OT: Terrorist attacks in Paris

[DaddyCool19]

I am slowly and sadly coming to the point where I have to evolve on my position towards Islam.

Mainstream Islam needs to reclaim its place back and take away ANY and ALL power that the crazies have. This isnt a splinter group anymore - this is a serious threat to a large region of the world, if not the entire world.

Problem is the 'moderate' or 'mainstream' muslims can't deny the violent teachings against non-believers their books(many of them don't even know its there or turn a blind eye) so they cannot speak out against it without rejecting some of their commands. What they can do is focus on the good stuff but problems arise when groups like ISIS highlight the bad teachings and bring it all down.

Another problem is they cannot leave the religion (death penalty) and they cannot criticize whats written.

I think the biggest problem is that many muslim put themselves into the victim role. Many fear the backlash in their countries after shootings like that happens and go full "now the non muslims will view us in a different way and will think every muslim is a terrorist" instead of just giving condolences to the dead and calling the terrorists out. I once called the cops on a shady mosque in our small town and they visited that place regulary to look wtf is going on there. I think doing that helps the people more than just bitching about it. Many muslims just look away if it doesn't concern them and thats the worst part tbh.

[DarthDiggler69]

I think the biggest problem is that many muslim put themselves into the victim role. Many fear the backlash in their countries after shootings like that happens and go full "now the non muslims will view us in a different way and will think every muslim is a terrorist" instead of just giving condolences to the dead and calling the terrorists out. I once called the cops on a shady mosque in our small town and they visited that place regulary to look wtf is going on there. I think doing that helps the people more than just bitching about it. Many muslims just look away if it doesn't concern them and thats the worst part tbh.

I think the some silence from much of the muslim community is because they can't criticize their own religion/people and/or they know what these terrorists are doing (according to their book) and they don't want to be a part of it and turn a blind eye to it.

If you read their books its a very confusing and contradicting religion, that could also be a reason why the muslim community just not talk about terror because not only do some not fully understand the teachings, it will open up a can of worms with other muslims who think otherwise and the last thing you want to do is to look like you are criticizing what is written by their Prophet.

How about them Bulls? lol

[kyrv]

I am slowly and sadly coming to the point where I have to evolve on my position towards Islam.

Mainstream Islam needs to reclaim its place back and take away ANY and ALL power that the crazies have. This isnt a splinter group anymore - this is a serious threat to a large region of the world, if not the entire world.

Problem is the 'moderate' or 'mainstream' muslims can't deny the violent teachings against non-believers their books(many of them don't even know its there or turn a blind eye) so they cannot speak out against it without rejecting some of their commands. What they can do is focus on the good stuff but problems arise when groups like ISIS highlight the bad teachings and bring it all down.

Another problem is they cannot leave the religion (death penalty) and they cannot criticize whats written.

Wow. Well that would explain a lot. I think many people interpret the silence as approval. That is bad because there are many millions of Muslims all over the world and a very small percentage are murderers.

Wacko Christians can also cherry pick from the Old Testament to rationalize doing bad things.

The rules you mentioned though, sound very cult-like. Do you know, is free will not a tenet? If the all-powerful being in the universe wanted only one religion, I would think there would be just one religion.

[kyrv]

I think the biggest problem is that many muslim put themselves into the victim role. Many fear the backlash in their countries after shootings like that happens and go full "now the non muslims will view us in a different way and will think every muslim is a terrorist" instead of just giving condolences to the dead and calling the terrorists out. I once called the cops on a shady mosque in our small town and they visited that place regulary to look wtf is going on there. I think doing that helps the people more than just bitching about it. Many muslims just look away if it doesn't concern them and thats the worst part tbh.

I think the some silence from much of the muslim community is because they can't criticize their own religion/people and/or they know what these terrorists are doing (according to their book) and they don't want to be a part of it and turn a blind eye to it.

If you read their books its a very confusing and contradicting religion, that could also be a reason why the muslim community just not talk about terror because not only do some not fully understand the teachings, it will open up a can of worms with other muslims who think otherwise and the last thing you want to do is to look like you are criticizing what is written by their Prophet.

How about them Bulls? lol

Thanks for your explanations. The Bible also has contradictions, although maybe not as extreme or as accepted. The Old Testament is pretty violent though.

And yes go Bulls!

[MrSparkle]

It's very easy for tragic events to shape your political ideology, because you feel anger -- but the higher ground is always to remember that in terms of percentages, the guilty criminals are a minority. It's dangerous throwing average casual Muslims under the same hood. But man is this complicated.

Nevertheless it does alert my political thoughts. On the macro level I've been an Obama supporter (through his adversity and realistic expectations of what a president can do), on the micro level I'm continually depressed about the fact that each time the USA involves itself in a crisis and takes out the "bad guy", a greater monster is unleashed. Besides the decades of prior leaders, we've gone thru Saddam, Bin Ladin and now Baghdadi is even more psycho.

The Islamic State is a violent hardcore radical medieval-religious group with an Apocalyptic message. It's tricky because now they are trying to establish a giant territory, and if you take out the Caliph, then he becomes the new martyr and a new nut-bag goes into power. Short of waging a costly WW3 and creating millions of innocent civilian casualties, seems the safest thing to do is air-striking strategic points.

[RememberLu]

Every nation that surrounds ISIS has declared war against ISIS. This Caliph has no power in any real sense. He has influence over a relatively small group of fanatics.

Air strikes alone are not sufficient, you need ground forces to seize and hold territory. Americans have become conditioned to believe we can somehow bomb our way to victory. But the air force alone can't win a war, they're only meant to be one tool of war that you apply in concert with other tools to achieve a larger strategic objective.

Obama has taken this approach after seeing how unpopular the war in Iraq became. He thinks he can let locals do the ground work while providing air support and sending just a few military advisers. But this approach has failed in Syria, it's arguably failed in Libya too. Syria has turned into a fiasco now with Putin entering the fray and seemingly marginalizing U.S. involvement.

Despite how many nations declare war on ISIS, the territory they hold won't be captured until a significant ground invasion is conducted.

[musiqsoulchild]

Every nation that surrounds ISIS has declared war against ISIS. This Caliph has no power in any real sense. He has influence over a relatively small group of fanatics.

Air strikes alone are not sufficient, you need ground forces to seize and hold territory. Americans have become conditioned to believe we can somehow bomb our way to victory. But the air force alone can't win a war, they're only meant to be one tool of war that you apply in concert with other tools to achieve a larger strategic objective.

Obama has taken this approach after seeing how unpopular the war in Iraq became. He thinks he can let locals do the ground work while providing air support and sending just a few military advisers. But this approach has failed in Syria, it's arguably failed in Libya too. Syria has turned into a fiasco now with Putin entering the fray and seemingly marginalizing U.S. involvement.

Despite how many nations declare war on ISIS, the territory they hold won't be captured until a significant ground invasion is conducted.

Thing is we are not even doing enough to help Peshmaerga / Kurd forces.

Its not that hard for the NATO / US /EU to come together and utilize 3rd party special ops. Thats enough to do the job. Like you said, there is a lot that can be done with a little more co-ordination.

By the way, ISIS messed up - in 1 week, they have attacked civilians of Russia AND France. This will not end well for them.

[kyrv]

Every nation that surrounds ISIS has declared war against ISIS. This Caliph has no power in any real sense. He has influence over a relatively small group of fanatics.

Air strikes alone are not sufficient, you need ground forces to seize and hold territory. Americans have become conditioned to believe we can somehow bomb our way to victory. But the air force alone can't win a war, they're only meant to be one tool of war that you apply in concert with other tools to achieve a larger strategic objective.

Obama has taken this approach after seeing how unpopular the war in Iraq became. He thinks he can let locals do the ground work while providing air support and sending just a few military advisers. But this approach has failed in Syria, it's arguably failed in Libya too. Syria has turned into a fiasco now with Putin entering the fray and seemingly marginalizing U.S. involvement.

Despite how many nations declare war on ISIS, the territory they hold won't be captured until a significant ground invasion is conducted.

Thing is we are not even doing enough to help Peshmaerga / Kurd forces.

Its not that hard for the NATO / US /EU to come together and utilize 3rd party special ops. Thats enough to do the job. Like you said, there is a lot that can be done with a little more co-ordination.

By the way, ISIS messed up - in 1 week, they have attacked civilians of Russia AND France. This will not end well for them.

Also seemed shortsighted to me. Seems the more nations and peoples are against them, the worse it is. I would guess many Euros and North Americans didn't even know ISIS was at war with them. I think there is a world summit now planned.

[kyrv]

Every nation that surrounds ISIS has declared war against ISIS. This Caliph has no power in any real sense. He has influence over a relatively small group of fanatics.

Air strikes alone are not sufficient, you need ground forces to seize and hold territory. Americans have become conditioned to believe we can somehow bomb our way to victory. But the air force alone can't win a war, they're only meant to be one tool of war that you apply in concert with other tools to achieve a larger strategic objective.

Obama has taken this approach after seeing how unpopular the war in Iraq became. He thinks he can let locals do the ground work while providing air support and sending just a few military advisers. But this approach has failed in Syria, it's arguably failed in Libya too. Syria has turned into a fiasco now with Putin entering the fray and seemingly marginalizing U.S. involvement.

Despite how many nations declare war on ISIS, the territory they hold won't be captured until a significant ground invasion is conducted.

Good post. US and Israel (and I think Russia?) have tried the air strike route, doesn't seem to work.

[AKfanatic]

Every nation that surrounds ISIS has declared war against ISIS. This Caliph has no power in any real sense. He has influence over a relatively small group of fanatics.

Air strikes alone are not sufficient, you need ground forces to seize and hold territory. Americans have become conditioned to believe we can somehow bomb our way to victory. But the air force alone can't win a war, they're only meant to be one tool of war that you apply in concert with other tools to achieve a larger strategic objective.

Obama has taken this approach after seeing how unpopular the war in Iraq became. He thinks he can let locals do the ground work while providing air support and sending just a few military advisers. But this approach has failed in Syria, it's arguably failed in Libya too. Syria has turned into a fiasco now with Putin entering the fray and seemingly marginalizing U.S. involvement.

Despite how many nations declare war on ISIS, the territory they hold won't be captured until a significant ground invasion is conducted.

Thing is we are not even doing enough to help Peshmaerga / Kurd forces.

Its not that hard for the NATO / US /EU to come together and utilize 3rd party special ops. Thats enough to do the job. Like you said, there is a lot that can be done with a little more co-ordination.

By the way, ISIS messed up - in 1 week, they have attacked civilians of Russia AND France. This will not end well for them.

As crazy as it seems, this leads to what they want. More western ground troops, more western bombs...leads to more civilian casualties, more "occupiers", more propaganda for the disillusioned middle-easterners. Not to mention more prejudices by western civilians against those that look the part of an "evil Muslim". You don't need to look any further than a republican town hall and the ignorance (followed by applause) brought fourth by some in attendance. The round em up and ship em out, or worse speak by questioners, the "Obamas a Muslim!!" speak. The issues are so much deeper than more soldiers and bombs, but the world we live in never wants to face up to the true problems facing it.

[kyrv]

Every nation that surrounds ISIS has declared war against ISIS. This Caliph has no power in any real sense. He has influence over a relatively small group of fanatics.

Air strikes alone are not sufficient, you need ground forces to seize and hold territory. Americans have become conditioned to believe we can somehow bomb our way to victory. But the air force alone can't win a war, they're only meant to be one tool of war that you apply in concert with other tools to achieve a larger strategic objective.

Obama has taken this approach after seeing how unpopular the war in Iraq became. He thinks he can let locals do the ground work while providing air support and sending just a few military advisers. But this approach has failed in Syria, it's arguably failed in Libya too. Syria has turned into a fiasco now with Putin entering the fray and seemingly marginalizing U.S. involvement.

Despite how many nations declare war on ISIS, the territory they hold won't be captured until a significant ground invasion is conducted.

Thing is we are not even doing enough to help Peshmaerga / Kurd forces.

Its not that hard for the NATO / US /EU to come together and utilize 3rd party special ops. Thats enough to do the job. Like you said, there is a lot that can be done with a little more co-ordination.

By the way, ISIS messed up - in 1 week, they have attacked civilians of Russia AND France. This will not end well for them.

As crazy as it seems, this leads to what they want. More western ground troops, more western bombs...leads to more civilian casualties, more "occupiers", more propaganda for the disillusioned middle-easterners. Not to mention more prejudices by western civilians against those that look the part of an "evil Muslim". You don't need to look any further than a republican town hall and the ignorance (followed by applause) brought fourth by some in attendance. The round em up and ship em out, or worse speak by questioners, the "Obamas a Muslim!!" speak. The issues are so much deeper than more soldiers and bombs, but the world we live in never wants to face up to the true problems facing it.

I can't disagree, given that they had to know 'the world' will get angry. They in part want more war and more anarchy right?

[AKfanatic]

Thing is we are not even doing enough to help Peshmaerga / Kurd forces.

Its not that hard for the NATO / US /EU to come together and utilize 3rd party special ops. Thats enough to do the job. Like you said, there is a lot that can be done with a little more co-ordination.

By the way, ISIS messed up - in 1 week, they have attacked civilians of Russia AND France. This will not end well for them.

As crazy as it seems, this leads to what they want. More western ground troops, more western bombs...leads to more civilian casualties, more "occupiers", more propaganda for the disillusioned middle-easterners. Not to mention more prejudices by western civilians against those that look the part of an "evil Muslim". You don't need to look any further than a republican town hall and the ignorance (followed by applause) brought fourth by some in attendance. The round em up and ship em out, or worse speak by questioners, the "Obamas a Muslim!!" speak. The issues are so much deeper than more soldiers and bombs, but the world we live in never wants to face up to the true problems facing it.

I can't disagree, given that they had to know 'the world' will get angry. They in part want more war and more anarchy right?

Absolutely.

History has shown troops and bombs only serve to cut the head off a hydra.

[Rerisen]

Do more, do less, do nothing, there are no easy answers.

Afghanistan was left to fester in the 90s with no involvement and we got 9/11.

I don't think there is anything the 'West' can do to solve the problem, only manage it. Eventually a solution must come internally within the region. With sectarian violence going back over a thousand years... I wouldn't hold my breath.

[McBulls]

UN needs to erase those bastards

NATO is obligated to.

[TheSuzerain]

Every nation that surrounds ISIS has declared war against ISIS. This Caliph has no power in any real sense. He has influence over a relatively small group of fanatics.

Air strikes alone are not sufficient, you need ground forces to seize and hold territory. Americans have become conditioned to believe we can somehow bomb our way to victory. But the air force alone can't win a war, they're only meant to be one tool of war that you apply in concert with other tools to achieve a larger strategic objective.

Obama has taken this approach after seeing how unpopular the war in Iraq became. He thinks he can let locals do the ground work while providing air support and sending just a few military advisers. But this approach has failed in Syria, it's arguably failed in Libya too. Syria has turned into a fiasco now with Putin entering the fray and seemingly marginalizing U.S. involvement.

Despite how many nations declare war on ISIS, the territory they hold won't be captured until a significant ground invasion is conducted.

Good post. US and Israel (and I think Russia?) have tried the air strike route, doesn't seem to work.

Can't say I agree with that. The strategy is mostly working. It just takes some time.

Kurds just took Sinjar.

[AKfanatic]

Do more, do less, do nothing, there are no easy answers.

Afghanistan was left to fester in the 90s with no involvement and we got 9/11.

I don't think there is anything the 'West' can do to solve the problem, only manage it. Eventually a solution must come internally within the region. With sectarian violence going back over a thousand years... I wouldn't hold my breath.

Afghanistan had zip to do with 9-11 other than of course being a place Bin Laden could find to train his particular group of crazies. Of course that's after the west armed him and said crazies to fight the Soviets in Afganistan. We've (the west) made our proverbial beds in the MiddleEast by propping up dictators, arming freedom fighters (turned terrorists), and supporting governments that prey on their citizens suffering.

We often hear about countries like Iran supporting groups like Hezbollah...but the average American (as well as other Westerners) are clueless when it comes their own countries involvement in supporting terror, dictators, human rights abusers, coups, etc. etc. much of which has led to the rise of the fanatical groups we find ourselves at war with now. Accountability would be a good first step. Though that wouldn't solve the sheer crazy in the region. Having a strong man dictator (propped up by the west) in Iraq kept some of the region at bay, but brought its own set of problems in the human abuses taking place. Supporting other countries without question (Israel, Saudi Arabia) has also led to many of the problems we face. The answers are extremely complex and I fear nonexistent. Man is a violent animal, full of jealousy and pain...until man wakes up, the nightmare will forever continue.

The second paragraph...I agree wholeheartedly.

[Rerisen]

Do more, do less, do nothing, there are no easy answers.

Afghanistan was left to fester in the 90s with no involvement and we got 9/11.

I don't think there is anything the 'West' can do to solve the problem, only manage it. Eventually a solution must come internally within the region. With sectarian violence going back over a thousand years... I wouldn't hold my breath.

Afghanistan had zip to do with 9-11 other than of course being a place Bin Laden could find to train his particular group of crazies. Of course that's after the west armed him and said crazies to fight the Soviets in Afganistan. We've (the west) made our proverbial beds in the MiddleEast by propping up dictators, arming freedom fighters (turned terrorists), and supporting governments that pray on their citizens suffering.

We often hear about countries like Iran supporting groups like Hezbollah...but the average American (as well as other Westerners) are clueless when it comes their own countries involvement in supporting terror, dictators, human rights abusers, coups, etc. etc. much of which has led to the rise of the fanatical groups we find ourselves at war with now. Accountability would be a good first step. Though that wouldn't solve the sheer crazy in the region. Having a strong man dictator (propped up by the west) in Iraq kept some of the region at bay, but brought its own set of problems in the human abuses taking place. Supporting other countries without question (Israel, Saudi Arabia) has also led to many of the problems we face. The answers are extremely complex and I fear nonexistent. Man is a violent animal, full of jealousy and pain...until man wakes up, the nightmare will forever continue.

The second paragraph...I agree wholeheartedly.

My point was that a hands off approach will solve nothing at this point, and just as likely make things worse. A dictator of the type you lament being supported in the past, was toppled in Libya - the same thing the terrorists want to happen in Syria. Is a modern democracy and human rights government forming in Libya now that he's gone... of course not.

Grievances go back on all sides decades and centuries, but grievance of course do not justify any reaction to them.

The 'Arab Spring' was supposed to herald the end of the need for 'Realpolitik', it turned out to be a naive illusion, with the forces of extremism and violence far more organized and powerful to step into vacuums of power, than the idealists hope for reform. Until that balance of power changes in the region, no facing up to our own sins as it were, will make the difference.

[AKfanatic]

Do more, do less, do nothing, there are no easy answers.

Afghanistan was left to fester in the 90s with no involvement and we got 9/11.

I don't think there is anything the 'West' can do to solve the problem, only manage it. Eventually a solution must come internally within the region. With sectarian violence going back over a thousand years... I wouldn't hold my breath.

Afghanistan had zip to do with 9-11 other than of course being a place Bin Laden could find to train his particular group of crazies. Of course that's after the west armed him and said crazies to fight the Soviets in Afganistan. We've (the west) made our proverbial beds in the MiddleEast by propping up dictators, arming freedom fighters (turned terrorists), and supporting governments that pray on their citizens suffering.

We often hear about countries like Iran supporting groups like Hezbollah...but the average American (as well as other Westerners) are clueless when it comes their own countries involvement in supporting terror, dictators, human rights abusers, coups, etc. etc. much of which has led to the rise of the fanatical groups we find ourselves at war with now. Accountability would be a good first step. Though that wouldn't solve the sheer crazy in the region. Having a strong man dictator (propped up by the west) in Iraq kept some of the region at bay, but brought its own set of problems in the human abuses taking place. Supporting other countries without question (Israel, Saudi Arabia) has also led to many of the problems we face. The answers are extremely complex and I fear nonexistent. Man is a violent animal, full of jealousy and pain...until man wakes up, the nightmare will forever continue.

The second paragraph...I agree wholeheartedly.

My point was that a hands off approach will solve nothing at this point, and just as likely make things worse. A dictator of the type you lament being supported in the past, was toppled in Libya - the same thing the terrorists want to happen in Syria. Is a modern democracy and human rights government forming in Libya now he's gone... of course not.

Grievances go back on all sides decades and centuries, but grievance of course do not justify any reaction to them.

Oh I agree. We can't just close our eyes and hope the rest of the world takes care of Isis. We are stuck between a rock and a hard place. The US will bomb, use drones, and likely send troops to fight these fanatics. We will declare victory...though it will take much longer than most think or hope. When it's all said and done our effort may bring limited peace...it will also bring more propaganda used by holy men to bring fourth the next generation of terrorists. It is far to complex and far to long lived to solve by any traditional means. Until the day arrives where countries have real freedom and economic success large groups of disillusioned men will use terror as a means to send their message....regardless of how crazy their message may be. Followers will always line up. Look no further than some of the cults and hate spewing preachers in the US to see how sheep-like many human-beings truly are.



Edit: good edit add. 100% (saving the other 10% for Rose) spot on

[kyrv]

Every nation that surrounds ISIS has declared war against ISIS. This Caliph has no power in any real sense. He has influence over a relatively small group of fanatics.

Air strikes alone are not sufficient, you need ground forces to seize and hold territory. Americans have become conditioned to believe we can somehow bomb our way to victory. But the air force alone can't win a war, they're only meant to be one tool of war that you apply in concert with other tools to achieve a larger strategic objective.

Obama has taken this approach after seeing how unpopular the war in Iraq became. He thinks he can let locals do the ground work while providing air support and sending just a few military advisers. But this approach has failed in Syria, it's arguably failed in Libya too. Syria has turned into a fiasco now with Putin entering the fray and seemingly marginalizing U.S. involvement.

Despite how many nations declare war on ISIS, the territory they hold won't be captured until a significant ground invasion is conducted.

Good post. US and Israel (and I think Russia?) have tried the air strike route, doesn't seem to work.

Can't say I agree with that. The strategy is mostly working. It just takes some time.

Kurds just took Sinjar.

Good to know, thanks. Maybe they adapted then, they know it's not a quick fix. Air strikes in theory can limit casualties (overall) (I think, maybe just wishful thinking).

[Rerisen]

There is a limit to what can be accomplished with the Kurds as the only reliable ground force, as they cannot occupy or govern lands beyond their historical reach, they won't be accepted.

This is in all likelihood going to go on for decades.