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.

 Ashiraya wrote:


My thoughts.

And yet the 9/11 crew were all middle class educated guys, Nidal Hassan was a doctor, Farook was a college grad middle class guy....

 CptJake wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:


My thoughts.

And yet the 9/11 crew were all middle class educated guys, Nidal Hassan was a doctor, Farook was a college grad middle class guy....

Agreed. Having an education does not automatically make someone a Saint. Examples abound of educated people doing horrible things. A strong moral code, however it is obtained, either through Religious or other philosophy, involving the value of life would do more to eradicate terrorism.

And how is that moral code instilled in someone? We _______ them.





If your answer was "bomb", you're wrong.

Don't worry, guys. I changed my facebook profile to a French flag overlay for a few days so I think this ISIL thing is just about over.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
And how is that moral code instilled in someone? We _______ them.





If your answer was "bomb", you're wrong.

And many of the guys in my examples went to western schools, not radical madrasas...

Again, it is a 'nice' sounding platitude. Coupled with massive use of a hashtag campaign I'm sure it will make a lot of folks 'feel good' for having shared it.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
And how is that moral code instilled in someone? We _______ them.





If your answer was "bomb", you're wrong.

Aside from the stawman of bomb, which no one was talking about, your picture suggests solely classroom education. If you are now saying the education someone would get as part of a decent upbringing, I agree.

Putin dusts off the Tsar Bomb and thinks up a use to see it in action because the old newsreels were pretty...

Well that would be one way to get rid of ISIL strongholds.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/putin-has-threatened-to-use-nuclear-weapons-against-isis-but-hopes-they-will-never-be-needed-a6766196.html

Vladimir Putin has said he hopes nuclear warheads will not be needed to deal with terrorists, after Russia launched cruise missiles from its submarine at Syria.

During a meeting in the Kremlin, Russia’s Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu told the President that Kalibr cruise missiles had been fired by the submerged Rostov-on-Don submarine from the Mediterranean Sea for the first time.

He said TU-22 bombers also took part in the latest raids and that "significant damage" had been done to a munitions depot, a factory manufacturing mortar rounds and oil facilities. Two major targets in Raqqa, the defacto capital of Isis, had been hit, said Mr Shoigu.

President Putin said the new cruise missiles could also be equipped with nuclear warheads - but that he hoped they would never need them.

He said: "With regard to strikes from a submarine. We certainly need to analyse everything that is happening on the battlefield, how the weapons work. Both the [Kalibr] missiles and the Kh-101 rockets are generally showing very good results. We now see that these are new, modern and highly effective high-precision weapons that can be equipped either with conventional or special nuclear warheads."

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
And how is that moral code instilled in someone? We _______ them.





If your answer was "bomb", you're wrong.

I was going to say 'beat'. The only proper way to instill proper morals in a child is through hard labour and regular beatings. Now get on your knees and thank Father Tsar and Mother Motherland for providing such glorious upbringing!



But seriously, education does not solve problems of radicalisation. Many people radicalise because they feel excluded by a society that to them has no morality. If you want to prevent radicalisation, you need to make sure everyone has a place, everyone can feel useful in your society, and that there is always an authority to provide moral guidance to them.
Also, preventing the mixing of radically different cultures and moral systems is very important. You can't put a group of people from a certain culture into a country with a radically different culture and expect it to work out fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Putin dusts off the Tsar Bomb and thinks up a use to see it in action because the old newsreels were pretty...

Well that would be one way to get rid of ISIL strongholds.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/putin-has-threatened-to-use-nuclear-weapons-against-isis-but-hopes-they-will-never-be-needed-a6766196.html

Vladimir Putin has said he hopes nuclear warheads will not be needed to deal with terrorists, after Russia launched cruise missiles from its submarine at Syria.

During a meeting in the Kremlin, Russia’s Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu told the President that Kalibr cruise missiles had been fired by the submerged Rostov-on-Don submarine from the Mediterranean Sea for the first time.

He said TU-22 bombers also took part in the latest raids and that "significant damage" had been done to a munitions depot, a factory manufacturing mortar rounds and oil facilities. Two major targets in Raqqa, the defacto capital of Isis, had been hit, said Mr Shoigu.

President Putin said the new cruise missiles could also be equipped with nuclear warheads - but that he hoped they would never need them.

He said: "With regard to strikes from a submarine. We certainly need to analyse everything that is happening on the battlefield, how the weapons work. Both the [Kalibr] missiles and the Kh-101 rockets are generally showing very good results. We now see that these are new, modern and highly effective high-precision weapons that can be equipped either with conventional or special nuclear warheads."

TL;DR

V. V. Putin wrote:Remember world! Russia of havings nuclear weapons!
RUSSIA STRONK!

You guys are so cynical. >.>

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
And how is that moral code instilled in someone? We _______ them.





If your answer was "bomb", you're wrong.

I answered "Feth". is that right or wrong?

 Easy E wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
And how is that moral code instilled in someone? We _______ them.





If your answer was "bomb", you're wrong.

I answered "Feth". is that right or wrong?

Its ok, as long as you ask nicely first.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
And how is that moral code instilled in someone? We _______ them.





If your answer was "bomb", you're wrong.

I answered "Feth". is that right or wrong?

Its ok, as long as you ask nicely first.

Don't forget you need affirmative consent.

 Ashiraya wrote:
You guys are so cynical. >.>

I don't think so. I see it as being pragmatic. To put it differently, I agree with the idea that the way to fight fundamentalism is education (by improving their lives and reducing the pool of disaffected recruits), if you're willing to agree with the idea that it takes decades, which is not really helpful to the people living in villages and towns being invaded and enslaved by ISIL forces.

Which is why this is such a difficult issue; to actually fix the problem requires a multi-nation alliance to invade these countries and field military forces over there for 40 or 50 years. I can't speak for your country, but the USA does not have the political will to do so (and it would be very difficult to get the Russians to agree to let us invade Syria, for example). That's also assuming that, even if this conflict was totally bloodless - and oh boy, it wouldn't be - that the US would be willing to spend enormous, ruinous amounts of money to eventually make the world a better place for foreigners who live in countries that generally hate us. My country had a incredibly divisive political battle over giving healthcare to other Americans, so you tell me how that would sell.

I like you but this is not a problem a facebook image macro with a t-shirt slogan is useful for.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
And how is that moral code instilled in someone? We _______ them.





If your answer was "bomb", you're wrong.

I answered "Feth". is that right or wrong?

Its ok, as long as you ask nicely first.

Now that's what I call "liberation"

 Ouze wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
You guys are so cynical. >.>

I don't think so. I see it as being pragmatic. To put it differently, I agree with the idea that the way to fight fundamentalism is education (by improving their lives and reducing the pool of disaffected recruits), if you're willing to agree with the idea that it takes decades, which is not really helpful to the people living in villages and towns being invaded and enslaved by ISIL forces.

Which is why this is such a difficult issue; to actually fix the problem requires a multi-nation alliance to invade these countries and field military forces over there for 40 or 50 years. I can't speak for your country, but the USA does not have the political will to do so (and it would be very difficult to get the Russians to agree to let us invade Syria, for example). That's also assuming that, even if this conflict was totally bloodless - and oh boy, it wouldn't be - that the US would be willing to spend enormous, ruinous amounts of money to eventually make the world a better place for foreigners who live in countries that generally hate us. My country had a incredibly divisive political battle over giving healthcare to other Americans, so you tell me how that would sell.

I like you but this is not a problem a facebook image macro with a t-shirt slogan is useful for.

That is a fair way to wiew it. I'll be honest, there is no one simple solution to this.

In a way, it was perhaps just an overreaction from me. It felt like 'boots on the ground' is all that people was talking about.

We're in the situation where, we bomb them, it plays into their narrative of "murderous infidels" or whatever it is. We don't bomb them they sit there saying "look how weak they are, they cannot stop us".

How do we solve a problem like mari....Syria?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
And how is that moral code instilled in someone? We _______ them.



If your answer was "bomb", you're wrong.

I answered "Feth". is that right or wrong?

Its ok, as long as you ask nicely first.

Now that's what I call "liberation"

Um, yea. About that...

 Frazzled wrote:
Putin dusts off the Tsar Bomb and thinks up a use to see it in action because the old newsreels were pretty...

Well that would be one way to get rid of ISIL strongholds.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/putin-has-threatened-to-use-nuclear-weapons-against-isis-but-hopes-they-will-never-be-needed-a6766196.html

Vladimir Putin has said he hopes nuclear warheads will not be needed to deal with terrorists, after Russia launched cruise missiles from its submarine at Syria.

During a meeting in the Kremlin, Russia’s Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu told the President that Kalibr cruise missiles had been fired by the submerged Rostov-on-Don submarine from the Mediterranean Sea for the first time.

He said TU-22 bombers also took part in the latest raids and that "significant damage" had been done to a munitions depot, a factory manufacturing mortar rounds and oil facilities. Two major targets in Raqqa, the defacto capital of Isis, had been hit, said Mr Shoigu.

President Putin said the new cruise missiles could also be equipped with nuclear warheads - but that he hoped they would never need them.

He said: "With regard to strikes from a submarine. We certainly need to analyse everything that is happening on the battlefield, how the weapons work. Both the [Kalibr] missiles and the Kh-101 rockets are generally showing very good results. We now see that these are new, modern and highly effective high-precision weapons that can be equipped either with conventional or special nuclear warheads."

If that's not a warning. Nothing is. Ie if you are idiots I can glass you all with ease and not even lose sleep.

lol, no. Putin isn't throwing nukes at anyone regardless of what they do, short of a full-scale invasion of Russia.

Dirty bomb or chemical attack on west....

Highly unlikely but even the risk of 00.1% is a dread one. There not impossible, which could be devestating. Isis is not short on money.

 Ashiraya wrote:
In a way, it was perhaps just an overreaction from me. It felt like 'boots on the ground' is all that people was talking about.

At least as far as an American perspective, I think we've finally realized as a nation that you can't put boots on the ground against a non-state actor acting in a failed state unless you're willing to leave them there for 20+ years, which is why we've been resisting sending any significant number of troops there and I imagine will continue to do so. The reason we're doing airstrikes is because they're right in the middle - we can say we're doing something, and we sort of are, it's also not super effective but it's also politically a free pass: there won't be any significant opposition to air strikes domestically, and they're relatively risk-free. Of course, once it's an American who gets shot down and burned alive in a cage... that may change.

 jhe90 wrote:
Dirty bomb or chemical attack on west....

Highly unlikely but even the risk of 00.1% is a dread one. There not impossible, which could be devestating. Isis is not short on money.

ISIS already can use chemical weapons (Assad had those, remember ?). Bacteriological ones would be much, much worse.

 LethalShade wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
Dirty bomb or chemical attack on west....

Highly unlikely but even the risk of 00.1% is a dread one. There not impossible, which could be devestating. Isis is not short on money.

ISIS already can use chemical weapons (Assad had those, remember ?). Bacteriological ones would be much, much worse.

Aye,, he did have them, though if there idiots and say used one against another country.
There threat status would ratchet up severely. They would get well a response

 jhe90 wrote:

 LethalShade wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
Dirty bomb or chemical attack on west....

Highly unlikely but even the risk of 00.1% is a dread one. There not impossible, which could be devestating. Isis is not short on money.

ISIS already can use chemical weapons (Assad had those, remember ?). Bacteriological ones would be much, much worse.

Aye,, he did have them, though if there idiots and say used one against another country.
There threat status would ratchet up severely. They would get well a response

I'd rather not cough my lungs out, even if it means nuking them.

 LethalShade wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 LethalShade wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
Dirty bomb or chemical attack on west....

Highly unlikely but even the risk of 00.1% is a dread one. There not impossible, which could be devestating. Isis is not short on money.

ISIS already can use chemical weapons (Assad had those, remember ?). Bacteriological ones would be much, much worse.

Aye,, he did have them, though if there idiots and say used one against another country.
There threat status would ratchet up severely. They would get well a response

I'd rather not cough my lungs out, even if it means nuking them.

Bad as it sounds, then the world starts calculating, how much of a risk is nuclear attack vs potential threat and future threat and current threat.

Do we end them hard now?

A nuclear attack is completely unacceptable morally because for one thing it would cause immense unnecessary collateral damage to national infrastructure and innocent bystanders, and importantly, it wouldn't actually work.

We wouldn't kill all of ISIL, we wouldn't stop their supporters in other countries, and we wouldn't mend the socio-political problems that feed radicalisation in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Lastly, a nuclear first strike on ISIL would justify them hitting back with WMDs in major western cities.

This. And it would set a dangerous precedent. We don't want to resort to nukes to solve all our problems because "we already did".

LethalShade wrote:]ISIS already has used chemical weapons .

Fixed

Kilkrazy wrote:Lastly, a nuclear first strike on ISIL would justify them hitting back with WMDs in major western cities.

I have to comment on this one: they don't really need that, because they already think they have all the justification they need. They simply lack means of delivery atm.

You support the use of nuclear weapons against Syria and Iraq, then?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You support the use of nuclear weapons against Syria and Iraq, then?

From a weaponeering and targeteering perspective tactical nukes are the wrong munition for anything we need to be hitting.