What should the West do Now about Islamic Terrorism?

[YmirGF]

All I'm saying is that trying the same old gung-ho tactics won't work.

Oddly, I thought the entirety of my post made that abundantly clear.

It would not work because we would never consider giving one person that kind of power, let alone the logistics of cutting off all communications. The media could be handled with a find spray of suppressing fire to keep them away though....

Further to this:

We don't dare set someone like that loose because the public outcry over them doing what needed to be done would traumatize the general population if their methods and brutality ever got out.

What's the slogan, "We love death more than you love life?" or something like that. It's very hard to combat that kind of mentality. You can't really frighten them as in their warped view of reality they will just conclude that Allah is testing their metal and resolve. It's like trying to scare a cancerous tumor. The tumor doesn't care. Sadly, and unfortunately, there is only one way to get rid of this kind of a social cancer but the doctors are afraid of the moral ambiguity of doing the operation.

What I am saying is to truly wipe this festering cancer out would require a huge investment of personnel, resources and effort that we are simply unable to and unwilling to do. It would make us into the very monster that we seek to destroy. You are right though, the old gung-ho methods will not work.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

So if an ISIS militia is marching for another village bent on raping and killing indiscriminately, we should not do anything but allow it to happen? I hope you can see the situation is more complicated than only providing humanitarian support as you suggest. Humanitarian support includes stopping the invasion of the village in my opinion.

Personally, I'm a pacifist. I don't support violence. The government will do what it wants. If you want to join the military or support the military using violence to take them out, that's your choice. I support non-violent means of change.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I don't support violence.

I don't support violence either, but on the other hand I don't want to get blown up when I travel on a tube train in London or whatever.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I don't support violence either, but on the other hand I don't want to get blown up when I travel on a tube train in London or whatever.

And how will more violence stop that? It won't. If someone decides to attack with guns, explosives, knives, etc. while you're out doing your daily business, there's not much you can do about it. I live in the hood and there's shootings all the time here. A bullet could come through my window or a wall, or I could get shot from just being outside. There's nothing I can do about that.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

And how will more violence stop that? It won't. If someone decides to attack with guns, explosives, knives, etc. while you're out doing your daily business, there's not much you can do about it. I live in the hood and there's shootings all the time here. A bullet could come through my window or a wall, or I could get shot from just being outside. There's nothing I can do about that.

I'm not arguing for more violence. But what is YOUR solution to the problem of Islamist terrorism? Do you think we should just do nothing, walk away, wash our hands of it? I guess the west doing nothing would make it a bit harder for groups like ISIS to recruit and radicalise, though they would probably present it as a victory for Allah or something. But do you REALLY think they would then just go home and put away their AKs and suicide belts, suddenly become liberals and stop hating anyone who doesn't share their twisted ideology? I don't, and I'm afraid I do see some parallels with the Nazis here. Imagine ISIS getting a nuclear weapon one day.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm not arguing for more violence. But what is YOUR solution to the problem of Islamist terrorism? Do you think we should just do nothing, walk away, wash our hands of it? I guess the west doing nothing would make it a bit harder for groups like ISIS to recruit and radicalise, though they would probably present it as a victory for Allah or something. But do you REALLY think they would then just go home and put away their AKs and suicide belts, suddenly become liberals and stop hating anyone who doesn't share their twisted ideology? I don't, and I'm afraid I do see some parallels with the Nazis here. Imagine ISIS getting a nuclear weapon one day.

I said that I'm personally a pacifist, for religious and ethical reasons. I already gave my suggestion of what we could do as a society. Some people can work on that, while the violent ones - on both "sides" - will do what their hearts are inclined to do.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Are you arguing that all Muslims are terrorists?

No. Merely that any Muslim who reads the Quran will find reasons to be a terrorist.

Jihaad is certainly an important teaching in Islaam.

You confirm my point!

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

Damn those atheists! Damn them and their suicide bombs!

They don't need suicide bombs silly, they have drones and billion dollar industries based on creating weaponry which can effectively destroy entire generations of brown people.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

please be so kind as to name the atheist terrorist group(s) you speak of in the above quoted post.

And yes, your answer is going to determine if you are capable of rational discussion on the topic.

Good luck.

If you don't believe the American and the British and many other western nations bombing Iraq and Aghanistan on false or non-existent evidence is not terrorism then you might want to get in touch with the Oxford English dictionary and have the definition of the word changed.

It tells me that a certain poster is merely telling the part of the story that sounds horrible. When one drills down through the details of the story one quickly finds there is no real story to begin with.


Though it is entirely possible that the front line Islamic State member is poorly educated, highly excitable youth, it is foolish to assume that the leadership suffers from the same disadvantage.

Why have you left out the largest chunk of my post? Would you like to go back and answer the factual descriptions of the so called religious terrorists?

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

No. Merely that any Muslim who reads the Quran will find reasons to be a terrorist.


You confirm my point!

The same Quran that tells you to not kill innocents? The same Quran that tells you not to harm prisoners of war? The same Quran that tells you to allow religious freedoms for people of other religions?

Also, can you define what Jihad is? Since you seem to be such an expert.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

And where's your proof? I actually thought better of you, but now you are making things up.

Are you telling me that imaginary people, that weren't really David Cameron, Tony Blair, George Bush or Barack Obama authorised the bombings of Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan and so on?

This is the definition of the word terrorism: "The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims"

I will just delve into a portion of the terrorism carried out by western governments, that of the Iraq war. Their very aim was to target civilian centers, in a strategy now known as "shock and awe". They destroyed hospitals, homes, schools and all other civilian centers across Baghdad and many other cities and towns in Iraq. That feeds into the "use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians," section of the definition.

Then we move onto the political aims and the bombings and invasions certainly had a political aim. There was the stated political aim of removing Saddam Hussein because he had weapons of mass destruction (which almost anyone with any ounce of sense, such as Nelson Mandela at the time, knew was not physically or financially possible for Iraq). There were also dubious links made between the alcohol drinking, cigar smoking, secularist Saddam Hussein and the supposed Islamic extremists of Bin Laden and Al Zuhari.

To round off, such use of violence has to be unlawful or illegal and the Iraq war was declared as such by Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Anan in Sept 2004.

The US military establishment, ably supported by europe and other nations, is the single largest, most well funded and well equipped terrorist organisation in the history of man.

 

[YmirGF]

Why have you left out the largest chunk of my post? Would you like to go back and answer the factual descriptions of the so called religious terrorists?

I left out the chunks that I have no real issue with. Why you want to make that a problem is quite beyond me. What I chose to comment on was a conscious, deliberate distortion, of the facts. It is noted that you chose not to comment on that clarification that was in the article you cited.

As a devout Muslim, who is quite aware of the vast array of "scholarly" opinions that exist in the Muslim world, you surely understand that portions of the Qur'an are vague enough to drive a rather large truck through. It's all context. It's how "innocent" is interpreted etc... Like, if you're going to be a spokesman for Islam, you should endeavor to at least be honest instead of implying that your interpretation is the ONLY interpretation.

 

[George-ananda]

So if an ISIS militia is marching for another village bent on raping and killing indiscriminately, we should not do anything but allow it to happen? I hope you can see the situation is more complicated than only providing humanitarian support as you suggest. Humanitarian support includes stopping the invasion of the village in my opinion.

Personally, I'm a pacifist. I don't support violence. The government will do what it wants. If you want to join the military or support the military using violence to take them out, that's your choice. I support non-violent means of change.

So your answer then is 'Yes, I would stand by and allow the ISIS militia to take the village knowing killing and rape in mass is going to occur (even though my nation has sufficient air-power to prevent this slaughter).'.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

So your answer then is 'Yes, I would stand by and allow the ISIS militia to take the village knowing killing and rape in mass is going to occur (even though my nation has sufficient air-power to prevent this slaughter).'.

I think it's cute how you act like I have any power over the use of military force in the first place. Do you look down on monks, nuns and conscientious objectors, too?

 

[Jumi]

Are you telling me that imaginary people, that weren't really David Cameron, Tony Blair, George Bush or Barack Obama authorised the bombings of Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan and so on?.

Where's your proof that there were atheist bombings? I'm still waiting.

 

[Jumi]

Tony Blair, even if you blame him, debated an atheist as theist.

 

[George-ananda]

I think it's cute how you act like I have any power over the use of military force in the first place. Do you look down on monks, nuns and conscientious objectors, too?

This thread is not about you personally, it is about what the west in totality should do NOW. Are you trying to avoid the question that shows passivism does not always work against certain evils?

My original question as a reminder was: So if an ISIS militia is marching for another village bent on raping and killing indiscriminately, should we not do anything but allow it to happen?

 

[Jumi]

They don't need suicide bombs silly, they have drones and billion dollar industries based on creating weaponry which can effectively destroy entire generations of brown people.

So you're shifting the blame on atheists instead of the culprits. What does that say about you?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The same Quran that tells you to not kill innocents? The same Quran that tells you not to harm prisoners of war? The same Quran that tells you to allow religious freedoms for people of other religions?

And yet ISIS, Boko Ham and Al Qaeda self-identify as Muslims and find justification in the Quran for their "war on the infidels". Maybe you need to talk to THEM about it instead of blaming everyone else.

 

[Valjean]

Religion is just an excuse; a justification. People will always find religious justification for whatever they want to do.
So, getting back to the original question, how do we get the various "terrorists" to go home and the Muslim states to return to the secularism of fifty years ago?