That's a good goal... but personally I see no end to it...

You are absolutely correct -- and that is the reason for the following famous quote:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

There will always be those for whom your life interferes with their lust for power. They must be eliminated each and every time they raise their ugly heads.

 

Oh, I'd have no qualms about using violence against this sort of beasts. I was hoping that this event does not spiral into more violence against innocent people, and by that, I mean all innocents, regardless of their religious beliefs.
And no... I do not believe that if they kill our innocent then we have the right to kill theirs. That goes against everything that the West has strove to so hard to gain.

I don't disagree with you, but at the same time I have trouble agreeing with you.

My brother and I had a similar discussion and reached a mutual conclusion; the idea is that, in any islamic country, not everybody is a dangerous radial. Most of them probably aren't. Even if using the word most is hyperbolic, some of them are innocent children. But the radicals were once innocent children too. What happened to them? How did they become radicals? Well, probably they were fed lies (namely, that we are evil) their whole life, and their limited world view served to reinforce those lies (occupation of their countries by western military, drones flying over their land and killing people without a fair fight, etc). When a child has just been told that the west is an evil which must be purged, and then that supposed "evil" manifests itself in the form of an air strike, the child wouldn't likely see any retaliation as a terrorist act; in his eyes, he sees heroes respond to a provocation and wrongful deaths being avenged. When the child makes that connection, a new radical/terrorist is born. You could say that we created a new terrorist, but that's not fair; we share the burden with those who brainwashed him.

Basically it's a combination of two maxims; "one man's hero is another man's villain"; and "for every one of them you kill, two more spring up in his place."

If we increase our fervor in exterminating these radicals, we will be pumping miracle grow into the terrorist patch. If we choose the reverse course of action, pull out all of our troops, decommission all of our drones, etc. that will not end the battle. Half their beef is religious in nature and there's no way to appease it but by "submitting," which we won't do. So what options are we left with?

Literally, wiping them off the face of the earth, militants and innocents (aka future militants) alike, may be the only plan with a chance of success. I realize I'm talking about genocide (or, does it go by a different -cide name?) but that's what it's coming to. We've done it before (Japan) and it proved to be very effective, and didn't taint our souls for generations... (or, did it?)

 

Please do not use Marx to frame an argument. That is the point I stop listening, and I'm an atheist.

You are not going to eliminate religion...no matter how hard you try (and I don't believe such an attempt is wise). A majority of the world's population believes in a deity of one form(s) or another.

The goal should be to make life as painful as possible for those who use their beliefs to relieve others of their freedom or their lives -- regardless if those beliefs are religious or political.

The statement stands. Too bad you srop reading because you disagree with how an argument is framed. How are we to hold a discussion?

 

I think it would be wise to stop discussing this in context of religion

That's impossible here when dealing with Daesh. I've been to several radical Islamist countries that were once pro-Soviet then 'pro-West' (after deals were made) and had the standard "how to be friendly" lecture that's always about religion. The Islamist fundamentalists "ideology" is 'Islam the religion' in Shari'a law (the sacred law of Islam).

The Islamist Shari'a law is fundamentally incomparable with western style democracy of any kind including most Marxist ideologies. Muslims that apply the Shari'a strictly and in its totality will never be integrated into modern civilization.

 

I don't disagree with you, but at the same time I have trouble agreeing with you.

My brother and I had a similar discussion and reached a mutual conclusion; the idea is that, in any islamic country, not everybody is a dangerous radial. Most of them probably aren't. Even if using the word most is hyperbolic, some of them are innocent children. But the radicals were once innocent children too. What happened to them? How did they become radicals? Well, probably they were fed lies (namely, that we are evil) their whole life, and their limited world view served to reinforce those lies (occupation of their countries by western military, drones flying over their land and killing people without a fair fight, etc). When a child has just been told that the west is an evil which must be purged, and then that supposed "evil" manifests itself in the form of an air strike, the child wouldn't likely see any retaliation as a terrorist act; in his eyes, he sees heroes respond to a provocation and wrongful deaths being avenged. When the child makes that connection, a new radical/terrorist is born. You could say that we created a new terrorist, but that's not fair; we share the burden with those who brainwashed him.

Basically it's a combination of two maxims; "one man's hero is another man's villain"; and "for every one of them you kill, two more spring up in his place."

If we increase our fervor in exterminating these radicals, we will be pumping miracle grow into the terrorist patch. If we choose the reverse course of action, pull out all of our troops, decommission all of our drones, etc. that will not end the battle. Half their beef is religious in nature and there's no way to appease it but by "submitting," which we won't do. So what options are we left with?

Literally, wiping them off the face of the earth, militants and innocents (aka future militants) alike, may be the only plan with a chance of success. I realize I'm talking about genocide (or, does it go by a different -cide name?) but that's what it's coming to. We've done it before (Japan) and it proved to be very effective, and didn't taint our souls for generations... (or, did it?)

A good example is "Black Widows" of Chechnya. Western Media wrote about these women who became suicide bombers because russian army killed their husbands. Most articles I have read were very sympathetic to the terrorists... It is always harder to point fingers when you have to come up with solutions.

 

IMO only 2 solutions

1.) Isolate the region completely;
2.) Nuke it into oblivion;

But then you're talking genocide as well. Pot meet Kettle. Each side only wants eradication of the other.

The choice is with us still, but the civilization now in jeopardy is all humanity. As the ancient myth makers knew, we are children equally of the earth and the sky. In our tenure on this planet we've accumulated dangerous evolutionary baggage — propensities for aggression and ritual, submission to leaders, hostility to outsiders — all of which puts our survival in some doubt. But we've also acquired compassion for others, love for our children and desire to learn from history and experience, and a great soaring passionate intelligence — the clear tools for our continued survival and prosperity. Which aspects of our nature will prevail is uncertain, particularly when our visions and prospects are bound to one small part of the small planet Earth. But up there in the immensity of the Cosmos, an inescapable perspective awaits us. There are not yet any obvious signs of extraterrestrial intelligence and this makes us wonder whether civilizations like ours always rush implacably, headlong, toward self-destruction. National boundaries are not evident when we view the Earth from space. Fanatical ethnic or religious or national chauvinisms are a little difficult to maintain when we see our planet as a fragile blue crescent fading to become an inconspicuous point of light against the bastion and citadel of the stars. Travel is broadening.

-Carl Sagan

 

Travel is broadening.

Or enabling.

 

The Islamist Shari'a law is fundamentally incomparable with western style democracy of any kind including most Marxist ideologies. Muslims that apply the Shari'a strictly and in its totality will never be integrated into modern civilization.

And why do they need to be "integrated"? When people speak like that, that will be actually be viewed as destruction and assimilation of one culture by another.

Please check on the status of Afghan women in 1970s as well as in Iran before the meddling of the west in both of those countries. Women were getting educated as doctors, there were steps towards equality... Surely the Integration went well...


Of course, nothing can be left to the people to decide their fates for themselves... there is only one country that is still trying to fight the fight.

 

But then you're talking genocide as well. Pot meet Kettle. Each side only wants eradication of the other.

I don't mean all of Islam, just the cancer that's Daesh. This genocide was started by them and continues to this day. I would call it self-defense if the decision was made after a WMD was used on a western city by that group.

 

The world has to thank Cheney and 'W' for ISIS.

Really .... I'm sure you could lay all that out to us how that occurred. There have been terrorist groups against the U.S. for ages.

 

I am afraid that the Koran does sanction violence as a tool for "conversion":
“... whereas Allah supposedly told the prophet that ‘there is no compulsion in religion’ (2: 256), once the messenger grew strong enough, Allah issued new revelations calling for all-out war/ jihad till Islam became supreme (8: 39, 9: 5, 9: 29, etc.).”
Mainstream Islamic jurisprudence continues to hold that the sword verses (9: 5 and also 9: 29) have “abrogated, canceled, and replaced” those verses that call for “tolerance, compassion, and peace.”

"Main stream jurisprudence" isn't what the Koran teaches, necessarily. As with many religious texts, the meaning is easily distorted by "leaders" with an agenda. People who force their own interpretation don't necessarily reflect the intent and spirit of the original text.

 

And why do they need to be "integrated"? When people speak like that, that will be actually be viewed as destruction and assimilation of one culture by another.

Want to live in the USA then become an American. You can keep your culture but leave your bigotry behind in the country you left. We tried segregation in this country, it didn't work out too well.

 

People who force their own interpretation don't necessarily reflect the intent and spirit of the original text.

The problem is that the Koran is a bunch of sayings and anecdotes not sequentially interconnected, and therefore context is extremely hard to come by. That's why it can be so easily interpreted in any way that its reader finds to his/her advantage.

 

Want to live in the USA then become an American. You can keep your culture but leave your bigotry behind in the country you left. We tried segregation in this country, it didn't work out too well.

I agree... if you want to live in Rome, you'd better be prepared to behave like a Roman... the Spaniards and the Vikings were experts at adapting themselves to other cultures.

 

"Main stream jurisprudence" isn't what the Koran teaches, necessarily. As with many religious texts, the meaning is easily distorted by "leaders" with an agenda. People who force their own interpretation don't necessarily reflect the intent and spirit of the original text.

Whatever.

Regardless of your interpretation, it's the contemporary interpretation that's the call to action*. Who cares what the original intent was?

*Edit: for both sides!

 

Want to live in the USA then become an American. You can keep your culture but leave your bigotry behind in the country you left. We tried segregation in this country, it didn't work out too well.

And integration is working out?

I have addressed this in a previous post.

The conflict is manufactured by NATO. The recent history goes back to Britain's involvement in the ME at the beginning of the century, creation of Israel, and what we ate faced with now started in the 70s. Denying it does not make it go away. As in any addiction treatment, acknowledgement and acceptance of your role in the conflict is the first step to solution of the problem. Europe's demographics have been turned on its head post Balkan conflict and there multiple reasons for that. This will not stop for a long time and if the western civilization is not killed off, it will be simply bred out.
It was sold out in the misguided spirit of "tolerance" and "acceptance"

 

The problem is that the Koran is a bunch of sayings and anecdotes not sequentially interconnected, and therefore context is extremely hard to come by. That's why it can be so easily interpreted in any way that its reader finds to his/her advantage.

And so we are told by contemporary men what parts are important and what parts are unimportant, and are supposed to conclude that's the way is should be.

 

I don't mean all of Islam, just the cancer that's Daesh. This genocide was started by them and continues to this day. I would call it self-defense if the decision was made after a WMD was used on a western city by that group.

The Germans also thought genocide was self defense and righting wrongs. When does the bloodshed end? It's been approximately 4000 years of bloodshed. I am tired, and there isn't another continent to run to.

 

Whatever.

Regardless of your interpretation,

I haven't rendered an interpretation.

it's the contemporary interpretation that's the call to action*. Who cares what the original intent was?

It's what all the propaganda is about. Who cares about anything? Don't know = Don't care.

 

You are not going to eliminate religion...

True. Some think they eliminated prayer in school. They haven't and won't until they stop having tests.