OT: Terrorist attacks in Paris

[TimRobbins]

Thank you. It's like when we "liberated" the Afghani people and held "elections"..... they just voted the Taliban back into power.

We have a habit of "helping" people and arming them only to later find out they are worse, or as bad, as the enemy we were helping them fight. We helped Bin Laden and funded and armed him when he was fighting the Russians.. We just did the same with ISIS. Hell, John McCain called ISIS members... "his heroes"

It's our ignorance and arrogance. We believe everybody wants to live in a Western Democracy type of regime, while that has proven to be untrue. There are people who want to live under a tribal regime with a loose central government. There are people who want a theocratic state. ISIS exists because the people there support that kind of theocratic/tribal government.

This madness needs to stop. We do not have the solution for everything. We can't force our values on the entire world. We should learn a little from the Chinese on foreign relations. Trade with everybody, but force your political ideology on nobody. Let the local people go through the process of choosing their own regime and let the natural process take its course. No conflict has ever been solved by outside intervention. In fact, outside intervention has only perpetuates conflicts and caused far more casualties and suffering. The more we decide a conflict is "important" and we "have to solve it" the more unlikely a solution becomes.

How has are meddling worked with the Israeli-Arab conflict? We've been trying to solve it for decades and nothing has worked. Why is that? Has it occurred to anybody that it is our meddling that perpetuates the conflict? Has is occurred to anybody that it our idea of trying to force a solution that neither party wants that is why a solution can not be reached? Has it occurred to anybody that by paying disproportional attention to this minor conflict, we are giving both sides far too much power? How about we stop talking about that conflict and simply leave it up to the two sides to resolve without taking a stance on the solution. Once the outside political and media attention is gone, the conflict will be resolved, one way or the other. The endless attention and meddling is driving the conflict, rather than help solve it.

Same thing with ISIS - ignore them and they will naturally die out. Endlessly talk about them and senselessly bomb their cities and you're only fueling them and perpetuating the war.

As counter-intuitive as it may sound, the best way to solve foreign conflicts and bring about the eventual peace and stability that everybody wants is to simply ignore them. Voice absolutely no stance as to the resolution and state that the local people need to solve the conflict on their own. And yes, recognize the situation on the ground, rather than trying to dictate some fantasy utopia that exists only in our mind.

[veji1]

I am not going to get into any debate, I don't feel like I could handle it.. I feel drain and exhausted after this weekend, and knowing that there are no easy solutions, that turning Syria and western Irak into smoking craters won't solve anything, that places like Libya or Tunisia are either in chaos or could easily slip beneath the waves.. It's all just so depressing.

Sometimes you just feel small, weak and old. And it sucks.

[Rerisen]

I have a question - the Kurds seem to be cohesive and well organized and governed. I have no problem with selling/providing them with weapons. they seem like the perfect ally. Now, they have full control of their own territory and they would like to form their own country. Why are we intervening and stopping them from forming their own country? The Kurds are a perfect example of intervention gone mad. They have naturally evolved into an independent region and are ready to form a country, yet we insist they don't. It's absurd. This is exactly what I mean by saying we should DISENGAGE. Let the natural process and reality on the ground determine the outcome. **(Just to be clear - providing weapons to viable allies is not "engagement" in my book).

If you want the real answer, its because the other nations in the region, especially Turkey, but also Iran want no part of a Kurdish nation, because they believe it will destabilize their own Kurdish populations, leading to perhaps splintering of their own countries. You think this is all dandy I know breaking down all the borders, but I don't think you realize how much strife and unrest would follow. Imagine after the fall of Saddam, but if even our own boggled attempts to hold it together had not been present. You'd as likely have had mass civil war and slaughter on a scale many times over what it already was. Something again, you think is dandy if that is what has to be. But we would *still* take blame for this aftermath regardless if its deserved or not, and remain high up on the enemy list.

I think you're hyper-conjecturing here. First, Nobody said Europe should take in refugees they don't want to. There is no shortage of room and resources within the ME for all possible refugees. Turkey is big enough to absorb millions, so is Saudi, Iraq and Jordan.

Turkey already has millions of refugees and so does Jordan, I believe last I heard, 1/6 of their population is refugees. That is akin to the US taking like 60 million refugees. I don't know if its even logistically possible for Europe to send all these people back, short of something inhumane like stuffing them into box cars.

The conflict has to be stopped at the root, or these aimless wandering masses are going to turn into criminals and terrorists themselves, certainly many of the young men.

As for the situation on the ground - despite the current perceptions ISIS is not all powerful. It cannot hold on and govern an endless swath of land. It can only hold on to lands where it has the support of the local tribes. There will be no endless expansion of ISIS. They will hit their limit and get bogged down.

They were heading for both the capitals of Baghdad and Erbil before we finally stepped in. Would they have overrun those places, hard to say, but considering the the other major cities in Iraq where the army simply turned tail and ran, its not out of the question. Then you'd have ISIS with even more modern US equipment and weapons than they've already captured.

As for the "clash of civilizations" - I don't think we get there. If we disengage, they will have no motive to attack us. They will be busy with the Sunni-Shia fight. They will never have a stable country with a central government. It will always be a collection of tribes, loosely ruled by an ideology, like it is now.

I don't see them forgetting about us at all. The Paris attacks were low resource, low cost. At this point all they need is willing executors at the point of attack with a few small arms, or suicide bombs to do massive damage.

Again, we weren't bombing or invading anyone when 9/11 happened. We did have some bases in Saudia Arabia that Bin Laden didn't like, and that Israel still existed with our consent. Well that's a reasonable justification I guess.

They cannot realistically expand to the West. they know it and we know it. Stop treating them as idiots. They are not idiots - they are rational. Their attacks are rational.

Their beliefs are not rational, and their beliefs underpin their attacks. You truly can't be as naive to think these people are 'making it up' about their religion as the driving force of everything they do. If you don't believe it, all you have to do is look at the repression in the places they govern. Bearded clerics and sharia police walking down the streets beating people for the slightest offense, and cutting their heads off and crucifying them for larger ones. Or better yet you can listen to the words that come out of their own mouths about bringing about apocalyptic battles and waiting for prophets to return to vanquish their foes. They believe it and they will continue attacking because they believe that is how to bring these things about.

Is a suicide bomber rational? It's a huge mistake to think religious fanatics are really just like us, just with a different perspective, but still grounded in reality. That was true of the Soviet Union in the cold war, true of China now, not true of Islamic extremists. We just wish it were to be true, so this would all be so much easier.

The guy we just eliminated the other day, Jihadi John, he was blown up next to place known as 'execution square'. These guys are rational like Charles Manson was rational. Maybe if the law left Manson alone he would have stopped killing too.

[Rerisen]

Same thing with ISIS - ignore them and they will naturally die out.

This kind of wishful thinking is ignorant of the history of evil and of mankind really.

Peace and security is not the natural state of the world. Quite the opposite if it is not maintained. Before Western Civilization there really wasn't much of it at all.

You still want to fall back on self blame, and over inflating our own importance in events in the world. It is a form of hubris to think it is only Western foreign policy that created ISIS, and that only we can kill it, by leaving it alone no less. The genie is out of the bottle.

It was also hubris to believe we could stabilize the ME on our own, and with brute force, but now the danger is of the pendulum swinging to far in the other direction, in a pure reactionary reflex.

It won't go away till it is defeated internally, with regional players involved, but they will likely need guidance and support, and I don't see that happening any time soon. So the fighting will go on and on, whether we are involved or not, but with differing outcomes if we aren't.

ISIS is a religious construct and Sharia Law predates America by centuries. The goal is for Sharia Law everywhere, yes even in Western nations. They tell us this up front, why do you presume to know their own mind better than them? The means of achieving this is not outright war when they do not have power to win outright war, but rather by subversion and terrorism. If their caliphate were to go unchecked, and get big enough, they may try outright war against such places as Jordan and Saudi Arabia, and with controlling large regions of oil - that someone WILL buy - they would have the money and resources for sophisticated weapons.

Anyhow... I think we are going in circles here. You would like to see no involvement, while I think limited engagement is the most realistic path. We won't solve this here, and I think will have decades more to debate it sadly. I appreciate the civil discussion.

[TimRobbins]

If you want the real answer, its because the other nations in the region, especially Turkey, but also Iran want no part of a Kurdish nation, because they believe it will destabilize their own Kurdish populations, leading to perhaps splintering of their own countries. You think this is all dandy I know breaking down all the borders, but I don't think you realize how much strife and unrest would follow. Imagine after the fall of Saddam, but if even our own boggled attempts to hold it together had not been present. You'd as likely have had mass civil war and slaughter. Something again, you think is dandy if that is what has to be. We would take blame for it regardless if its deserved or not, and remain high up on the enemy list.

The situation on the ground is that a Kurdish entity exists. It's independent and it's viable. The Kurdish region in the former Iraq and Syria has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of those failed countries. They have naturally evolved as a separate entity, and one which would be a potentially great ally to the West. Do you really think we can force them back into "Iraq" and "Syria"? That's absurd.

I really could care less about what Turkey and Iran want or their concerns with their own Kurdish populations. That's something they should solve on their own and with the Kurdish entity. By supporting the Turkish/Iranian position, you are causing more hram than good (as usual) and perpetuation a conflict which can and should be solved. What is Turkey going to do? Bomb them? Invade? Good luck with that.

Borders are not sacred and I don't know where this idea that they are comes from, particularly when we're talking about some arbitrary colonial borders which really mean nothing to anybody.

Turkey already has millions of refugees and so does Jordan, I believe last I heard, 1/6 of their population is refugees. That is akin to the US taking like 60 million refugees. I don't know if its even logistically possible for Europe to send all these people back, short of something inhumane like stuffing them into box cars.

The conflict has to be stopped at the root, or these aimless wandering masses are going to turn into criminals and terrorists themselves, certainly many of the young men.

I can't see any problem in shipping these people back to Turkey. We're not talking about tens of millions. We're talking about no more than a hundred thousand per month. It's not that difficult to ship them back to Turkey.

Turkey is a Muslim country with a population of 80M people and a huge land. Saudi is huge, Egypt is huge. There is no shortage of space or resources within the Sunni Muslim world to absorb these people.

Mass migrations are a part of human history. There is no reason to panic. People will find their way on their own and resettle where they can.

There's something else to consider - The ME has become overpopulated due to the richness that the oil trading has brought. This overpopulation has led most ME countries to overuse resources such a water and land. It's not only the wars - the region simply can't support this many people and that's probably another reason driving the migration.

They were heading for both the capitals of Baghdad and Erbil before we finally stepped in. Would they have overrun those places, hard to say, but considering the the other major cities in Iraq where the army simply turned tail and ran, its not out of the question. Then you'd have ISIS with even more modern US equipment and weapons than they've already captured.

There is no reason to believe that they would have been able to run over Erbil - I believe the Kurds were too much for them to handle, even without our bombing raids (Why are we not supplying the Kurds with arms instead of directly intervening?).

As for Bahgdad - I don't know, and It's not our concern in any way. That's all part of the great Sunni-Shia war and it has to come to its own conclusion. The Shias are hardly better than the Sunnis and I can't understand why we chose to side with them.

I don't see them forgetting about us at all. The Paris attacks were low resource, low cost. At this point all they need is willing executors at the point of attack with a few small arms, or suicide bombs to do massive damage.

It would be very difficult to do such an attack in the US, but the Paris attacks had a specific goal - to get France out of Syria. don't ignore that. I'm obviously not trying to justify it, but I do believe that if we simply "loose" interest in ISIS, it will

Their beliefs are not rational, and their beliefs underpin their attacks. You truly can't be as naive to think these people are 'making it up' about their religion as the driving force of everything they do. If you don't believe it, all you have to do is look at the repression in the places they govern. Bearded clerics and sharia police walking down the streets beating people for the slightest offense, and cutting their heads off and crucifying them for larger ones.

The guy we just eliminated the other day, Jihadi John, he was blown up next to place known as 'execution square'. These guys are rational like Charles Manson was rational.

Their beliefs may be irrational to you, but they are very rational to them. You need to accept the fact that there are people in this world who want to live under Sharia law. Not everybody wants to be governed by a Western Democracy type of regime.

In any case, my point was that their actions and foreign policy is perfectly rational. Their attacks are not senseless. It's not an attack on our "civilization". It's an attack meant to achieve a specific goal and we can demotivate further attacks if we take out the incentive (being our attention and military intervention).

[TimRobbins]

This kind of wishful thinking is ignorant of the history of evil and of mankind really.

Peace and security is not the natural state of the world. Quite the opposite if it is not maintained. Before Western Civilization there really wasn't much of it at all.

I believe peace and security is something you evolve into. It's not something that can be forced. We had wars with Canada and Mexico in the past, and eventually were able to reach some sort of equilibrium that everyone can live with. Nobody forced peace on us. Nobody forced democracy on us. Nobody forced freedom of religion or human rights on us. We came to it all on our own.

You need to be patient and let others evolve in their own way. Let them find their own solutions and the regime which works best for them, and if it is a theocracy, then so be it.

You still want to fall back on self blame, and over inflating our own importance in events in the world. It is a form of hubris to think it is only Western foreign policy that created ISIS, and that only we can kill it, by leaving it alone no less. The genie is out of the bottle.

It was also hubris to believe we could stabilize the ME on our own, and with brute force, but now the danger is of the pendulum swinging to far in the other direction, in a pure reactionary reflex.

It won't go away till it is defeated internally, with regional players involved, but they will likely need guidance and support, and I don't see that happening any time soon. So the fighting will go on and on, whether we are involved or not, but with differing outcomes if we aren't.

ISIS is a religious construct and Sharia Law predates America by centuries. The goal is for Sharia Law everywhere, yes even in Western nations. They tell us this up front, why do you presume to know their own mind better than them? The means of achieving this is not outright war when they do not have power to win outright war, but rather by subversion and terrorism. If their caliphate were to go unchecked, and get big enough, they may try outright war against such places as Jordan and Saudi Arabia, and with controlling large regions of oil - that someone WILL buy - they would have the money and resources for sophisticated weapons.

Anyhow... I think we are going in circles here. You would like to see no involvement, while I think limited engagement is the most realistic path. We won't solve this here, and I think will have decades more to debate it sadly. I appreciate the civil discussion.

I really assign no importance to blame. My concern is not with what we did wrong in the past, but rather how we should move forward. We have literally tried everything with that region over the past 70 years and everything has failed. The only thing we haven't tried is disengagement.

ISIS would ideally like to have world domination. So would the Iranians, the North Koreans and many others throughout history. Still, when they don't have the power, they remain contained. I know that they are rational and it would be irrational for them to launch random terrorist attacks with no apparent goal (and no, they cannot "subvert" a non-Muslim country).

We are the only ones in the world who make (very) sophisticated weapons, so I'm hardly worried about that. ISIS cannot invade Jordan or Saudi in a traditional manner. They can, however, depose the government if the local population supports them, and in that case, we will have to accept it. We don't need any of that oil, so it's hardly our problem.

I know my views are a little unorthodox and somewhat counter-intuitive, but if you think about it a little, it would make sense. Conflicts in our world cannot last endlessly without attention. ISIS needs the attention to get troops, funding and weapons. Ignore it and it will die.

[Guest]

[quote="TimRobbins"] ISIS needs the attention to get troops, funding and weapons. Ignore it and it will die.[/quote]

I don't believe that at this point, leave it alone and they will gain much more recruits, more profits from making oil sales and outside funding by rich arabs from Arabia.

If you leave them alone Fundamentalist muslims will flock to ISIS because ISIS/Al-Queda follow their Quran and Hadith's (life of Mohammad) by the book, which is a very very very dangerous thing as we see from ISIS. Moderate aka peaceful Muslims (those who ignore, disobey, don't know or misinterpret the books) will start seeing them as legitimate. Muslim leaders will become even more terrified as ISIS gain more influence over their people. Leave them alone unchecked and they will take over most of the Sunni middle east and Africa, only resistance would be from Iran and maybe Egypt and of course Israel who would be fighting for their existence again.

Just my opinion, even though Im Christian I have read the muslim books many times before (used to debate with muslims) and my favorite books to read since I was a kid are Military history.

[DarthDiggler69]

ISIS needs the attention to get troops, funding and weapons. Ignore it and it will die.

I don't believe that at this point, leave it alone and they will gain much more recruits, more profits from making oil sales and outside funding by rich arabs from Arabia (whoever is funding them) and will become even more legitimate to extremely devout muslims and implement their medieval and inhumane Sharia Law.

If you leave them alone more Fundamentalist muslims will flock to ISIS because ISIS/Al-Queda follow their Quran and Hadith's (life of Mohammad) by the book, which is a very very very dangerous thing as we see from ISIS. Moderate aka peaceful Muslims there (who ignore the bad, disobey, don't know or misinterpret the books) will start seeing them as legitimate and since the penalty is death to leave the religion they will have to comply. Muslim leaders will become even more terrified as ISIS gain more influence over their people and will become even more vulnerable to destabilization.
Leave them alone unchecked and they will take over most of the Sunni middle east and Africa, only resistance would be from Iran and maybe Egypt and of course Israel who would be fighting for their existence again, if they could ever defeat them then they will invade the west (unlikely though imo). The migrant crisis is just planting seeds there imo, its just the beginning. Europe needs to make sure they dont stay

Just my opinion, even though Im Christian I have studied the muslim books many times before (used to debate Islam vs Christianity a little) and I've been reading about history ever since I was a kid

[The 6ft Hurdle]

Well, I actually agreed with your first paragraph, and if I only read that, I would say that it was just my way of saying, if there are any security measures to take its of a softer variety and also that we should all be aware if not critical of the Islamaphobic bias that can sometimes if not often be perpetuated in media venues.

Then you dropped a bomb with that second statement, in which I'd actually have to agree with Rerisen in saying that its probably difficult to filter people out in that way, especially with it being the 2nd largest world religion.

"Islamophobic" is a problematic word. It assumes there is nothing to fear. You need to acknowledge we are at some degree of war with the Islamic world and at war times, it's natural to fear your enemy. Does this mean we should turn on the local Muslim population? Absolutely not, but we need to understand that the sentiment is not driven by racism, but rather by genuine fear (even if unwarranted). I don't believe that the local Muslim population is a threat, and I also don't believe it's being systematically discriminated against (more than any other minority). All and all, I think the treatment of Muslims in the US is a non-issue.

What bomb did I drop in the second sentence? We have been blocking out Muslim immigration for decades. There's nothing new here. That's why we're in a different place than Europe.

I'm not sure if it's a "non-issue," given that there are a few incidents against Muslims have gone through death threats, and a lot of recent domestic attacks here seem to come from people who have been "home-grown" right here in the US. Besides the Boston Marathon bombers, there was the guy who shot the Marines in Tennessee who actually seemed to be on his way to "integrating" and finding his own middle-class existence. His senior quote from high school seems to indicate self-awareness of his standing in society.

By "Islamaphobic" bias, I am talking about the media (FOX News, Bill Maher) that tends to rely on an "us" and "them" mentality as if Muslims are only all located in one geographic region in the globe and all follow every single tenet of Islam strictly by what is written in the Koran.

I think with ISIS, the US is at war with this relatively small network of terrorists who use Islam to justify their actions and whose best resources are located in different areas of the West, but your average American thinks were in this moral war with the big bad Islamic world.

I am not sure how the US treats its Muslim population. I am not Muslim myself. I suppose what I have heard they go through in their everyday, sounds much better than in any other place not in the ME (if they happen to be in the right faction.)

And, real question, how have we been blocking out Muslim immigration? I really don't know. I can understand we've probably been screening them out or profiling them, but I have not heard of any official policy or blockade. Putting on an official policy or blockade would really change things.

I think we are in the position in large part because we are 2 oceans away. Because we are oceans away, the only practical way here is through the air. The airways are a limited resource and by default we have limited means to allow people flying in.

[RebuildaBulls]

This has been an ongoing problem for about 14 centuries. For one, when a religion's prophet bases the religion on one God who wants his people to conquer and convert the world by submission and terror, that's a tough problem to tackle. Just got to hope they eventually see the light.

About the current problem, I liked it when the terrorist were killing each other while we bombed them both. But then the migrant crisis forced the hand of the western powers to act quickly and now it is seen by the terrorists as a crusade, and that's exactly what they wanted to sell their terror attacks to more Muslims as Jihad against the infidels.

So the reason I think we need to invade is because we need to eradicate ISIS and al-Nusra, to send the refugees back home, stablize the country and even partition it up. Assad may remain in power in his reduced Syria that support him.

But as far as jihadists and terrorism is concerned, that may never be stopped because it's big part of Islam.

[MJPipRose]

ISIS needs the attention to get troops, funding and weapons. Ignore it and it will die.

I don't believe that at this point, leave it alone and they will gain much more recruits, more profits from making oil sales and outside funding by rich arabs from Arabia (whoever is funding them) and will become even more legitimate to extremely devout muslims and implement their medieval and inhumane Sharia Law.

If you leave them alone more Fundamentalist muslims will flock to ISIS because ISIS/Al-Queda follow their Quran and Hadith's (life of Mohammad) by the book, which is a very very very dangerous thing as we see from ISIS. Moderate aka peaceful Muslims there (who ignore the bad, disobey, don't know or misinterpret the books) will start seeing them as legitimate and since the penalty is death to leave the religion they will have to comply. Muslim leaders will become even more terrified as ISIS gain more influence over their people and will become even more vulnerable to destabilization.
Leave them alone unchecked and they will take over most of the Sunni middle east and Africa, only resistance would be from Iran and maybe Egypt and of course Israel who would be fighting for their existence again, if they could ever defeat them then they will invade the west (unlikely though imo). The migrant crisis is just planting seeds there imo, its just the beginning. Europe needs to make sure they dont stay

Just my opinion, even though Im Christian I have studied the muslim books many times before (used to debate Islam vs Christianity a little) and I've been reading about history ever since I was a kid

Isis does not follow Islam, the Quran, nor do they follow Hadith/sunnah of the Prophet. Killing innocent people was not a practice of the prophet whatsoever. And the Quran clearly states that the killing of 1 innocent person is as if you killed all of humanity. Isis has also killed many innocent Muslims. Muslims around the world are just as much victims of this group as everyone else is. The Muslim population includes around 1.6- 1.7 billion Muslims and this group only makes up 0.02% of that number. Even if you combine all of the other so called Muslim Terrorist groups, it still doesn't make up for even 2% of the population.

Please don't misconstrue by saying Peaceful Muslims don't know their holy books and scriptures. By saying that, I find that offensive because Muslims do know their scriptures, and these scriptures do not promote violence or anything that is being done in the ME by Isis. The Muslim world has scholars who study The Quran and Hadith. ISIS does not have support from a single qualified scholar, in fact they have sent death threats to many Muslim scholars and clerics such as Hamza Yusuf and Yasir Qadhi (to name a few for reference)

[MJPipRose]

This has been an ongoing problem for about 14 centuries. For one, when a religion's prophet bases the religion on one God who wants his people to conquer and convert the world by submission and terror, that's a tough problem to tackle. Just got to hope they eventually see the light.

About the current problem, I liked it when the terrorist were killing each other while we bombed them both. But then the migrant crisis forced the hand of the western powers to act quickly and now it is seen by the terrorists as a crusade, and that's exactly what they wanted to sell their terror attacks to more Muslims as Jihad against the infidels.

So the reason I think we need to invade is because we need to eradicate ISIS and al-Nusra, to send the refugees back home, stablize the country and even partition it up. Assad may remain in power in his reduced Syria that support him.

But as far as jihadists and terrorism is concerned, that may never be stopped because it's big part of Islam.

This is simply not true. Terrorism is not a part of Islam whatsoever. Please see my other post for reference. And Prophet Muhammad did not tell his people to conquer the world by submission and terror. It's just not a true statement at all. It's the media that gives people this idea that Islam contains aspects of radicalism or whatever you want to call it. That's simply not true.
The Prophet was persecuted during his mission. This caused him to flee his hometown and he never even ordered his people to defend themselves against the persecution and killings of the early Muslims because he was not commanded by God to do so.

His own people fought against him for many years, people by the name of Khalid Bin Waleed ( chief military leader who fought against the Muslims for dozens of battles) and Abu Sufyan (the leader of the rebellion against Muhammad and his companions) and these were people who never believed in this religion. Eventually they ended up converting just based on Muhammad's character and kindness. They both thought that they would be executed based on all of the persecution and suffering they caused him and his companions. Instead, they embraced the religion and joined them and praised his mercy.

[TheSuzerain]

This has been an ongoing problem for about 14 centuries. For one, when a religion's prophet bases the religion on one God who wants his people to conquer and convert the world by submission and terror, that's a tough problem to tackle. Just got to hope they eventually see the light.

About the current problem, I liked it when the terrorist were killing each other while we bombed them both. But then the migrant crisis forced the hand of the western powers to act quickly and now it is seen by the terrorists as a crusade, and that's exactly what they wanted to sell their terror attacks to more Muslims as Jihad against the infidels.

So the reason I think we need to invade is because we need to eradicate ISIS and al-Nusra, to send the refugees back home, stablize the country and even partition it up. Assad may remain in power in his reduced Syria that support him.

But as far as jihadists and terrorism is concerned, that may never be stopped because it's big part of Islam.

This is simply not true. Terrorism is not a part of Islam whatsoever. Please see my other post for reference. And Prophet Muhammad did not tell his people to conquer the world by submission and terror. It's just not a true statement at all. It's the media that gives people this idea that Islam contains aspects of radicalism or whatever you want to call it. That's simply not true.
The Prophet was persecuted during his mission. This caused him to flee his hometown and he never even ordered his people to defend themselves against the persecution and killings of the early Muslims because he was not commanded by God to do so.

His own people fought against him for many years, people by the name of Khalid Bin Waleed ( chief military leader who fought against the Muslims for dozens of battles) and Abu Sufyan (the leader of the rebellion against Muhammad and his companions) and these were people who never believed in this religion. Eventually they ended up converting just based on Muhammad's character and kindness. They both thought that they would be executed based on all of the persecution and suffering they caused him and his companions. Instead, they embraced the religion and joined them and praised his mercy.

No one cares what the Prophet or people alive 1000 years ago did.

Islam undeniably contains aspects of radicalism in modern times.

[HomoSapien]

^ I've purposely stayed out of this discussion, but feel the need to weigh in. I'm Muslim by birth, but atheist by practice. Islam will always be part of my DNA, because that's how I was raised. Calling ISIS Muslims is a joke. They're akin to Islam as the KKK is to Christianity. They are an evil cult who are using the idea of religion to brainwash the weak.

I feel like any reasonable person should be able to see the difference between ISIS and normal Muslim people.

[TheSuzerain]

I didn't mean to infer that Islam as a whole has radical aspects in modern times, although I can see how it reads that way.

My point is that it's pretty delusional to contend that there are no radicalized groups within Islam.

[musiqsoulchild]

Rerisen, I am super surprised by your nuance in this thread.

I'll give you a break when it comes to FO bashing for a full month.



Seriously, thanks for the nuanced yet detailed participation.

[greenl]

Calling ISIS Muslims is a joke. They're akin to Islam as the KKK is to Christianity. They are an evil cult who are using the idea of religion to brainwash the weak.

I feel like any reasonable person should be able to see the difference between ISIS and normal Muslim people.

But- they're all brown people who want to kill us. Fox News said so. Invade!!!

Good discussion in this thread. I've become so cynical about all this- I'd not be shocked if the CIA radicalized and armed a small group of dissidents to perpetrate the attack so that the American War machine can roll on. War is enormously profitable for most people- except for the soldiers and victims, of course.

[WIN]

^ I've purposely stayed out of this discussion, but feel the need to weigh in. I'm Muslim by birth, but atheist by practice. Islam will always be part of my DNA, because that's how I was raised. Calling ISIS Muslims is a joke. They're akin to Islam as the KKK is to Christianity. They are an evil cult who are using the idea of religion to brainwash the weak.

I feel like any reasonable person should be able to see the difference between ISIS and normal Muslim people.

Bolded the one part that I think every society & government does. Religion was & is used as a fuel to serve a purpose that usually is totally against the beliefs of that said religion. Unfortunately people eat it up like cattle eating grain.

For those that are trying to make this about Islam and who believe that is truly the problem, I feel sorry for you as you are brainwashed just as much as those people who consider themselves jihadists.

I think everything that's going on is way more complicated than we see in the media or are told to believe, and because of that I usually stay away from conversations like this. There's so many groups, countries, schemes & plans that go back decades that are all intertwined into the present, where I'd rather believe nothing rather than believe something that causes me to hate a group ignorantly.

Unfortunately, the only people that truly pay for what's going on in the world are the innocent.

[MJPipRose]

This has been an ongoing problem for about 14 centuries. For one, when a religion's prophet bases the religion on one God who wants his people to conquer and convert the world by submission and terror, that's a tough problem to tackle. Just got to hope they eventually see the light.

About the current problem, I liked it when the terrorist were killing each other while we bombed them both. But then the migrant crisis forced the hand of the western powers to act quickly and now it is seen by the terrorists as a crusade, and that's exactly what they wanted to sell their terror attacks to more Muslims as Jihad against the infidels.

So the reason I think we need to invade is because we need to eradicate ISIS and al-Nusra, to send the refugees back home, stablize the country and even partition it up. Assad may remain in power in his reduced Syria that support him.

But as far as jihadists and terrorism is concerned, that may never be stopped because it's big part of Islam.

This is simply not true. Terrorism is not a part of Islam whatsoever. Please see my other post for reference. And Prophet Muhammad did not tell his people to conquer the world by submission and terror. It's just not a true statement at all. It's the media that gives people this idea that Islam contains aspects of radicalism or whatever you want to call it. That's simply not true.
The Prophet was persecuted during his mission. This caused him to flee his hometown and he never even ordered his people to defend themselves against the persecution and killings of the early Muslims because he was not commanded by God to do so.

His own people fought against him for many years, people by the name of Khalid Bin Waleed ( chief military leader who fought against the Muslims for dozens of battles) and Abu Sufyan (the leader of the rebellion against Muhammad and his companions) and these were people who never believed in this religion. Eventually they ended up converting just based on Muhammad's character and kindness. They both thought that they would be executed based on all of the persecution and suffering they caused him and his companions. Instead, they embraced the religion and joined them and praised his mercy.

No one cares what the Prophet or people alive 1000 years ago did.

Islam undeniably contains aspects of radicalism in modern times.

I mentioned that aspect because it is a major part of a Muslim belief. A true Muslim follows Muhammad's example. And these people who call themselves Islamic are not following his example. Just like Christians are to follow the example of Jesus, or Hindus to follow the example of Krishna, Jews to follow the example of Moses, only in Islam it is emphasized allot more and are part of basic teachings.

Thank you for your opinion but unfortunately it is not an accurate one.There are many North American scholars you can turn to that will support my argument here.

[TheSuzerain]

This is simply not true. Terrorism is not a part of Islam whatsoever. Please see my other post for reference. And Prophet Muhammad did not tell his people to conquer the world by submission and terror. It's just not a true statement at all. It's the media that gives people this idea that Islam contains aspects of radicalism or whatever you want to call it. That's simply not true.
The Prophet was persecuted during his mission. This caused him to flee his hometown and he never even ordered his people to defend themselves against the persecution and killings of the early Muslims because he was not commanded by God to do so.

His own people fought against him for many years, people by the name of Khalid Bin Waleed ( chief military leader who fought against the Muslims for dozens of battles) and Abu Sufyan (the leader of the rebellion against Muhammad and his companions) and these were people who never believed in this religion. Eventually they ended up converting just based on Muhammad's character and kindness. They both thought that they would be executed based on all of the persecution and suffering they caused him and his companions. Instead, they embraced the religion and joined them and praised his mercy.

No one cares what the Prophet or people alive 1000 years ago did.

Islam undeniably contains aspects of radicalism in modern times.

I mentioned that aspect because it is a major part of a Muslim belief. A true Muslim follows Muhammad's example. And these people who call themselves Islamic are not following his example. Just like Christians are to follow the example of Jesus, or Hindus to follow the example of Krishna, Jews to follow the example of Moses, only in Islam it is emphasized allot more and are part of basic teachings.

Thank you for your opinion but unfortunately it is not an accurate one.There are many North American scholars you can turn to that will support my argument here.

Religion is not determined by scholars with their nose in dusty books.

It's determined by the people who follow it.