Look, Islam is not going away

[1sickbastard]

Will do. France has proven that ghettoizing them clearly doesn't make them less likely to kill you and America seems to be displaying that by and large hugging them is working. It's certainly no worse than any other plan and appears better than most.

But carry on.

Nice try at a red herring, but no. French assimilation of immigrants from its former colonial possessions in the Maghreb, sub-Saharan Africa and the Levant isn't anything like a reasonable justification or defense of ISIS or the 11/13 attacks.
ISIS isn't fighting for equal rights or better policies for social integration.
They are seeking to impose a particularly violent, intolerant theology over others and are willing to commit whatever atrocities needed to destroy their opposition.

Slavery is less an ideology and more an economic model but details details. The only way you REALLY exterminate an ideology is through hearts and minds. You can ban practices (slavery for example was a legal practice. Eliminating it didn't eliminate racist ideologies but it did eliminate slavery.) You can attempt to slaughter everybody who thinks that way but really at absolute best you limit their numbers. Even Nazi ideology survives, they simply don't control one of the largest industrial powers of the world anymore.

Economic models ARE ideologies, but details, details.
Hearts and minds, or more specifically minds (as the heart is a blood pumping muscle and not any sort of cognitive organ) are subject to many influences. While it is possible to influence a reasonable individual with logic and rational debate backed by objective, demonstrable evidence, an unreasonable individual isn't quite so amenable to those influences. Hence the continued existence of Nazi ideology, Creationism, Flat-Earthers, Geocentrists, religion, racism, Marxist-Leninist-Stalinism and Tea-Party Republicans.
If you want to present arguments that ISIS can be reasoned with, please present those arguments.

War has ALWAYS been about logistics. That's nothing new, nor is bringing in the civilians for various reasons and it has varying levels of effectiveness.

Again, back to the historical example of WW2. Both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan had to be pounded into submission. They weren't defeated by warm fuzzies and negotiation.

You clearly are not willing to listen so carry on with Operation Genocide. It's not like you actually want to try anything else. This is the course we have set ourselves upon and aside from bitching about it I have to support my team.

However the smart thing to do would be to treat ISIS the same way we treat every criminal organization. Kill leaders when leaders become available. Make their operations as difficult to pursue as possible while doing minimal harm to the civilians. Get them down to a reasonable level and simply ignore them.

I'm more than happy to listen, but so far you've presented nothing but, "Violence is bad, m'kay, don't do violence."
If ISIS was just a criminal organization, then yeah, we could call the cops (btw, they're called police forces, not police persuaders by civilized, rational debate for a reason) and have them arrested.
But this ain't the Costa Nostra, nor is it a corporate entity skirting the law to up its profits on the next quarterly report.

Once again, and this is a point you seem to be consistently and deliberately avoiding; ISIS is a well-funded violent organization, which is in control of a substantial population, seeking to impose and defend its ideology through brutal armed conflict. They are not Gandhi using non-violence to free India from colonial rule nor are they MLK Jr marching to Selma for civil rights. They're not even PLO terrorists who've hijacked an airliner to negotiate for the release of prisoners
Non-violent tactics don't work too well on those who feel morally justified killing those they see as heretics and apostates.

If you think you can marginalize an organization which has zero problems executing children for watching a soccer game on television by dispensing hugs, singing Kumbaya, or organizing drum circles, by all means, go on over to Mesopotamia and show us how it's done .

And once more, if you have something to present as a counter argument besides, "but, but genocide" (which is a misuse of a term as ISIS is not a race, nation or ethic group), please present it.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I would have done no such thing.

I'm not out to kill Arabs or Muslims off the face of the planet and never suggested such a thing. We don't have any problems in Indonesia or Egypt or a number of other Muslim populations.

But Iraq and Syria are out of control and if we want to we can go regulate those mother fuckers. Gonna have to kill a whole fuck ton of people, but it can be done....we don't have to put up with that shit.

IMHO you certainly DID advocate genocide.

Taking our rationalization to it's logical conclusion, Hitler could claim he didn't promote genocide against Jews because he only focused on Jews in Germany, not all around the world.

 

[The_Trouvere]

Muslims were not an international problem over two generations ago. The ultimate reason for Islamic terrorism is a high birth rate in Arab countries. This means that millions of young men enter economies that have little use for them. Because they think they have little to live for, they try to distinguish themselves by dying heroically.

Over a generation ago Latin America was like that. Right wing dictatorships competed violently for power with left wing revolutionary movement. Now the birth rate in Latin America has declined. Countries in Latin America are adopting democratic governments.

Muslim terrorism is not inevitable. It will be a problem as long as Arabs have a high birth rate. As long as Muslim terrorism is a problem we need to deal with it. We should not blame it on ourselves or Israel.

 

[BotanyBoy]

IMHO you certainly DID advocate genocide.

Personal definitions of words don't count.

Taking our rationalization to it's logical conclusion, Hitler could claim he didn't promote genocide against Jews because he only focused on Jews in Germany, not all around the world.

Except he didn't....he focused on Jews everywhere he could. Rounded as many up as he could and systematically exterminated them. Never even gave them a chance.

I'm not doing that nor am I suggesting waging war against Islam itself.

If I had said "KILL EM ALL!!!" you would be correct, but you're not.

I'm saying draw a line in the sand to stand with us or stand with ISIS and after a chance to decide we go kill ISIS and everyone who stands with them. As a legitimate defense against an eminent threat to the stability of "teh west" that's war....not genocide. Small but important distinction.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Nice try at a red herring, but no. French assimilation of immigrants from its former colonial possessions in the Maghreb, sub-Saharan Africa and the Levant isn't anything like a reasonable justification or defense of ISIS or the 11/13 attacks.

It is if we're not using the "there is never any justification for violence" method of thought. After that we're into details.

ISIS isn't fighting for equal rights or better policies for social integration.
They are seeking to impose a particularly violent, intolerant theology over others and are willing to commit whatever atrocities needed to destroy their opposition.

Yeah. Keep buying it. The reality is that people very rarely if ever fight over their theology. Sure they might sell that shit to the idiots who need to march but it's never ever the truth.

Economic models ARE ideologies, but details, details.
Hearts and minds, or more specifically minds (as the heart is a blood pumping muscle and not any sort of cognitive organ) are subject to many influences. While it is possible to influence a reasonable individual with logic and rational debate backed by objective, demonstrable evidence, an unreasonable individual isn't quite so amenable to those influences. Hence the continued existence of Nazi ideology, Creationism, Flat-Earthers, Geocentrists, religion, racism, Marxist-Leninist-Stalinism and Tea-Party Republicans.
If you want to present arguments that ISIS can be reasoned with, please present those arguments.

Economics is reality and economic models are rule sets. This is not a semantic issue but one of reality. Soccer, Hockey, Basketball and Polo are separate sports not "differing ideologies about how to place an object in a net." You can outlaw and ban economic models you cannot (effectively) outlaw and ideology.

Hence we still have Nazi Ideology and flatearthers etc etc but when was the last time a soccer game had a guy just pick up the ball and rush the net?

While I'm sure ISIS can be reasoned with there is an entire culture surrounding them. And you're just making more ISIS members.

Again, back to the historical example of WW2. Both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan had to be pounded into submission. They weren't defeated by warm fuzzies and negotiation.

Tell me again how there is no Germany today or how we have Japan under strict sanctions. I must have missed it when I traveled. I could have sworn I set foot in both of those countries.

I'm more than happy to listen, but so far you've presented nothing but, "Violence is bad, m'kay, don't do violence."
If ISIS was just a criminal organization, then yeah, we could call the cops (btw, they're called police forces, not police persuaders by civilized, rational debate for a reason) and have them arrested.
But this ain't the Costa Nostra, nor is it a corporate entity skirting the law to up its profits on the next quarterly report.

No, it's an organization killing people. They are still just criminals and should be treated as such.

Once again, and this is a point you seem to be consistently and deliberately avoiding; ISIS is a well-funded violent organization, which is in control of a substantial population, seeking to impose and defend its ideology through brutal armed conflict. They are not Gandhi using non-violence to free India from colonial rule nor are they MLK Jr marching to Selma for civil rights. They're not even PLO terrorists who've hijacked an airliner to negotiate for the release of prisoners
Non-violent tactics don't work too well on those who feel morally justified killing those they see as heretics and apostates.

They are well funded, they don't seem to actually control a substantial population but whatever. Let them want to kill us all they want. No they are not peace loving people who ultimately got lucky. They are willing to do what it takes to get what they want.

Non-violent tactics work only when the dominant force is willing to play along. In no other circumstance can they work. This is a hard rule of reality.

If you think you can marginalize an organization which has zero problems executing children for watching a soccer game on television by dispensing hugs, singing Kumbaya, or organizing drum circles, by all means, go on over to Mesopotamia and show us how it's done .

And once more, if you have something to present as a counter argument besides, "but, but genocide" (which is a misuse of a term as ISIS is not a race, nation or ethic group), please present it.

Yes. I know we can marginalize an organization that has zero problems executing children. In fact I think that watching Iraqi troops march under an Iranian general is absolute proof that you CAN marginalize these people. Hell just via their brutality and oft times bewildering destruction (seriously why blow up historical Islamic sites?) they are doing a mighty fine job of it themselves. Hell if I didn't know better I'd swear ISIS was funded by the US to achieve the exact goal that it is.

It is not a misuse of the term genocide. If you want to defeat ISIS by military force alone your sole path to victory is to march from one end of the middle east to the other and slaughter everything that isn't Christian or Jewish. Then repeat the process in Europe and the US where you just radicalized a fuck ton of people who lost loved ones. You need to leave nobody left to seek revenge if this is the way you want to go.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

gotta love the obama stupidity

 

[NeverEndingMe]

your queen, das ass obama, has made the world a safer place. das ass obama, has brought the world together

Muslims were not an international problem over two generations ago. The ultimate reason for Islamic terrorism is a high birth rate in Arab countries. This means that millions of young men enter economies that have little use for them. Because they think they have little to live for, they try to distinguish themselves by dying heroically.

Over a generation ago Latin America was like that. Right wing dictatorships competed violently for power with left wing revolutionary movement. Now the birth rate in Latin America has declined. Countries in Latin America are adopting democratic governments.

Muslim terrorism is not inevitable. It will be a problem as long as Arabs have a high birth rate. As long as Muslim terrorism is a problem we need to deal with it. We should not blame it on ourselves or Israel.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

These crazy killers must be annihilated by whatever means possible. I really don't care what it takes because they want to take us all out in one grand end times blood bath.

I have always been a pacifist. This group is different. Kill them all.

When you are right, you are right. Sometimes you have to punch the bully right in the mouth.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Except this isn't a bully. We're the bully in this equation no matter HOW you want to parse who's right and whose wrong. This is a petulant child. Don't get me wrong, I'll punt your 6 year old if he hits me in the dick but at the end of the day we both know that I'm the one who overreacted.

 

[Sunshine]

When you are right, you are right. Sometimes you have to punch the bully right in the mouth.

That's what my Dad said.