Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes, we need one anyway.

17 (21.8%)

No, we should take that elsewhere and keep this thread as-is.

27 (34.6%)

I don't care, let's see what happens.

34 (43.6%)

Total Members Voted: 75

[smjjames]

any ideas on how we can combat this?

Step interfering in the Middle East and let them sort out their own affairs.

And when they decide to do a terror attack on the US or one of our allies, do we just leave them alone still?

Yes, 'stop interfering in the Middle East' would be a start, but we can't leave people like ISIS in there.

So, any ideas on how we can combat this? Short of an all out Crusade, which is what would happen if we reverted to a medieval mindset.

Crusades were notably unsuccessful for the most part

I know, I was just using an example of a reaction that used medieval thinking.

[Sonlirain]

Or perhaps we could try prevent public opinion from indiscriminately hating on Muslims or Arabs, to ensure those 'normal' people aren't driven into extremism, while still acknowledging things like problem neighborhoods or hate-preaching Imams and whatnot exist and taking decisive action against such issues. Not every Muslim is a terrorist, but they aren't all saints either, and ignoring a problem won't make it go away.

Except if you lock up a hateful imam he will instantly become painted as a god loving saint and prisoner of conscience locked up and tortured those vile infidel dogs.
Soldiers were reporting muslims making martyrs out of failed attacks on outposts in Iraq by recording dying comrades with phones instead of actually giving htem any medical help.

I really don't think it's a problem we can solve with 21'st century thinking because we are against people with medieval mindsets.

So, any ideas on how we can combat this? Short of an all out Crusade, which is what would happen if we reverted to a medieval mindset.

Honestly? I have none that would be really viable.
Isolationism comes to mind but it's merely a band-aid slapped over a festering wound.
And sadly Middle East apparently needs dictators... dut i really doubt those will make a return any time soon.

I think "medieval" is a pretty poor description of movements that are so effective at using social media and bureaucracy. Islamism is very modern.

Perhaps the best label to use is "totalitarian". There are a striking number of similarities with ideologies such as Stalinism and Nazism, with the notable exception that the propagated dogma is not one invented by the state, but an interpretation (if that is the right word) of an already existing ideology.

Only the tools are new. The mindsets of those people are not. You could give a 200 BC germanic barbarian an AK-47 and teach him how to shoot but it won't turn him into a modern soldier. He will just be a barbarian with an AK.
Similarly fundamentalists learned that using facebook, radio and TV is more effective at getting converts/meat for the grinder so they use those.
However under all those iPhones those are still the same kind of people.

[Vilanat]

Not surprised to see a Syrian refugee among the attackers.

[smjjames]

Not surprised to see a Syrian refugee among the attackers.

Source? Don't say such facts without a source because that's a pretty major thing, given the refugee crisis.

Edit: CNN did say that Egyptian and Syrian passports were found on or near the attackers, but they could very well be faked passports.

[Sonlirain]

Not surprised to see a Syrian refugee among the attackers.

Source? Don't say such facts without a source because that's a pretty major thing, given the refugee crisis.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/14/paris-terror-attacks-attackers-dead-mass-killing-live-updates

"Paris attacks: Isis militant said to be Syrian who passed through Greece on refugee route – live"

[smjjames]

Not surprised to see a Syrian refugee among the attackers.

Source? Don't say such facts without a source because that's a pretty major thing, given the refugee crisis.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/14/paris-terror-attacks-attackers-dead-mass-killing-live-updates

"Paris attacks: Isis militant said to be Syrian who passed through Greece on refugee route – live"

Well damn, looks like those people who said that ISIS was smuggling militants with the refugees were right.......

I wouldn't be surprised if the US government did an about face and said no to bringing in Syrian refugees.

[Wolfhunter107]

The Guardian is reporting that three of the attackers are supposedly from the Brussels neighborhood of Molanbeek, which is being raided by police.

[Bouchart]

I wouldn't be surprised if the US government did an about face and said no to bringing in Syrian refugees.

Friday morning before the attacks Obama said ISIS was contained.

Oops.

[LordBucket]

And when they decide to do a terror attack on the US or one of our allies, do we just leave them alone still?

It is a difficult situation. When you punch someone, it should come as no surprise if they punch back. And if, when they punch you back, you also punch them back, it should come as no surprise if they punch you back again.

Yes, if you don't punch them back, that's no guarantee that they won't keep punching. It is a risk. But continually exchanging punches is generally not a desirable outcome. If you choose to keep punching, there is some sense in punching hard enough that they are incapable of punching you again.

Is that something you're willing to do?

we can't leave people like ISIS in there.

How do you propose to root them out without going in and murdering everyone? How do you propose to identify which ones to kill and which ones to not kill? Or do you propose to "nuke it to glass and turn the middle east  into a parking lot" as I so often hear Americans suggest?

If you're not willing to be the one to stop punching, what is the alternative?

Are you willing to commit genocide? Are you willing to kill not only every last one of them, but also every woman and child related to them? Are you willing to kill all the innocent bystanders in their home countries who will grow up watching your soldiers kill their brothers? Are you willing to go in and exterminate an entire people?

If not, then I suggest being wiling to take one or two more punches before they calm down.

[smjjames]

And when they decide to do a terror attack on the US or one of our allies, do we just leave them alone still?

It is a difficult situation. When you punch someone, it should come as no surprise if they punch back. And if, when they punch you back, you also punch them back, it should come as no surprise if they punch you back again.

Yes, if you don't punch them back, that's no guarantee that they won't keep punching. It is a risk. But continually exchanging punches is generally not a desirable outcome. If you choose to keep punching, there is some sense in punching hard enough that they are incapable of punching you again.

Is that something you're willing to do?

we can't leave people like ISIS in there.

How do you propose to root them out without going in and murdering everyone? How do you propose to identify which ones to kill and which ones to not kill? Or do you propose to "nuke it to glass and turn the middle east  into a parking lot" as I so often hear Americans suggest?

If you're not willing to be the one to stop punching, what is the alternative?

Are you willing to commit genocide? Are you willing to kill not only every last one of them, but also every woman and child related to them? Are you willing to kill all the innocent bystanders in their home countries who will grow up watching your soldiers kill their brothers? Are you willing to go in and exterminate an entire people?

If not, then I suggest being wiling to take one or two more punches before they calm down.

And if they don't calm down and keep on punching?

Yes it's a moral and ethical problem, but you don't want them to successfully attack people either.

I don't advocate glassing the Mideast or commiting genocide either.

[Bohandas]

I wonder what new legislation in the name of security will be introduced after this? Not just in France, across Europe. Well, the snooper's charter is doubtless going to go through now.

France has done some stuff in regards to searching homes and weapon confiscation amongst other things. I guess it'll end when the state of emergency is over

When has it ever ended when the state of emergency is over?

[LordBucket]

And if they don't calm down and keep on punching?

Are you seriously suggesting that you keep punching because they might not stop if you stop?

It's a risk you take. You don't get to decide what they do. You only get to decide what you do.

I don't advocate glassing the Mideast or commiting genocide either.

Then what do you propose?

If you're not willing to be the one to make peace, then man up and commit genocide.

Mr. Miyagi on whether to train karate, yes or no

[Antioch]

I wouldn't be surprised if the US government did an about face and said no to bringing in Syrian refugees.

Friday morning before the attacks Obama said ISIS was contained.

Oops.

But they aren't gaining strength, they are rapidly losing terrain in Iraq. This attack says absolutely nothing about the strength of IS. All they needed for this attack is 8 people willing to die and to acquire the weapons to do it.

[smjjames]

And if they don't calm down and keep on punching?

Are you seriously suggesting that you keep punching because they might not stop if you stop?

It's a risk you take. You don't get to decide what they do. You only get to decide what you do.

I don't advocate glassing the Mideast or commiting genocide either.

Then what do you propose?

If you're not willing to be the one to make peace, then man up and commit genocide.

Mr. Miyagi on whether to train karate, yes or no

The people you really should be talking to are in Washington.

Edit: Accidential double quote somehow.

[Bohandas]

On BBC one of the French police were talking about how they expected these attacks to become more common and there wasn't much else they could do that they weren't already doing, which is still at least something running smoothish.

That's amazingly responsible.

This is not the russian terrorism thread. The day after a terror attack is not the goddamn time to be saying shit like you have no sympathy for the deceased.

Unless you're a politician, in which case it's far preferable to the more likely alternatives of acting in irrational panic and/or abusing he situation to grab more power for yourself

Or perhaps we could try prevent public opinion from indiscriminately hating on Muslims or Arabs, to ensure those 'normal' people aren't driven into extremism, while still acknowledging things like problem neighborhoods or hate-preaching Imams and whatnot exist and taking decisive action against such issues. Not every Muslim is a terrorist, but they aren't all saints either, and ignoring a problem won't make it go away.

Except if you lock up a hateful imam he will instantly become painted as a god loving saint and prisoner of conscience locked up and tortured those vile infidel dogs.
Soldiers were reporting muslims making martyrs out of failed attacks on outposts in Iraq by recording dying comrades with phones instead of actually giving htem any medical help.

Yes , handling them requires a bit more subtlety. If it were up to me what would be done is a campaign to get the followers of people like these hooked on drugs or at least alcohol; not openly or officially, just pushers would be stationed near where they preach. Other more subtle temptations are required too; they shoukd pay Honey Baked Ham to open up shop next door and make sure any nearby newsstands (if there are any left) carry plenty of pornography. Basically all the tempting that western religion claims Satan/Iblis does we have to step up and do.

The manufacture of scandals and spreading of vicious rumors against hate preaching Imams, provided that they're plausible.