Religious terrorism

[Willum]

Does anyone else wonder why a small group of religious terrorists (doesn't matter who), cut off heads, or suicide bomb a military hundreds, if not thousands of times more powerful than it is, then claim credit for it?
Then somehow get even madder when that military blows them to smithereens and usually thousands of unrelated innocent civilians get killed?

Why is the number 1 rule of terrorism not being considered?
Terrorism 101: "Lets you and him fight."
In other words, I dress up as my enemy, do something horrible, then blame my enemy.


Terrorists, traditional Middle Eastern terrorists are all about getting their enemies to fight one another, then clean up the mess, victoriously.

Do we have a new breed of terrorist so stupid they think they can take on a modern nation with AK 47s and suicide packs?

Or are we so stupid to believe such people exist, and so send our military out naively, in the face of this propaganda?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to WinePusher]

Right, so in order to save the lives of the Syrian refugees we must put the lives of Americans, French, German and other Western people at risk?

Are you suggesting that French, American, German and other Western people have an intrinsically higher value?

Given the situation, the only practical option would have been to build safe zones in Syria itself

.

Exactly how is this remotely practical? I think there are a number of logistic issues that are just being glanced over here.

At least one of the Islamic terrorists who blew up Paris last night came through the refugee program. Given this fact there should be NO migration of refugees into the west. The risk is too high.

I am sure we can put a number on that risk. Given there are approx 150,000 refugees currently migrated into Europe. That would be 1/150,000. Is that risk to high? 100 lives were lost but 149,999 lives are potentially saved? We shouldn't diminish the charity that these European nations have given these people. We should blame those that exploit the situation not those who are stuck in it.



[/quote]

[WinePusher]

Right, so in order to save the lives of the Syrian refugees we must put the lives of Americans, French, German and other Western people at risk?

Are you suggesting that French, American, German and other Western people have an intrinsically higher value?

Of course not. But, what I am suggesting is that the policies implemented by the American government be in the best interest of the American people, NOT the Syrian people. If bringing in thousands of Syrian refugees poses even a slight threat to American lives it should not be done.

At least one of the Islamic terrorists who blew up Paris last night came through the refugee program. Given this fact there should be NO migration of refugees into the west. The risk is too high.

I am sure we can put a number on that risk. Given there are approx 150,000 refugees currently migrated into Europe. That would be 1/150,000. Is that risk to high? 100 lives were lost but 149,999 lives are potentially saved? We shouldn't diminish the charity that these European nations have given these people. We should blame those that exploit the situation not those who are stuck in it.

Wow, it's a little bit unbelievable that we're actually having this discussion right now. You seem to admit that there will be Islamic terrorists mixed in with the migrants, as there was in Paris, but you're still ok with them coming cause you personally think the risk isn't that high. Luckily, this isn't how actual policy is formulated.

So if we bring in 10 thousand migrants, and only about 5 of them blow up 100 people in Los Angeles as they did in Paris, well that's OK because we saved 9 thousand migrants and only lost 100 Americans. I'm sorry, but I don't accept this type of thinking. If the migration of Syrian refugees into America poses even the slightest threat to American lives, it should not be done. Period.

Daniel, the simple fact is that the position you've chosen to defend is completely indefensible given the bombings and killings in Paris.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 10 by WinePusher]

It doesn't matter if you blame them or not. What matters is that in the modern world, the world where you and I live, there are a large number of Muslims who think it's ok to kill gay people, kill women, throw acid in the face of women, blow up concert venues and hijack planes and fly them into buildings. What matters is that these Muslims indiscriminately blow things up and kill people do so in the name of their religion.

And these Muslims come from specific parts of the world. Again the majority of terrorist are not Phillipino Muslims or Japanese Muslims or Latvian Muslims or Turkish Muslims.

What matters is militant people from Syria, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Libya, and other countries in the region are blowing people up.

Saying Islam is the problem and ignoring everything else is precisely missing the point.

I have no problem criticizing Islam the texts are reprehensible and I find little beauty in them. I find it laughable that it's adherents claim it is a religion of peace as if Islam is some magical panacea. I don't believe int he supernatural, I don't believe these texts have a magical power over them. What I do believe in his human behavior. I believe humans are not always that great at conflict resolution. These people believe they are in conflict they believe they have only one way to respond. They don't see alternatives. Is it not surprising that they will act out this way?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 12 by WinePusher]

Of course not. But, what I am suggesting is that the policies implemented by the American government be in the best interest of the American people, NOT the Syrian people. If bringing in thousands of Syrian refugees poses even a slight threat to American lives it should not be done.

What of turning them away? What about their lives? Do their lives not matter?

By saying that we shouldn't help these even if one person gets hurt you are immediately putting a value on their lives. That is 1 American is worth X Syrians.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 12 by WinePusher]

Wow, it's a little bit unbelievable that we're actually having this discussion right now. You seem to admit that there will be Islamic terrorists mixed in with the migrants, as there was in Paris, but you're still ok with them coming cause you personally think the risk isn't that high. Luckily, this isn't how actual policy is formulated.

That actually is how policy is formed you didn't think European policy makers didn't consider this risk? It would be incredibly dumb if they didn't. The good however, far outstrips the bad and they made a decision with a moral risk attached.


It goes back to this classic riddle.


There is a train traveling down a track it has 200 people on board. A little ways down the track a car is stuck and it's passengers can't get out there is 3 people in total trapped in this car. Before the car is a switch that will divert the train from the car, but the train will crash killing everyone abroad.

You control the switch what do you do?

[WinePusher]

It doesn't matter if you blame them or not. What matters is that in the modern world, the world where you and I live, there are a large number of Muslims who think it's ok to kill gay people, kill women, throw acid in the face of women, blow up concert venues and hijack planes and fly them into buildings. What matters is that these Muslims indiscriminately blow things up and kill people do so in the name of their religion.

And these Muslims come from specific parts of the world. Again the majority of terrorist are not Phillipino Muslims or Japanese Muslims or Latvian Muslims or Turkish Muslims.

What matters is militant people from Syria, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Libya, and other countries in the region are blowing people up.

Correct. And I presume you know why Japanese Muslims aren't blowing things up and killing people. Because Muslims living in Japan and western nations do not subscribe to a fundamentalist interpretation of the Koran and of Islam. Muslims from Syria, Saudi Arabia, and other Middle Eastern countries DO. Many Muslims living in these Middle Eastern countries have not been integrated into modern society and are indoctrinated into a barbaric, archaic version of Islam that dominates the Middle East.

Btw, if you want to make the tired argument that we bring this upon ourselves because of our intervention in the Middle East, please consider the following. We have had a military presence in Spain and many other military bases in other parts of the world. Yet none of these places blow up innocent people, unlike many Muslims in the Middle East. We invaded Vietnam, yet there are no Vietnamese suicide bombers targeting innocent civilians.

Saying Islam is the problem and ignoring everything else is precisely missing the point.

Saying Islam isn't the problem, or trying to equate radical Islam with radical Christianity, or even saying that Islam is a minor problem and the reason they blow us up is because of our actions is missing the point entirely.

Of course not. But, what I am suggesting is that the policies implemented by the American government be in the best interest of the American people, NOT the Syrian people. If bringing in thousands of Syrian refugees poses even a slight threat to American lives it should not be done.

What of turning them away? What about their lives? Do their lives not matter?

You really think that the only way to help the Syrian refugees is to bring them into our country, a country whose culture is completely foreign to them with an entirely different language? You completely wrote off the idea of building safe zones in Syria because you don't think it's practical. I'm not sure how you would even know this, but it is a far better solution to the refugee problem as it doesn't put American lives at risk.

Again, you do realize that Syria is the birthplace of ISIS. You also realize that many of these migrants DO NOT have any documentation. I also pointed out that ISIS has explicitly stated that it will try to use the migration to infiltrate the west. You also seemed to admit earlier that there may be terrorists mixed in with the refugees.

So, in light of all of this, you still think it's a good idea to being tens of thousands of Syrians into the country?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to WinePusher]

You really think that the only way to help the Syrian refugees is to bring them into our country, a country whose culture is completely foreign to them with an entirely different language? You completely wrote off the idea of building safe zones in Syria because you don't think it's practical. I'm not sure how you would even know this, but it is a far better solution to the refugee problem as it doesn't put American lives at risk.

If it was a remotely decent idea or better than letting those trying to escape conflict leave said conflict. We would already be doing that. If you think it is such a superior solution why is nobody doing this the collective world leaders social scientists military advisors. We can surely discuss the validity of this idea if you wish but perhaps another thread. There is a lot to unpack besides safe zones.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 16 by WinePusher]

Again, you do realize that Syria is the birthplace of ISIS.

That's actually not entirely true:

The group originated as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999, which pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda in 2004. The group participated in the Iraqi insurgency that followed the March 2003 invasion of Iraq by Western forces. In January 2006, it joined other Sunni insurgent groups to form the Mujahideen Shura Council, which proclaimed the formation of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) in October 2006. After the Syrian Civil War began in March 2011, the ISI, under the leadership of al-Baghdadi, sent delegates into Syria in August 2011. These fighters named themselves Jabhat an-Nuṣrah li-Ahli ash-Sh�m—al-Nusra Front—and established a large presence in Sunni-majority areas of Syria, within the governorates of Ar-Raqqah, Idlib, Deir ez-Zor, and Aleppo. In April 2013, al-Baghdadi announced the merger of the ISI with al-Nusra Front and that the name of the reunited group was now the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 16 by WinePusher]

Btw, if you want to make the tired argument that we bring this upon ourselves because of our intervention in the Middle East, please consider the following. We have had a military presence in Spain and many other military bases in other parts of the world. Yet none of these places blow up innocent people, unlike many Muslims in the Middle East. We invaded Vietnam, yet there are no Vietnamese suicide bombers targeting innocent civilians.

No I blame colonialism that came along long before we even got involved.

We a did not invade Vietnam we propped up a government that collapsed in on itself. Notice though Vietnam retained its sovereignty . Spain retains its sovereignty. Many parts of the world like Turkey retain their sovereignty.

I am not going to blame the victim and say we brought this upon ourselves because we didn't. Gandhi certainly showed how to attain sovereignty through non violence. Palestinians would probably be sovereign if they used non violence. I do however, blame human behavior. It is easy to give into violence as the quickest solution to get what you want. It is harder to use non violence.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 16 by WinePusher]

Saying Islam isn't the problem, or trying to equate radical Islam with radical Christianity, or even saying that Islam is a minor problem and the reason they blow us up is because of our actions is missing the point entirely.

I subscribe to the idea that religion and belief is simply a reflection of peoples hopes fears anxiety and stresses. I don't believe religion causes anything. Again I don't see you going on witch hunts or killing gays even though the bible clearly says to do this. Religion is a symptom of a greater over arching disease. . Your runny nose doesn't make you sick, a soar throat isn't the cause of why it is sore. There are deeper issues that are causing the symptoms to manifest. As they say in medical circles cure the disease not the symptoms.


These peoples anxiety and fears manifest in the radical extremist beliefs that they espouse. ISIS is either a bathist party guerrilla army trying to reestablish a bath controlled Syria and Iraq or it is a Sunni terrorist group trying to establish a Sunni caliphate in Syria and Iraq. In the end the goal is control of land and resources and expunging threats to that land and resources. In this case the Shia, Kurds, Alawites, and foreign nations.


What do you really think their motives are?

Do you really think they have a religious need to take over the world?

Then why are they not attacking China or Chile? Why are they not bombing the Panamanians?