War on Terror fail: 5 X as many terrorists now

Superfreak said:
I agree. Hence the term Extremists. Again... it is not a war on ISLAM. It is a war on the radical element of Islam. Allowing them to run around unchecked is hardly going to help the situation. It would only embolden them.
Click to expand...

Right - but that's why rhetoric can matter, at least a little bit. The extremists desperately want us to make it a war on the religion. I get why Obama was careful w/ his words, though - as I mentioned to Darth - I don't see any of that as being consequential.

I think that as long as the Middle East is a 3rd world-type region, and as long as there is mostly poverty & poor education there, and as long as we have to meddle around there because of oil - there will likely be terrorism.

We can only do so much for the poverty & education aspect of it. Again, I'm not an expert, and this is an extremely complex issue - but I'd bet that the best thing we can do to "combat terrorism" would be to extricate ourselves from that region altogether. Get off of foreign oil (and I'm all for domestic drilling), and stop trying to influence the politics there. I realize that this would leave Israel more isolated, but I don't see a better way toward the ultimate goal of reducing terrorism here & against Americans in general.
 
Darth Omar said:
What other possibilities? Poverty? Poverty is global but not every region is a hotbed of Islamic terrorism. Why is that?

You prefer willful ignorance on this subject. Unfortunately for us, you're hardly alone.
Click to expand...

So what's your plan, dopey? Send some missionaries & convert them to Christianity?

You'll never learn. In case you haven't noticed, we've tried "your way" for decades, and it still hasn't improved the situation. Making it about the religion only helps the radicals.
 
Thing1 said:
Right - but that's why rhetoric can matter, at least a little bit. The extremists desperately want us to make it a war on the religion. I get why Obama was careful w/ his words, though - as I mentioned to Darth - I don't see any of that as being consequential.

I think that as long as the Middle East is a 3rd world-type region, and as long as there is mostly poverty & poor education there, and as long as we have to meddle around there because of oil - there will likely be terrorism.

We can only do so much for the poverty & education aspect of it. Again, I'm not an expert, and this is an extremely complex issue - but I'd bet that the best thing we can do to "combat terrorism" would be to extricate ourselves from that region altogether. Get off of foreign oil (and I'm all for domestic drilling), and stop trying to influence the politics there. I realize that this would leave Israel more isolated, but I don't see a better way toward the ultimate goal of reducing terrorism here & against Americans in general.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Obama trying desperately not to say 'Radical Islam' is a part of the problem. You do need to point out that it is a radical extremist portion, explain that it is a tiny tiny portion of Islam on the whole that adheres to such beliefs. Trying to sweep it under the rug as Obama did is ignorant.

We have no need of their oil. That is not going to alter the radical mindset. They are going to continue, as they have for decades. Regardless of whether we are there for oil or not.

The poverty side we can't do much as you state.
 
Superfreak said:
I disagree. Obama trying desperately not to say 'Radical Islam' is a part of the problem. You do need to point out that it is a radical extremist portion, explain that it is a tiny tiny portion of Islam on the whole that adheres to such beliefs. Trying to sweep it under the rug as Obama did is ignorant.

We have no need of their oil. That is not going to alter the radical mindset. They are going to continue, as they have for decades. Regardless of whether we are there for oil or not.

The poverty side we can't do much as you state.
Click to expand...

I'm not being snarky at all, but can you flesh out that 1st part a bit? I have never understood what calling it "radical Islam" will effectively do. I'm not opposed to it, but there is an intense focus on that, and I just don't get it. And it really has to be more than "we have to honestly talk about the issue."

I see more negative - I think it plays into the hands of extremists, who want this to be east vs. west, Christianity against Islam. Qualifying it as 'radical' doesn't matter much for their purposes, imo.
 
Superfreak said:
Ok, tell us Thing... what do you think the root cause of terrorism is?
Click to expand...

Right now, the root cause of terrorism is when a drone kills your family at a wedding or a funeral.

It is that simple.

For every one we kill, at least 2 new ones are created.

It is a can't win situation and as long as retards like anatta hold sway the problem will only get worse, can never be better.
 
Thing1 said:
I'm not being snarky at all, but can you flesh out that 1st part a bit? I have never understood what calling it "radical Islam" will effectively do. I'm not opposed to it, but there is an intense focus on that, and I just don't get it. And it really has to be more than "we have to honestly talk about the issue."

I see more negative - I think it plays into the hands of extremists, who want this to be east vs. west, Christianity against Islam. Qualifying it as 'radical' doesn't matter much for their purposes, imo.
Click to expand...

1) It makes the distinction that it is not all of Islam that believes as the radicals do
2) It calls out the extreme element that is responsible, rather than try to pretend it has nothing to do with Islam at all.
3) By making the distinction and emphasizing that the radicals are a very tiny portion of those that follow Islam you are not playing into the extremists hands. It doesn't make it east vs. west as you suggest. It makes it the world against the radicals. By emphasizing that the majority of Islam does not believe as the extremists do, you remove the Christianity vs. Islam element.
 
Rune said:
Right now, the root cause of terrorism is when a drone kills your family at a wedding or a funeral.

It is that simple.

For every one we kill, at least 2 new ones are created.

It is a can't win situation and as long as retards like anatta hold sway the problem will only get worse, can never be better.
Click to expand...

That is not the root cause of terrorism. Not even close.
 
Superfreak said:
1) It makes the distinction that it is not all of Islam that believes as the radicals do
2) It calls out the extreme element that is responsible, rather than try to pretend it has nothing to do with Islam at all.
3) By making the distinction and emphasizing that the radicals are a very tiny portion of those that follow Islam you are not playing into the extremists hands. It doesn't make it east vs. west as you suggest. It makes it the world against the radicals. By emphasizing that the majority of Islam does not believe as the extremists do, you remove the Christianity vs. Islam element.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I just think Republicans - and Trump specifically - are ham-handed and clumsy when they try to present that distinction. Like his travel ban - certainly at the outset, there was nothing at all about "radicals." It was really about the religion as a whole. And then when he talks about seeing thousands of Muslims celebrating after 9/11, and using surveillance on mosques, and insinuates that the Muslim friends & neighbors of terrorists know what's going on - all of that plays into the impression that we may give lip service to singling out radicals, but that we really see it as something about the whole religion.

Either way, I just don't see how it plays too much into an effective strategy for reducing terrorism.
 
Thing1 said:
Fair enough. I just think Republicans - and Trump specifically - are ham-handed and clumsy when they try to present that distinction. Like his travel ban - certainly at the outset, there was nothing at all about "radicals." It was really about the religion as a whole. And then when he talks about seeing thousands of Muslims celebrating after 9/11, and using surveillance on mosques, and insinuates that the Muslim friends & neighbors of terrorists know what's going on - all of that plays into the impression that we may give lip service to singling out radicals, but that we really see it as something about the whole religion.

Either way, I just don't see how it plays too much into an effective strategy for reducing terrorism.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with the first portion. Bush handled it well. Since that time, it has been poorly handled, by Obama and those that were pissy about him not saying it.

As for the travel ban. No, it was not about the religion as a whole. That is simply the way the media tried desperately to portray it. The gullible masses bought into that poor narrative. The travel ban was on six (originally seven) countries. The vast majority of those of Islamic faith were not affected. So how could it have been about the religion as a whole? Trump is a fucking moron. On that we definitely agree. Doesn't mean he gets everything wrong, but he most certainly does a piss poor job of explaining things without tossing both feet in his mouth.
 
Superfreak said:
I don't disagree with the first portion. Bush handled it well. Since that time, it has been poorly handled, by Obama and those that were pissy about him not saying it.

As for the travel ban. No, it was not about the religion as a whole. That is simply the way the media tried desperately to portray it. The gullible masses bought into that poor narrative. The travel ban was on six (originally seven) countries. The vast majority of those of Islamic faith were not affected. So how could it have been about the religion as a whole? Trump is a fucking moron. On that we definitely agree. Doesn't mean he gets everything wrong, but he most certainly does a piss poor job of explaining things without tossing both feet in his mouth.
Click to expand...

The travel ban ENDED UP being about those countries. I was talking about from the outset - when "Donald J. Trump" first made his proclamation calling for a ban, there was no such distinction.
 
Thing1 said:
So what's your plan, dopey? Send some missionaries & convert them to Christianity?

You'll never learn. In case you haven't noticed, we've tried "your way" for decades, and it still hasn't improved the situation. Making it about the religion only helps the radicals.
Click to expand...

Dude, it's about the religion whether I want it to be or not. I can hide my head in the sand like you but I choose not to.

For whatever reasons, Islam is more amenable to producing radical terrorists than other religions. Impoverished Methodists just don't produce as many terrorists. And we haven't been in a state of low grade war with radical Hinduism for over a decade.

I never claimed to have the final answer and they haven't been 'doing it my way'.
 
Thing1 said:
I'm not being snarky at all, but can you flesh out that 1st part a bit? I have never understood what calling it "radical Islam" will effectively do. I'm not opposed to it, but there is an intense focus on that, and I just don't get it. And it really has to be more than "we have to honestly talk about the issue."

I see more negative - I think it plays into the hands of extremists, who want this to be east vs. west, Christianity against Islam. Qualifying it as 'radical' doesn't matter much for their purposes, imo.
Click to expand...

What did calling Nazism, Nazism, do for us in WWII?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top