What's the liberal solution to Islamic terrorism?

GazzaQueen said:
Not a single liberal solution so far. They would rather allow these slaughtering pigs to murder their own pre-teen girls at children's concerts than inconvenience a single murderer.
Click to expand...

There isn't a single solution to terrorism. It's been around as long as man has and will never go away. That doesn't mean we can't work to reduce it but it's not as simple as saying 'do X and it will be gone'.
 
cawacko said:
There isn't a single solution to terrorism. It's been around as long as man has and will never go away. That doesn't mean we can't work to reduce it but it's not as simple as saying 'do X and it will be gone'.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen an X from a liberal yet.
 
cawacko said:
Then with your brilliant liberal mind why would ending poverty end terrorism if money is not important?
Click to expand...

You're being obtuse on this one. No one is saying that "ending poverty" COMPLETELY "ends terrorism." Terrorism has been around since we've been around. It is unlikely to end completely.

Poverty is a very strong contributor to it, though - that is undeniable. Obviously, there are going to be wealthy lunatics; not sure what you can do about those guys. Do you think they'll disappear if we eliminate Islam or something?
 
Thing1 said:
The Iraq War was the single greatest recruiting tool for extremists in history.
Click to expand...

what the fvck do you know about the Iraq war. I'm guessing you were in grade school when it started.

there is a much deeper meaning to the "Iraq War" than your CNN soundbites that George Bush wanted a war to pad the pockets of Halliburton, or revenge his fathers failure to take out Saddam,

Sadaam ignored UN sanctions requiring him to provide evidence he destroyed WMD's we all know he had, kicked out UN Weapons inspectors on numerous occasions, and ultimately paid for his lifetime of inhumane
dictatorship rule over an entire nation. Whom by the way tried, convicted, and hung his sorry ass in the end.

the only problem I see is that we left too soon.
So either read more, turn off CNN, or both. Or stop using the Iraqi war as an excuse for the terrorists slaughtering children outside concert venues.
It's insulting that I am even conversing with you.
 
Thing1 said:
You're being obtuse on this one. No one is saying that "ending poverty" COMPLETELY "ends terrorism." Terrorism has been around since we've been around. It is unlikely to end completely.

Poverty is a very strong contributor to it, though - that is undeniable. Obviously, there are going to be wealthy lunatics; not sure what you can do about those guys. Do you think they'll disappear if we eliminate Islam or something?
Click to expand...

Just get used to islamic terrorism as a part of daily life. There's nothing you can do about it, anyway.

I'm sure your daughters are proud of you.
 
Getin the ring said:
what the fvck do you know about the Iraq war. I'm guessing you were in grade school when it started.

there is a much deeper meaning to the "Iraq War" than your CNN soundbites that George Bush wanted a war to pad the pockets of Halliburton, or revenge his fathers failure to take out Saddam,

Sadaam ignored UN sanctions requiring him to provide evidence he destroyed WMD's we all know he had, kicked out UN Weapons inspectors on numerous occasions, and ultimately paid for his lifetime of inhumane
dictatorship rule over an entire nation. Whom by the way tried, convicted, and hung his sorry ass in the end.

the only problem I see is that we left too soon.
So either read more, turn off CNN, or both. Or stop using the Iraqi war as an excuse for the terrorists slaughtering children outside concert venues.
It's insulting that I am even conversing with you.
Click to expand...

NIE's have borne out what I'm arguing. I doubt you've read one.

Wolfowicz said that WMD's were just the excuse that they used to sell the war to the public. This was a PNAC war, to try to re-shape the region in a way that would favor our interests.

I opposed the war from the start, as did most of the left. We knew it would be a quagmire, and not some 6-month war that you & Cheney promised. And guess what? We were right - you were wrong. As wrong as you could be. Not only did it take a decade+, but you're even arguing above that we should have stayed longer - probably indefinitely.

I know more about Iraq than you ever will.
 
And on topic, at this point the only way to defeat terror is come as close as physically possible to annialating every last one of them off of the face of the earth.

And that not being entirely possible the goal should be to kill as many as you can tot he point where they are no more than a small little group of retards looking for new leaders every day because the last one was blown to kingdom come
 
Getin the ring said:
And on topic, at this point the only way to defeat terror is come as close as physically possible to annialating every last one of them off of the face of the earth.

And that not being entirely possible the goal should be to kill as many as you can tot he point where they are no more than a small little group of retards looking for new leaders every day because the last one was blown to kingdom come
Click to expand...

Because there is a finite # of terrorists, right?
 
Thing1 said:
You're being obtuse on this one. No one is saying that "ending poverty" COMPLETELY "ends terrorism." Terrorism has been around since we've been around. It is unlikely to end completely.

Poverty is a very strong contributor to it, though - that is undeniable. Obviously, there are going to be wealthy lunatics; not sure what you can do about those guys. Do you think they'll disappear if we eliminate Islam or something?
Click to expand...

Nomad started shit talking. I'll respond in his language to him.
 
iolo said:
I don't know about liberals, but the obvious solution is to stop perpetually interfering in Muslim countries and murdering vast numbers of Muslims. Try it when you start to grow up.
Click to expand...

So the killing of children is justified. This is the liberal logic.
 
Nomad said:
I don't think that most thinking people necessarily believe that a so-called "solution" even exists.

As long as Western economic and national security interests are tied to the ME, we will continue to exert our influence in the region, just as Russia and China will. To cease to do so, would open the door for our rivals and competitors on the world stage to gain advantage over us. But, as long as we continue, we will invite the ire and wrath of extremist groups who resent our influence in their homelands.

Until we no longer need the one commodity that the countries of the ME produce... oil... we will continue to incur the wrath of extremists who use terrorism as their only viable weapon against us and other Western powers.

If a "solution" exists, it would involve ending our dependence on their oil so that we can reduce or eliminate our interests in the region.

But even if we completely disassociated ourselves politically, culturally, economically and militarily, we'd find ourselves having to ignore the human rights abuses that would almost certainly continue unabated and likely even escalate in the absence of any Western oversight.

The question then is, could we turn a blind eye to mass human suffering for our own convenience and safety?

I'm not sure we could.
Click to expand...

ISIS at least is not claiming their terrorizing because of Western "meddling" in their lands. They claim to want to create a "caliphate" which will then engulf the world, and to kill all non believers.

So how does ending Intervention stop them from killing us? If that is not even their complaint or end goal?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top