The Brutality Arms Race- I.S.I.S., Taliban, al-Shadaab, and Others

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**

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?

**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?

Spoiler:

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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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?

Spoiler:

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.

**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.

**Frazzled**

Explain Muslim extremism in Thailand. Is that the West's fault too?

Msuslim extremism in Sudan-thats the West's fault?

**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.

**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.

**Frazzled**

I told them fire was just a fad, but NOOOOO they didn't believe me.

**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.

**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

**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.

**Jihadin**

Society is a key word. Who's "society" are you using? Are you applying western society standards to a Muslim country?

**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.

**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".

**Frazzled**

SO you respond to an asinine statement with an equally asinine one? Dude thats my job.

**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

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.