What's the liberal solution to Islamic terrorism?

[Irish]

Every Time there is a terrorist attack, I hear libtards like Katy Perry saying we just need to "hug it out".

Other solutions I've heard from libs are, Don't be so Islamophobic. (Implying if we are nicer to muslim communities they will like us more and stop trying to kill us.)

Open borders. Letting in more "refugees" and making it easier for illegals to enter. Including a total freak out of Trumps 6 country 60 day ban. Someone implying that letting more people in the country, some of whom may be dangerous will help us.

Stopping war on Terror. Or "peace". By ending drone strikes, and wars in the ME against ISIS and others, we will be safer because they will hate us less. Or do what Obama did and just watch Isis grow and spread and don't do much about it, until its too late, and then take half measures.

So let's hear it JPP libs. What's your big PC solution to terrorism. All I hear is complaining and bickering about Trump and conservative plans; so what's yours?

[iolo]

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.

[tsuke]

cry

[domer76]

Orangetweet revealed his "secret plan". He's now calling them "losers". Let's give that time and see how it works.

[Cancel 2020.1]

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.

I wonder if Irish even knows what this means.

Basically that, and end poverty.

[Nomad]

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.

[Nomad]

Orangetweet revealed his "secret plan". He's now calling them "losers". Let's give that time and see how it works.

Yeah, that was his big "plan" all along.

Just insult them into submission like he did with the other GOP candidates in the primaries.

[cawacko]

I wonder if Irish even knows what this means.

Basically that, and end poverty.

How would you describe wealthy people like bin Laden getting into terrorism then?

[iolo]

How would you describe wealthy people like bin Laden getting into terrorism then?

A lot of people in Saudi Arabia are rich and pushed into holding a false version of Islam, and he was able to do what he did because America supported his kind to destroy the progressive Russian-supported government in Afghanistan. Some like power, and he did. Such people can organise the poor because they have taken all their money, just as in the West.

[Cancel 2020.1]

How would you describe wealthy people like bin Laden getting into terrorism then?

Opportunistic. He certainly didn't put his life on the line, did he? But he took advantage of idiots who did.

[Nomad]

How would you describe wealthy people like bin Laden getting into terrorism then?

Bin Laden was an exception. Obviously there are wealthy ideologues who, for whatever deeply held reasons and beliefs, will decide to use their wealth to further whatever their chosen cause is.

Just like the Koch brothers​ and Sheldon Adelson use their wealth to foster conservative agendas and George Soros uses his wealth to push liberal agendas. The only difference is the use of violence by the likes of Bin Laden vs non-violent means by wealthy Americans.

But it should be obvious to anyone with a brain that the wealthy Islamic extremists are not the ones strapping on the suicide vests or ramming explosive laden trucks into buildings.

[cawacko]

How would you describe wealthy people like bin Laden getting into terrorism then?

I meant to add that yes those in poverty probably feel they have a lot less to lose than those who aren't in poverty and thus terrorism might be more appealing. But we've seen examples through time of those who would seemingly have no reason, economically at least, to turn to terrorism yet still do.

[Micawber]

Democrats and Republicans have the same policy towards terrorism. The difference is the idiotic manner in which Republicans talk about the issue, labeling all Muslims as a key example, and preening and swaggering and making bellicose statements to assuage their retarded, thoughtless and ignorant fearful base, as another.

[Cancel 2020.1]

Republicans think that calling it Islamic extremism makes a difference.

They also thought the Iraq War would make a difference.

They also think that restricting immigration & travel will make a difference - even though not one attack domestically was the result of either.

The right is nothing but ham-handed on this. It's an incredibly complex issue.

[Nomad]

I meant to add that yes those in poverty probably feel they have a lot less to lose than those who aren't in poverty and thus terrorism might be more appealing. But we've seen examples through time of those who would seemingly have no reason, economically at least, to turn to terrorism yet still do.

There have always been wealthy ideologues who are willing to either use their wealth to further a cause they believe in or in rare cases, actually sacrifice themselves.

Being a right-winger, I'm sure you don't understand the concept that to some people, money and having wealth are not the most important things in the world.

It's your conservative mindset that stands in the way of your understanding people who don't value money above all else.

Hence, your asking such a stupid question to begin with.

Duh.