OT: Terrorist attacks in Paris

[DarthDiggler69]

The ones doing the actual killings is not the concern. The ones supporting them are. Take a look as surveys on how many in the region support ISIS. It's not 2% and it's not 5%. More like 20% - 50%.

Look at surveys on how many European Muslims support ISIS. It's hardly 2%.

There is no that ISIS could keep running without the support of the local population. Saying it's 1% or 2% of Muslims is trivializing the problem. The support for ISIS runs much deeper than that.

Only small percentage become terrorists because they are normal human beings with common decency to turn a blind eye to it.
I tell you, alot if not all of the things ISIS does is commanded their Qu'ran and Hadiths. Some follow it (extremists), some ignore it (for good reason), some don't even know about it, some blatantly misinterpret it but the fact is its there. I've been told by friends from Saudi Arabia that in muslim countries they cannot openly question or criticize the Quran or Mohammed, if they were to openly criticize or question something they know is in their books or go against it they can get into big trouble, so they just turn a blind eye or keep quiet about it.

[TimRobbins]

Only small percentage become terrorists because they are normal human beings with common decency to turn a blind eye to it.
I tell you, alot if not all of the things ISIS does is commanded their Qu'ran and Hadiths. Some follow it (extremists), some ignore it (for good reason), some don't even know about it, some blatantly misinterpret it but the fact is its there. I've been told by friends from Saudi Arabia that in muslim countries they cannot openly question or criticize the Quran or Mohammed, if they were to openly criticize or question something they know is in their books or go against it they can get into big trouble, so they just turn a blind eye or keep quiet about it.

Sure. Only a minority is willing to do the fighting and killing, but there are many who are willing to donate money, some other form of support of simply "quietly" support the ideology. There's no point in denying it.

The notion of violently forcing the religion on others runs very deep with many in the Muslim world. Heck, it's a STATED goal of Iran, a country of 80M people.

All religions have a violent history. The bible is filled with many violent verses, but most religions have evolved from the point of violently forcing their beliefs on others. The ONLY religion in the world still trying to spread through violence is the Muslim religion.

So obviously, Jihad doesn't represent most Muslims, but lets not trivialize the problem. It's not 1% of Muslims that believe in Jihad. The number are far far bigger than that.

[DarthDiggler69]

So obviously, Jihad doesn't represent most Muslims, but lets not trivialize the problem. It's not 1% of Muslims that believe in Jihad. The number are far far bigger than that.

No doubt about that, though Jihad is such a broad term in Islam.

[TimRobbins]

So obviously, Jihad doesn't represent most Muslims, but lets not trivialize the problem. It's not 1% of Muslims that believe in Jihad. The number are far far bigger than that.

No doubt about that, though Jihad is such a broad term in Islam.

Jihad in the meaning of spreading the religion through violence and/or killing non-believers.

[aramada]

It is extremely naive to think that disengaging from ME will solve the problemS. ISIS' ideology has infiltrated France like it infiltrated Egypt or Libya, before actual conflict started in these two countries, in line with their expansionary views. I don't see why it would not also spread to the western world.
No reason to believe that these Barbarians won't look to imitate the original caliphates and expand as far as their ideology has gone. French, Belgian salafists have sought to establish the charia as the country's rule of law

As a Frenchman, maybe I should go stand in Poitiers like Charles Martel in 732

[TimRobbins]

It is extremely naive to think that disengaging from ME will solve the problemS. ISIS' ideology has infiltrated France like it infiltrated Egypt or Libya, before actual conflict started in these two countries, in line with their expansionary views. I don't see why it would not also spread to the western world.

Because there aren't many Muslims in the Western World? US has less than 1% Muslims. UK has around 3%. That's not enough to put any pressure on a country.

France and Belgium have larger populations, but you can deal with it on the homeland, rather than chase ghosts in the ME. France doesn't have the resources or the will to fight some prolonged war in the ME. Islamic extremism should be dealt with in the homeland.

It would take some extreme measures just like it took extreme measures to uproot the Nazi ideology after WW2. I'm talking about banning Islamic extremism altogether. That is, you arrest (and possibly deport) anybody who talks about "Jihad", you monitor mosques and Imams, you monitor schools, and you monitor electronic communications and social networks. Anybody who mentions Islamic Extremism favorably gets arrested.

The problem is specific to very few Western countries, such as France, but it can be dealt with, just like similar ideologies were dealt with in the past.

[bledredwine]

One of the attacks was at le petite cambodge, a restaurant that I'd frequent near my place in the Paris days. It's crazy to think about.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[johnnyvann840]

One of the attacks was at le petite cambodge, a restaurant that I'd frequent near my place in the Paris days. It's crazy to think about.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

You are who I was thinking of earlier.. you are the pianist correct? For some reason I had you confused with pylb.. thought maybe you changed your name cause I knew you were in Paris.

[SpinninHouse]

I don't buy the argument that eliminating US military presence in the ME will make ISIS less of a threat.In fact, I believe it will lead to further de-stabilization and make them more powerful and a larger threat. As the French President said, I think this is a global issue that requires global intervention from the International community.

Does any one feel that our reduced military presence through out the region has increased our safety? I believe we need more intel and a larger presence to increase our National Security. The largest threat to the Free World today is what's happening in Syria.

Quite frankly, I'm scared of ISIS and pretending they don't exist is not in our best interest. I can't believe people think they'll just go away if we ignore them.

[aramada]

It is extremely naive to think that disengaging from ME will solve the problemS. ISIS' ideology has infiltrated France like it infiltrated Egypt or Libya, before actual conflict started in these two countries, in line with their expansionary views. I don't see why it would not also spread to the western world.

Because there aren't many Muslims in the Western World? US has less than 1% Muslims. UK has around 3%. That's not enough to put any pressure on a country.

France and Belgium have larger populations, but you can deal with it on the homeland, rather than chase ghosts in the ME. France doesn't have the resources or the will to fight some prolonged war in the ME. Islamic extremism should be dealt with in the homeland.

It would take some extreme measures just like it took extreme measures to uproot the Nazi ideology after WW2. I'm talking about banning Islamic extremism altogether. That is, you arrest (and possibly deport) anybody who talks about "Jihad", you monitor mosques and Imams, you monitor schools, and you monitor electronic communications and social networks. Anybody who mentions Islamic Extremism favorably gets arrested.

The problem is specific to very few Western countries, such as France, but it can be dealt with, just like similar ideologies were dealt with in the past.

To talk specifically about France and Belgium in the current situation, there are officially about 8% of Muslims, and probably more considering undocumented people. That's over 5MM people in France. If even 1% of these people are radicalized, that's 50,000 people. I suspect this number is way higher. The solution you are offering would require a police state given the volumes of people we are talking about. It is not out of the question, but at the same time, more French and Belgian citizens are piloting radicalization and attacks from Syria (and Iraq). Attacking on both fronts (inside the borders and outside) seems like a no brainer to me.

[TimRobbins]

To talk specifically about France and Belgium in the current situation, there are officially about 8% of Muslims, and probably more considering undocumented people. That's over 5MM people in France. If even 1% of these people are radicalized, that's 50,000 people. I suspect this number is way higher. The solution you are offering would require a police state given the volumes of people we are talking about. It is not out of the question, but at the same time, more French and Belgian citizens are piloting radicalization and attacks from Syria (and Iraq). Attacking on both fronts (inside the borders and outside) seems like a no brainer to me.

It would require a bit of a police state for some period. Again, you can look at what the allies did in Nazi Germany after WW2, and that was on a far wider scale. I think the costs of monitoring 5M in the home land are far smaller than the costs of running a military operation in the ME. Moreover, I believe the bombing campaign in the ME is completely useless. We've seen that from years of American experience.

[johnnyvann840]

It is extremely naive to think that disengaging from ME will solve the problemS. ISIS' ideology has infiltrated France like it infiltrated Egypt or Libya, before actual conflict started in these two countries, in line with their expansionary views. I don't see why it would not also spread to the western world.

Because there aren't many Muslims in the Western World? US has less than 1% Muslims. UK has around 3%. That's not enough to put any pressure on a country.

France and Belgium have larger populations, but you can deal with it on the homeland, rather than chase ghosts in the ME. France doesn't have the resources or the will to fight some prolonged war in the ME. Islamic extremism should be dealt with in the homeland.

It would take some extreme measures just like it took extreme measures to uproot the Nazi ideology after WW2. I'm talking about banning Islamic extremism altogether. That is, you arrest (and possibly deport) anybody who talks about "Jihad", you monitor mosques and Imams, you monitor schools, and you monitor electronic communications and social networks. Anybody who mentions Islamic Extremism favorably gets arrested.

The problem is specific to very few Western countries, such as France, but it can be dealt with, just like similar ideologies were dealt with in the past.

Sounds like it could get pretty McCarthyesque. It's just not realistic.

[TheSuzerain]

It is extremely naive to think that disengaging from ME will solve the problemS. ISIS' ideology has infiltrated France like it infiltrated Egypt or Libya, before actual conflict started in these two countries, in line with their expansionary views. I don't see why it would not also spread to the western world.

Because there aren't many Muslims in the Western World? US has less than 1% Muslims. UK has around 3%. That's not enough to put any pressure on a country.

France and Belgium have larger populations, but you can deal with it on the homeland, rather than chase ghosts in the ME. France doesn't have the resources or the will to fight some prolonged war in the ME. Islamic extremism should be dealt with in the homeland.

It would take some extreme measures just like it took extreme measures to uproot the Nazi ideology after WW2. I'm talking about banning Islamic extremism altogether. That is, you arrest (and possibly deport) anybody who talks about "Jihad", you monitor mosques and Imams, you monitor schools, and you monitor electronic communications and social networks. Anybody who mentions Islamic Extremism favorably gets arrested.

The problem is specific to very few Western countries, such as France, but it can be dealt with, just like similar ideologies were dealt with in the past.

Sounds like it could get pretty McCarthyesque. It's just not realistic.

I mean parts of that are already happening with the monitoring. Not the arrested part, but you know.

[DarthDiggler69]

I don't buy the argument that eliminating US military presence in the ME will make ISIS less of a threat.In fact, I believe it will lead to further de-stabilization and make them more powerful and a larger threat. As the French President said, I think this is a global issue that requires global intervention from the International community.

Does any one feel that our reduced military presence through out the region has increased our safety? I believe we need more intel and a larger presence to increase our National Security. The largest threat to the Free World today is what's happening in Syria.

Quite frankly, I'm scared of ISIS and pretending they don't exist is not in our best interest. I can't believe people think they'll just go away if we ignore them.

Agree for the most part, what scares me the most is that some governments ignore to address the real issues and are blinded by their own political correctness, the people who will suffer for that are the citizens

[TimRobbins]

Sounds like it could get pretty McCarthyesque. It's just not realistic.

If you want to uproot an ideology, it can take some very extreme measures. It would be difficult, but not impossible.

[Nikola]

I'm not saying we should give ISIS an opportunity to gain anymore strength in the middle east. But is seriously no one in this thread going to bring up the fact ISIS was created and gained footholds in countries that we attacked and left in dismay. Certainly without our presence in the ME there could never be such a large rogue group in so many countries. (even al-queda was only 200 some individuals at the time of 9/11).

I have a hard time believing the European leaders had no idea something like this could happen after accepting so many refugees from a country that has been at war for 5 years.

The western corporate world is trying desperately to get ground troops into Syria so they can secure the land needed for their planned oil pipeline. We will not benefit, we have not from any of the middle eastern wars. Our corporate governments love to be attacked so they can continue justifying more war... and to take away our rights. These wars have been planned a long time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

[nrockwaychicago]

It is extremely naive to think that disengaging from ME will solve the problemS. ISIS' ideology has infiltrated France like it infiltrated Egypt or Libya, before actual conflict started in these two countries, in line with their expansionary views. I don't see why it would not also spread to the western world.

Because there aren't many Muslims in the Western World? US has less than 1% Muslims. UK has around 3%. That's not enough to put any pressure on a country.

France and Belgium have larger populations, but you can deal with it on the homeland, rather than chase ghosts in the ME. France doesn't have the resources or the will to fight some prolonged war in the ME. Islamic extremism should be dealt with in the homeland.

It would take some extreme measures just like it took extreme measures to uproot the Nazi ideology after WW2. I'm talking about banning Islamic extremism altogether. That is, you arrest (and possibly deport) anybody who talks about "Jihad", you monitor mosques and Imams, you monitor schools, and you monitor electronic communications and social networks. Anybody who mentions Islamic Extremism favorably gets arrested.

The problem is specific to very few Western countries, such as France, but it can be dealt with, just like similar ideologies were dealt with in the past.

This is a slippery slope toward fascism.

Frankly glad that RealGM posters don't make policy decisions.

[TimRobbins]

This is a slippery slope toward fascism.

Frankly glad that RealGM posters don't make policy decisions.

There's no denying some civil liberties are going to get diminished. However, look at Germany - it's illegal there to talk favorably about the Nazis, it's illegal to use Nazi symbols and it's illegal to deny Nazi atrocities. There is no free speech in Germany when it comes to their Nazi past. Does that make them fascists?

We hold some liberties, such as the right to free speech, sacred, but the reality is that there is always a balance between civil liberties and the safety of society as a whole. When the balance requires it (such as in the deNazification of Germany), you can sometimes limit some civil liberties without becoming a full-blown fascist state.

[ZUDAMAGIC]

"The ONLY religion in the world still trying to spread through violence is the Muslim religion." " you monitor mosques and Imams, you monitor schools" - some of the quotes from Tim Robbins in this thread are so wrong/offensive smh

[TimRobbins]

"The ONLY religion in the world still trying to spread through violence is the Muslim religion." " you monitor mosques and Imams, you monitor schools" - some of the quotes from Tim Robbins in this thread are so wrong/offensive smh

I don't see how any of this is offensive... The first quote is taken out of context, but is still absolutely and undeniably true (if it wasn't, we would never have this thread).

I apologize if you were offended by anything I wrote in this thread. None of it was meant to offend anybody, but when you deal with such a politically charged issue, I guess it's tough for everybody to be satisfied.

I thought we had a very civil discussion here about the shootings.