

godardc wrote:
No response is what has been done for decades.
If you stop fighting something just because it is difficult, then make rape legal because we never succeeded in stopping rape.
Make murder legal, we never succeeded in stopping murders from happening.
Etc etc...
Renouncing is the beggining of the end of the state of law.
No state should have made drugs legal.
Maybe it is time, at last, to beggin to handle the issue with terrorism ?

Guantanamo bay is a good exemple of what is needed.
Ok, maybe, sometimes, you arrest innocent people. But how many terrorists or futur terrorists, could we arrest with something like this ?
Arresting 1 innocent is bad, but by arresting 1 terrorist you save tens of innocents.

We are at war for so long, and no real measure has been made to handle the issue until now.

Seriously, almost, if not all, of the terrorists were "known" by the Police forces and had "fiches S" (were noted for being dangerous people).
Just arrest every dangerous, terrorsit supposed, guy, DO NOT LET THEM OUT OF THE JAIL, never, and suddenly, you have no more attack.

But no, let just millions of people come from the ennemy territory without any control, let make an ad campagin against amalgams, everything is fine.

We don't have much solutions actually. The more aggressive we get, the more powerful we are, the more desperate they will be. And a desperate group of people is a dangerous one.

**ThatGuyFromThatPlace**

General Hobbs wrote:

The root causes of Islamic terrorism are many. Economics, the dogma of the religion, the culture of the Middle East.

If the West bombs, them, many argue this makes more terrorists.

I'd hazard that even if every person in the world converted to Islam tomorrow, there would still be terror attacks.

Every time there is, neighborhoods get raided, people lose their rights in some way, and nothing stops the attacks.

So my proposal is....let them happen and just ignore them. Yes, lives will be lost. It'll end up being the same thing as a hurricane or tornado...a force of nature.

It's a recurring theme we see in inner cities with drug crime. Take down one dealer, a new one shows up. Even with legalization, there's still a black market and the gangs don't really go away.

Evil fills a vacuum.

I would rather be the extremist myself, and deport them and anyone who helped them and anyone related to them back to the middle East, and then set up a system where it is almost impossible for someone who is Islamic to gain entry to my country. Of course that makes me a monster but at least I wouldn't have to read about a terrorist attack EVERY SINGLE DAY.

**sebster**

ThatGuyFromThatPlace wrote:
I would rather be the extremist myself, and deport them and anyone who helped them and anyone related to them back to the middle East, and then set up a system where it is almost impossible for someone who is Islamic to gain entry to my country. Of course that makes me a monster but at least I wouldn't have to read about a terrorist attack EVERY SINGLE DAY.

And here we get to a major root of the problem – a complete failure to understand the scope of terrorism. The fact that something appears in newspapers tells you nothing more than how much newspapers think this is a big story, it tells you nothing about the actual scale of the issue.

It’s a bit like people thinking air travel is scary because plane crashes are frequently reported. But that’s because any fatal plane crash makes international news. In contrast a fatal car crash may not even make the local news. So people end up thinking planes are dangerous and cars are safe, but the position is completely the opposite.

Similarly, you think terrorism is of such a massive issue that it requires mass scale deportations and total immigration bans based on religion. You support extreme measures, under the belief that they are needed because it’s in the newspapers all the time so it must be a real and constant threat. Except that in between Paris and Brussels attacks probably around twice as many people have drowned in bathtubs. Is anyone proposing radical action about bathtubs?

The response must be proportionate to the actual threat, not proportionate to the media coverage.

**carlos13th**

CptJake wrote:
carlos13th wrote:
Those who say its on moderate.Muslims to take care of this kind of thing. If you blame moderate Muslims for not taking care of extremism do you also blame moderate Christians when abotion clinics get blown up or gay people get beaten up by extremist Christians?

If I had a neighbor who I suspected was beating up anyone, gay or not, or who I suspected was putting together a bomb, I would turn them in. If my religion saw it as valid to use part of what they collected from the congregation to 'wage war on abortion clinics and gays', I would not put a fething cent into the collection, would encourage others to do the same, and would leave that congregation, looking for one who refused to fund violence and did not see the funding of violence as a religious requirement. If my priest or one of the other clergy/ministers was preaching a message I did not approve of, either during services or in other lessons, I would again let folks know why that message was wrong, and I would refuse to participate, leaving the congregation for one that dod not spread a message I did not approve of (and I have actually done just that). If the message was one I thought actually promoted violence, I sure as hell would let some LEA know.

Zakat is one of the pillars of Islam, and it only has a few things it can be spent on, and a couple of those thing directly help spread violence and radicalization. Like it or not, that IS a tenant of the religion. Most moderate Muslims don't acknowledge it, or believe (often correctly) their specific contributions don't go towards violence and radicalization, but their funds DO free up other funds to do so. If the tribute stops, the ability to radicalize decreases. When I mentioned needing reform, this is one of the key aspects needing reform in my opinion. You cannot have a major pillar of your religion be allowed to used to fund radicalization and jihad and expect to not have issues in the modern world.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

carlos13th wrote:
Yeah I wonder how openly liberal I would be if it meant my house got firebombed. That kind thing leads one to just keep their head down and their mouth shut.

Frazzled wrote:
Its hard to be a moderate in an area where being a moderate and speaking out gets you and your entire family killed.

Not too many western nations where radicals are firebombing the houses of moderates to keep them quiet. And frankly if it does happen (and it just might, again, I pointed out in my original post that you can expect radicals to strike out) it is even more reason for the moderates to identify the radical elements to the LEAs, hopefully on a prevent time frame, but if not in a catch/punish after the fact time frame.

Are you under the impression that Muslims don't turn other Muslims in? You realise law enforcement forces do get quite s few tip offs from Muslims right?

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

sebster wrote:
ThatGuyFromThatPlace wrote:
I would rather be the extremist myself, and deport them and anyone who helped them and anyone related to them back to the middle East, and then set up a system where it is almost impossible for someone who is Islamic to gain entry to my country. Of course that makes me a monster but at least I wouldn't have to read about a terrorist attack EVERY SINGLE DAY.

And here we get to a major root of the problem – a complete failure to understand the scope of terrorism. The fact that something appears in newspapers tells you nothing more than how much newspapers think this is a big story, it tells you nothing about the actual scale of the issue.

It’s a bit like people thinking air travel is scary because plane crashes are frequently reported. But that’s because any fatal plane crash makes international news. In contrast a fatal car crash may not even make the local news. So people end up thinking planes are dangerous and cars are safe, but the position is completely the opposite.

Similarly, you think terrorism is of such a massive issue that it requires mass scale deportations and total immigration bans based on religion. You support extreme measures, under the belief that they are needed because it’s in the newspapers all the time so it must be a real and constant threat. Except that in between Paris and Brussels attacks probably around twice as many people have drowned in bathtubs. Is anyone proposing radical action about bathtubs?

The response must be proportionate to the actual threat, not proportionate to the media coverage.

Dude. He reads about a terrorist attack EVERY SINGLE DAY! There are at least 365 terrorist attacks a year. And counting only those outside of the middle east, of course. Those don't count to him, obviously, else his solution would not be “deport them to the middle east”.

**LethalShade**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Dude. He reads about a terrorist attack EVERY SINGLE DAY! There are at least 365 terrorist attacks a year. And counting only those outside of the middle east, of course. Those don't count to him, obviously, else his solution would not be “deport them to the middle east”.

But people dying in the middle east aren't real human beings : they're muslims ! Who cares about them ?

(I was being sarcastic, obviously.)

**lord_blackfang**

Frazzled wrote:
So again, what does that have to do with Belgium or Paris? What does this have to do with shooting a local kid on a beach in Ivory Coast? How about executing some Egyptian (Christian) construction workers you find in Libya? This should be interesting.

Same reason as americans beating up random brown people after terrorist attacks. Same reason as people in this very thread calling for genocide. Why don't you question their logic?

**CptJake**

carlos13th wrote:
CptJake wrote:
carlos13th wrote:
Those who say its on moderate.Muslims to take care of this kind of thing. If you blame moderate Muslims for not taking care of extremism do you also blame moderate Christians when abotion clinics get blown up or gay people get beaten up by extremist Christians?

If I had a neighbor who I suspected was beating up anyone, gay or not, or who I suspected was putting together a bomb, I would turn them in. If my religion saw it as valid to use part of what they collected from the congregation to 'wage war on abortion clinics and gays', I would not put a fething cent into the collection, would encourage others to do the same, and would leave that congregation, looking for one who refused to fund violence and did not see the funding of violence as a religious requirement. If my priest or one of the other clergy/ministers was preaching a message I did not approve of, either during services or in other lessons, I would again let folks know why that message was wrong, and I would refuse to participate, leaving the congregation for one that dod not spread a message I did not approve of (and I have actually done just that). If the message was one I thought actually promoted violence, I sure as hell would let some LEA know.

Zakat is one of the pillars of Islam, and it only has a few things it can be spent on, and a couple of those thing directly help spread violence and radicalization. Like it or not, that IS a tenant of the religion. Most moderate Muslims don't acknowledge it, or believe (often correctly) their specific contributions don't go towards violence and radicalization, but their funds DO free up other funds to do so. If the tribute stops, the ability to radicalize decreases. When I mentioned needing reform, this is one of the key aspects needing reform in my opinion. You cannot have a major pillar of your religion be allowed to used to fund radicalization and jihad and expect to not have issues in the modern world.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

carlos13th wrote:
Yeah I wonder how openly liberal I would be if it meant my house got firebombed. That kind thing leads one to just keep their head down and their mouth shut.

Frazzled wrote:
Its hard to be a moderate in an area where being a moderate and speaking out gets you and your entire family killed.

Not too many western nations where radicals are firebombing the houses of moderates to keep them quiet. And frankly if it does happen (and it just might, again, I pointed out in my original post that you can expect radicals to strike out) it is even more reason for the moderates to identify the radical elements to the LEAs, hopefully on a prevent time frame, but if not in a catch/punish after the fact time frame.

Are you under the impression that Muslims don't turn other Muslims in? You realise law enforcement forces do get quite s few tip offs from Muslims right?

I'm under the impression that the cell in Brussels has been operating for quite a while, and that takes at least some support, even if it is in the form of inaction. I am under the impression that the cells in Europe have folks who have traveled to the war zone and been trained, and returned to their communities, and again, that takes some support, even if it is inaction.

Yes I know some Muslims turn in the radicals. And that is fantastic. If you go back to my original post (filter on my posts in this topic) you will see that is not all I think needs to happen. It is a part of a very long process. And the 'informing' part is pretty minor, especially when there is still too much acceptance of the teachings and funding mechanisms which enable the radicalization process.

**Easy E**

CptJake wrote:
Easy E wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Obviously we need more than a pure military response.

Having said that, listening to the radio while taking Daughter to school, one guy opined 'The moderate Muslims are terrified of us, terrified we'll over react'. I submit they are not terrified enough to clean up their own mess, not terrified enough that they push their religious leaders to implement the type of reform Christianity went through, not terrified enough that they quit funding (zakat) and otherwise supporting (even if through inaction) the radical elements in their neighborhoods.

If I recall, the process in the West took centuries and was a pretty bloody business as well.

I really am perplexed lately by this "Moderates clean-up" line of argument. It really isn't that easy, because guess what; the extremists are always willing to go further than any moderate is. Once the Moderates can go just as far as the extremists, they are no longer moderates. CPTJake, I hope you can explain it to me, because I am unsure how it is supposed to work. I would really like it too, but I am unsure how it does.

When moderates don't let LEAs know there is a Imam preaching hate, the hate spreads. When they continue to go to that mosque and pay zakat, even if they are not radicalized they are enabling the radicalization of others. When moderates continue to fund the radicals, the hate and killing spread. When they see their kids becoming radicalized and don't fething stomp it out they are enabling the violence. I listed ways in the post which you cut out. I stated it is a long process. I'm not advocating moderates in Western nations begin civil wars in their neighborhoods. Yes, the radicals may very well strike out at their moderate brethren in the West, and the moderates need to turn them in and let the LEAs take them down. Standing aside and allowing the radicals to exist in your community just enables further radicalization.

Fair enough. i can see that workign within the West and that makes more sense. i was thinking about it more at the Root of the problems in the ME.

**CptJake**

Easy E wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Easy E wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Obviously we need more than a pure military response.

Having said that, listening to the radio while taking Daughter to school, one guy opined 'The moderate Muslims are terrified of us, terrified we'll over react'. I submit they are not terrified enough to clean up their own mess, not terrified enough that they push their religious leaders to implement the type of reform Christianity went through, not terrified enough that they quit funding (zakat) and otherwise supporting (even if through inaction) the radical elements in their neighborhoods.

If I recall, the process in the West took centuries and was a pretty bloody business as well.

I really am perplexed lately by this "Moderates clean-up" line of argument. It really isn't that easy, because guess what; the extremists are always willing to go further than any moderate is. Once the Moderates can go just as far as the extremists, they are no longer moderates. CPTJake, I hope you can explain it to me, because I am unsure how it is supposed to work. I would really like it too, but I am unsure how it does.

When moderates don't let LEAs know there is a Imam preaching hate, the hate spreads. When they continue to go to that mosque and pay zakat, even if they are not radicalized they are enabling the radicalization of others. When moderates continue to fund the radicals, the hate and killing spread. When they see their kids becoming radicalized and don't fething stomp it out they are enabling the violence. I listed ways in the post which you cut out. I stated it is a long process. I'm not advocating moderates in Western nations begin civil wars in their neighborhoods. Yes, the radicals may very well strike out at their moderate brethren in the West, and the moderates need to turn them in and let the LEAs take them down. Standing aside and allowing the radicals to exist in your community just enables further radicalization.

Fair enough. i can see that workign within the West and that makes more sense. i was thinking about it more at the Root of the problems in the ME.

The part of my post you cut starts to address the bigger problem. Basically as others have mentioned, Islam needs a reform. And the people need to push for that. The West and governments within the region can surely help by resourcing Imams and other leaders who not only put out moderate/reformed teachings, but outright condemn not just violence but the use of a pillar of their religion to resource the spread of radicalism and violence. The changing of that pillar (how it is defined and how it is practiced) is one of the crucial aspects of the needed reform. There is a lot more reform needed as well. Again, it is not a quick fix nor an easy one, and the solution set obviously needs to address things like basic women's rights. A major problem you don't often see discussed is that Islam was not intended to be just a religion, but also the basis for governance of the people. Christianity and the West seem to have found a way for religion to exist within a non religious governmental structure so though there are conflicts (You can't make me bake a cake!) for the most part Western society manages to separate the two. Leaders (both religious leaders and governmental leaders) within the Middle East region and other regions where Islam is gaining hold (parts of Africa and the Pacific for example) need to find ways to push this theme. And again, it is not a short nor easy process, inevitably there will be bloodshed as the radicals fight against the process.

**jmurph**

lord_blackfang wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
So again, what does that have to do with Belgium or Paris? What does this have to do with shooting a local kid on a beach in Ivory Coast? How about executing some Egyptian (Christian) construction workers you find in Libya? This should be interesting.

Same reason as americans beating up random brown people after terrorist attacks. Same reason as people in this very thread calling for genocide. Why don't you question their logic?

The equivocation is strong in this one. People arguing on message boards and theoretical "americans beating up random brown people" is OBVIOUSLY the same as terrorist attacks that kill dozens and religiously motivated beheadings.

Seriously, trying to paint groups like ISIL as somehow sympathetic because the have been oppressed by the mean ol' West doesn't work so well when they are just as happy to kill other Muslims who have a slightly less stabby interpretation or throw homosexuals off the roof. It's also super insulting to the millions of oppressed who don't turn to such violence and demonstrates the same kind of tone deafness as the DUR BOMB THE ME crowd.

**skyth**

It has more in common than you would like to believe.

**lord_blackfang**

There's nothing sympathetic about ISIL, I'm just trying to explain that there are legitimate reasons to have a negative attitude towards the west beyond "muslims are evil savages hurrr" and I think people who don't want to see that have a lot more in common with the ISIL mindset than they'd like to admit.

**whembly**

lord_blackfang wrote:
There's nothing sympathetic about ISIL, I'm just trying to explain that there are legitimate reasons to have a negative attitude towards the west beyond "muslims are evil savages hurrr" and I think people who don't want to see that have a lot more in common with the ISIL mindset than they'd like to admit.

So... the west is committing genocide now?

Killing captives alive by setting them on fire?

Is the west raping, burying and crucifying childrens alive because they doing follow a specific faith?

Sorry... (not sorry), none of this justifies their actions based on these "legit reasons".

The sooner we admit that... the sooner we can address this. Otherwise, things like the San Barendino, Paris and now Brussels will keep on happening.

**feeder**

whembly wrote:
lord_blackfang wrote:
There's nothing sympathetic about ISIL, I'm just trying to explain that there are legitimate reasons to have a negative attitude towards the west beyond "muslims are evil savages hurrr" and I think people who don't want to see that have a lot more in common with the ISIL mindset than they'd like to admit.

So... the west is committing genocide now?

Killing captives alive by setting them on fire?

Is the west raping, burying and crucifying childrens alive because they doing follow a specific faith?

Sorry... (not sorry), none of this justifies their actions based on these "legit reasons".

The sooner we admit that... the sooner we can address this. Otherwise, things like the San Barendino, Paris and now Brussels will keep on happening.

One can condemn the faults of another while acknowledging one's own faults. The world is not a binary place.

**whembly**

feeder wrote:
whembly wrote:
lord_blackfang wrote:
There's nothing sympathetic about ISIL, I'm just trying to explain that there are legitimate reasons to have a negative attitude towards the west beyond "muslims are evil savages hurrr" and I think people who don't want to see that have a lot more in common with the ISIL mindset than they'd like to admit.

So... the west is committing genocide now?

Killing captives alive by setting them on fire?

Is the west raping, burying and crucifying childrens alive because they doing follow a specific faith?

Sorry... (not sorry), none of this justifies their actions based on these "legit reasons".

The sooner we admit that... the sooner we can address this. Otherwise, things like the San Barendino, Paris and now Brussels will keep on happening.

One can condemn the faults of another while acknowledging one's own faults. The world is not a binary place.

No... what I just listed aren't just "faults".

They're atrocities.

You're subliminally trying to equivocate their bad actions to the West's bad actions, as some sort of binary cause & effect.

**ThatGuyFromThatPlace**

sebster wrote:
ThatGuyFromThatPlace wrote:
I would rather be the extremist myself, and deport them and anyone who helped them and anyone related to them back to the middle East, and then set up a system where it is almost impossible for someone who is Islamic to gain entry to my country. Of course that makes me a monster but at least I wouldn't have to read about a terrorist attack EVERY SINGLE DAY.

And here we get to a major root of the problem – a complete failure to understand the scope of terrorism. The fact that something appears in newspapers tells you nothing more than how much newspapers think this is a big story, it tells you nothing about the actual scale of the issue.

It’s a bit like people thinking air travel is scary because plane crashes are frequently reported. But that’s because any fatal plane crash makes international news. In contrast a fatal car crash may not even make the local news. So people end up thinking planes are dangerous and cars are safe, but the position is completely the opposite.

Similarly, you think terrorism is of such a massive issue that it requires mass scale deportations and total immigration bans based on religion. You support extreme measures, under the belief that they are needed because it’s in the newspapers all the time so it must be a real and constant threat. Except that in between Paris and Brussels attacks probably around twice as many people have drowned in bathtubs. Is anyone proposing radical action about bathtubs?

The response must be proportionate to the actual threat, not proportionate to the media coverage.

I have no idea how many people die every year from drowning in a bath tub but in 2014 the death toll from terrorist attacks was about 32,000.

Now I know that you can't judge a person based on the religion they choose. But at what point do you start taking preventative measures to keep out those groups that have been shown to be the problem? Take a look at the list of recognized terrorist organizations in the world, The majority are Muslim groups, most of them are based on the ideal of Sharia law so scary.

But anyways, continue to live in your special little bubble.

**motyak**

Rule 1 isn't optional