herkyJerky wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

herkyJerky wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

herkyJerky wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:This is whats going to happen. People from different countries will begin to fear others with middle eastern characteristics and it will become an us vs you scenario. Anyone can say whatever political incorrect stuff they want but of your daughter or son was shot in the head last night on France--- and I'm sure that goes for all french people and really the whole world. I'm sick of these idiots myself-- I think senator hatch said it before he died the ultimate reult is we will turn the middle e east into dust. For anyone breaking George Bush's balls taking the fight there for years was brilliant no matter what anyone says. We took it to them but this time it should be strategic nuclear war

Who is "them" and where are they, Briggs? You don't have a specific nation-state to invade or bomb.

So the second Bush was right to invade Iraq? That "war" was just more fuel for the hatred some have for "Western" nations and culture, and the post invasion rebuilding polcies of Bush created a large, willing, and motivated source of terrorists. Isis is made out of many of the displaced Ba'athists, and much of their conventional military success comes from former Iraqi military men.

Has to be a worldwide effort to deal with these guys now...sure- but the heart of that effort has to be the Middle Eastern nations themselves, and not just the U.S., Fr, British, Germans, Russians, etc., because Isis and other Islamic extremists will use this for a recruiting poster.

I have no problem with wiping these guys off the map, but you have to do it the right way, and its going to be hard to eradicate this movement without a lot of hard work and blood. Dropping nuclear bombs will do nothing positive except give some a temporary sense of satisfaction and kill many undeserving people.

The nations of the M.E. have to be put into a situation where they take the initiative, with the realization that inaction on their part will lead to economic punishment, but the only way the world can do this is to reach a point where our oil addiction is ended, since this is essentially the only hold that region has on the rest of the world.

What makes matters even trickier is the fact that a lot of these psychos are not just Middle Easterners or from one part of the world. They're everywhere and of all skin colors. Anders Breivik didn't look particularly Middle Eastern to me, nor did Timothy McVeigh. And what those two did was just as sinister as what just happened in Paris. But they do all have one common element. They all hate democracy, and their disgusting actions are benefitting those who would like to do away with democracy. Follow the money.

They don't do it because of a hatred of democracy. There is a psychological component- usually people who turn mass murderer have anger problems, feel alienated and have a lack of investment in society. This actually applies to a lot of people (probably myself included as a teenager!), for most they either meet someone, go into helping professions, or just focus on getting rich, but I think for some it sets them off a dark path. Some end up as high school massacrers, others become politicized by a cause (whether it's ideology or foreign policy or rage at deaths of people they identify with), which gives them a feeling of direction, identity and a direction for their anger. They then do what most criminals do, 'blame the victim' to abdicate themselves from any responsibility for the horrors they enact.

So it's basically a mixture of their own issues and their response to foreign policy.

Yeah...the hate democracy and "they hate our way of life" stuff that came of Bush Jr. was BS, IMO.

Religion, or a religious fervor, has been major component in all of this(Although you always need a "devil" to fight, and the West fits the bill)...we have not seen this number of suicide bombers since the end of WWII. Have to believe in a greater power- be it religious in nature or nationalistic- if you are wrapping yourself up in bombs. Religion seems to trump rationality, provide a foundation for action, and is exploited by the architects of the Isis movement as well as any Madison Ave. advertising firm exploiting gullible Americans.

Complicated issues won't respond to simplistic solutions, and bombs and walls are simplistic.

You think it's BS that they hate democracy and hate our way of life?

It's a false narrative the government uses to conceal criticism of its foreign policy. These attacks are routed in foreign policy, always have been, not excusing the actions. Thats another trick the government uses- it says that by trying to understand the causes you're somehow excusing it. Thats gibberish. The problem now is both sides are stuck in a cycle of revenge- each side claiming they are responding to the other sides killing.

And by the way, no offense, but I would consider re-thinking your assessment of 'the government'. People who think that 'the government' is covering everything up and 'the government' IS creating false narratives and 'the government' can agree on ANYTHING, that's just way over-simplifying everything.

I should have said 'various governments' - they usually try to cover up mistakes, as most people do, and are not always honest about their motivations if they would be unpopular with people.

I agree with your earlier post- it is complicated, and like I said psychological factors play a big part, but I would say foreign policy is the tipping point (even this recent atrocity cited France ''s bombing campaigns in Syria as the main reason). Why would they care if people in America have the vote? It doesn't affect them in the slightest.

smackeddog wrote:

herkyJerky wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

herkyJerky wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

herkyJerky wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:This is whats going to happen. People from different countries will begin to fear others with middle eastern characteristics and it will become an us vs you scenario. Anyone can say whatever political incorrect stuff they want but of your daughter or son was shot in the head last night on France--- and I'm sure that goes for all french people and really the whole world. I'm sick of these idiots myself-- I think senator hatch said it before he died the ultimate reult is we will turn the middle e east into dust. For anyone breaking George Bush's balls taking the fight there for years was brilliant no matter what anyone says. We took it to them but this time it should be strategic nuclear war

Who is "them" and where are they, Briggs? You don't have a specific nation-state to invade or bomb.

So the second Bush was right to invade Iraq? That "war" was just more fuel for the hatred some have for "Western" nations and culture, and the post invasion rebuilding polcies of Bush created a large, willing, and motivated source of terrorists. Isis is made out of many of the displaced Ba'athists, and much of their conventional military success comes from former Iraqi military men.

Has to be a worldwide effort to deal with these guys now...sure- but the heart of that effort has to be the Middle Eastern nations themselves, and not just the U.S., Fr, British, Germans, Russians, etc., because Isis and other Islamic extremists will use this for a recruiting poster.

I have no problem with wiping these guys off the map, but you have to do it the right way, and its going to be hard to eradicate this movement without a lot of hard work and blood. Dropping nuclear bombs will do nothing positive except give some a temporary sense of satisfaction and kill many undeserving people.

The nations of the M.E. have to be put into a situation where they take the initiative, with the realization that inaction on their part will lead to economic punishment, but the only way the world can do this is to reach a point where our oil addiction is ended, since this is essentially the only hold that region has on the rest of the world.

What makes matters even trickier is the fact that a lot of these psychos are not just Middle Easterners or from one part of the world. They're everywhere and of all skin colors. Anders Breivik didn't look particularly Middle Eastern to me, nor did Timothy McVeigh. And what those two did was just as sinister as what just happened in Paris. But they do all have one common element. They all hate democracy, and their disgusting actions are benefitting those who would like to do away with democracy. Follow the money.

They don't do it because of a hatred of democracy. There is a psychological component- usually people who turn mass murderer have anger problems, feel alienated and have a lack of investment in society. This actually applies to a lot of people (probably myself included as a teenager!), for most they either meet someone, go into helping professions, or just focus on getting rich, but I think for some it sets them off a dark path. Some end up as high school massacrers, others become politicized by a cause (whether it's ideology or foreign policy or rage at deaths of people they identify with), which gives them a feeling of direction, identity and a direction for their anger. They then do what most criminals do, 'blame the victim' to abdicate themselves from any responsibility for the horrors they enact.

So it's basically a mixture of their own issues and their response to foreign policy.

Yeah...the hate democracy and "they hate our way of life" stuff that came of Bush Jr. was BS, IMO.

Religion, or a religious fervor, has been major component in all of this(Although you always need a "devil" to fight, and the West fits the bill)...we have not seen this number of suicide bombers since the end of WWII. Have to believe in a greater power- be it religious in nature or nationalistic- if you are wrapping yourself up in bombs. Religion seems to trump rationality, provide a foundation for action, and is exploited by the architects of the Isis movement as well as any Madison Ave. advertising firm exploiting gullible Americans.

Complicated issues won't respond to simplistic solutions, and bombs and walls are simplistic.

You think it's BS that they hate democracy and hate our way of life?

It's a false narrative the government uses to conceal criticism of its foreign policy. These attacks are routed in foreign policy, always have been, not excusing the actions. Thats another trick the government uses- it says that by trying to understand the causes you're somehow excusing it. Thats gibberish. The problem now is both sides are stuck in a cycle of revenge- each side claiming they are responding to the other sides killing.

And by the way, no offense, but I would consider re-thinking your assessment of 'the government'. People who think that 'the government' is covering everything up and 'the government' IS creating false narratives and 'the government' can agree on ANYTHING, that's just way over-simplifying everything.

I should have said 'various governments' - they usually try to cover up mistakes, as most people do, and are not always honest about their motivations if they would be unpopular with people.

I agree with your earlier post- it is complicated, and like I said psychological factors play a big part, but I would say foreign policy is the tipping point (even this recent atrocity cited France ''s bombing campaigns in Syria as the main reason). Why would they care if people in America have the vote? It doesn't affect them in the slightest.

In all likelihood the people who are directly committing these acts of terror, the people blowing themselves up and everything else, probably don't care whether we have the right to vote and everything else that comes with a democratic system of government. This goes back to the whole 'revenge' thing and the various kinds of emotions that are easily exploited by the expertly trained manipulators. But there is no doubt in my mind that the people who are recruiting them and training them and brainwashing them, the manipulators, do care about our democratic system of government. Where is the money and the training for these operations coming from? What is their motivation? I don't think it's just revenge and foreign policy. They have a much wider, broader and bigger target/agenda. This is what inspires people like McVeigh and Breivik to commit similar acts of violence.

martin wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:When people say that moderates should be stepping up and combatting the extremists... doesn't being a moderate imply they will never be as inclined to all-out war as an extremist? Wouldn't a moderate by definition be more inclined for a diplomatic and political solution vs a military one?

Not at all.

Can you explain? It's an honest question, not sure I have a point other than why it seems so intractable.

holfresh wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

martin wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:When people say that moderates should be stepping up and combatting the extremists... doesn't being a moderate imply they will never be as inclined to all-out war as an extremist? Wouldn't a moderate by definition be more inclined for a diplomatic and political solution vs a military one?

Not at all.

Can you explain? It's an honest question, not sure I have a point other than why it seems so intractable.

Moderate Muslims in the sense that they aren't trying to convert everyone to their religion..They don't believe everyone should convert or die..There are some that feel the extremist does not represent them or their religion..There are the ones we have diplomatic relations with..Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Iran, UAE, Jordan, and more I'm talking to you..

moderate muslims have very little power and are petrified of the radicals.

DrAlphaeus wrote:When people say that moderates should be stepping up and combatting the extremists... doesn't being a moderate imply they will never be as inclined to all-out war as an extremist? Wouldn't a moderate by definition be more inclined for a diplomatic and political solution vs a military one?

The problem is western intervention has helped to completely destabilise the entire region, leaving very few credible, functioning countries let alone moderate ones.

Another problem is while ISIS, Al Qaeda etc terrorist attacks abroad have their roots in foreign policy, the actual wars and upheaval in the middle east is rooted in civil war- namely the divide between Sunni Muslims (80-90% of Muslims) and Shi'ite Muslims. This has created the perfect lawless, war torn environment for ISIS to assert itself.

At the moment the divide is largely:

Sunni dominated countries:
Saudi Arabia (where ISIS gets a large chunk of it's funding from)
Egypt (recently had a democratic revolution, which was overthrown and replaced by a military dictator ship that is struggling to contain civil war and terrorist attacks and is suffering huge economic problems)
Turkey
Syria (Civil war)
Libya (civil war- essentially a non-functioning country)

Shia:
Iran (won't work with Saudi Arabia)
Iraq (Civil war, whilst Sunni's are the minority, Saddam was a Sunni and so they dominated/oppressed the majority Shi'ites which is why there was a large backlash and civil war once he was toppled)
Lebanon (was pretty much destroyed a few years ago and at risk of slipping into civil war

ISIS are Sunni extremists and usually kill any Shi'ites they capture. The problem is the divide stops those other countries from working together to combat ISIS- indeed, it leads to those countries actively helping the sides that align with them in the various civil wars. It also stops most of the rebels and people who are anti-ISIS (very few people actually like them) from working together.

George Bush etc plan was to replace anti-western dictators in the region with pro-western democratic governments who would pursue free market policies (it wasn't out of benevolence or purely ideological- there were people who saw this as a money making opportunity), and would help clamp down on terrorists.

However, oblivious to the ongoing secular tensions, what happened was they destroyed all governing apparatus when they ousted the dictators, and stoked up internal conflict in those countries they were not prepared to invade in the hope those rebels would do their work for them. This unleashed the centuries old conflicts (which had been kept in check by oppressive regimes). The result is the mess you see today, which actually is allowing terrorists to thrive because the countries they are based in are not really viable, working countries.

Honestly, I think if they could wave a magic wand, Bush etc would love to go back to the Middle East being dominated by stable dictators- Gaddafi, Saddam, Assad, etc. You can see this about-turn in the policy towards Egypt- at first welcoming the democratic revolution, now backing the dictator who took over. Dictators= stability and someone you can try to do business with.

That's why I've always found it a joke when they claim terrorists have a hatred of democracy- the west has always been willing to do business with whomever most allies with their interests- whether they are democratic or not (See Saudi Arabia). Indeed they'd rather support a dictator who was pro-west than a democracy that was anti (see Egypt). There are perfectly practical justifications for that, but at least be honest about it!

smackeddog wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:When people say that moderates should be stepping up and combatting the extremists... doesn't being a moderate imply they will never be as inclined to all-out war as an extremist? Wouldn't a moderate by definition be more inclined for a diplomatic and political solution vs a military one?

The problem is western intervention has helped to completely destabilise the entire region, leaving very few credible, functioning countries let alone moderate ones.

Another problem is while ISIS, Al Qaeda etc terrorist attacks abroad have their roots in foreign policy, the actual wars and upheaval in the middle east is rooted in civil war- namely the divide between Sunni Muslims (80-90% of Muslims) and Shi'ite Muslims. This has created the perfect lawless, war torn environment for ISIS to assert itself.

At the moment the divide is largely:

Sunni dominated countries:
Saudi Arabia (where ISIS gets a large chunk of it's funding from)
Egypt (recently had a democratic revolution, which was overthrown and replaced by a military dictator ship that is struggling to contain civil war and terrorist attacks and is suffering huge economic problems)
Turkey
Syria (Civil war)
Libya (civil war- essentially a non-functioning country)

Shia:
Iran (won't work with Saudi Arabia)
Iraq (Civil war, whilst Sunni's are the minority, Saddam was a Sunni and so they dominated/oppressed the majority Shi'ites which is why there was a large backlash and civil war once he was toppled)
Lebanon (was pretty much destroyed a few years ago and at risk of slipping into civil war

ISIS are Sunni extremists and usually kill any Shi'ites they capture. The problem is the divide stops those other countries from working together to combat ISIS- indeed, it leads to those countries actively helping the sides that align with them in the various civil wars. It also stops most of the rebels and people who are anti-ISIS (very few people actually like them) from working together.

George Bush etc plan was to replace anti-western dictators in the region with pro-western democratic governments who would pursue free market policies (it wasn't out of benevolence or purely ideological- there were people who saw this as a money making opportunity), and would help clamp down on terrorists.

However, oblivious to the ongoing secular tensions, what happened was they destroyed all governing apparatus when they ousted the dictators, and stoked up internal conflict in those countries they were not prepared to invade in the hope those rebels would do their work for them. This unleashed the centuries old conflicts (which had been kept in check by oppressive regimes). The result is the mess you see today, which actually is allowing terrorists to thrive because the countries they are based in are not really viable, working countries.

Honestly, I think if they could wave a magic wand, Bush etc would love to go back to the Middle East being dominated by stable dictators- Gaddafi, Saddam, Assad, etc. You can see this about-turn in the policy towards Egypt- at first welcoming the democratic revolution, now backing the dictator who took over. Dictators= stability and someone you can try to do business with.

That's why I've always found it a joke when they claim terrorists have a hatred of democracy- the west has always been willing to do business with whomever most allies with their interests- whether they are democratic or not (See Saudi Arabia). Indeed they'd rather support a dictator who was pro-west than a democracy that was anti (see Egypt). There are perfectly practical justifications for that, but at least be honest about it!

This is war of civilizations.
The civilization based on Islamist values failed to produce expanding society.
This societies are now collapsing with people running out for security and better live conditions.
This creates the agony of elites and values. In the last ditch effort the people who cannot accept the failure of their power and their values are committing mass genocide/suicide.
We cannot manage the collapse of civilizations but we can minimize the impact on out societies if we will understand what is going on.
So far our leader do not have a clue for the most part. They think they are imposing their will but in fact they just poring gasoline on the fire.
Our strategy should be to focus on improving our own societies to show to the world, which is open for flow of information more that ever before, that we have more prosperous, secure, and expanding live.
At the end of the day nothing else matter.

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

martin wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:When people say that moderates should be stepping up and combatting the extremists... doesn't being a moderate imply they will never be as inclined to all-out war as an extremist? Wouldn't a moderate by definition be more inclined for a diplomatic and political solution vs a military one?

Not at all.

Can you explain? It's an honest question, not sure I have a point other than why it seems so intractable.

Moderate Muslims in the sense that they aren't trying to convert everyone to their religion..They don't believe everyone should convert or die..There are some that feel the extremist does not represent them or their religion..There are the ones we have diplomatic relations with..Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Iran, UAE, Jordan, and more I'm talking to you..

moderate muslims have very little power and are petrified of the radicals.

Saudi Arabia is one of the biggest buyers of American arms in the world..Saudi Arabis, UAE, Jordaon were bombing ISIS up to a week ago..They need to put boots on the ground..