sturg33
I
My solution is to stop bombing and killing them, stop spending countless American resources on a fight that will never be won, and really only serves as a recruitment tool and reasons for retaliation.
France attack...
- Thread starter goldfly
- Start date
My solution is to stop bombing and killing them, stop spending countless American resources on a fight that will never be won, and really only serves as a recruitment tool and reasons for retaliation.
So do nothing?
Dalyn
Fredi Gonzalez Supporter
So ignore the problem until it's too late to do anything about it?
sturg33
I
You get outraged when a group of thugs kill a few dozen innocent people.
I get outraged when an organized powerhouse government kills a few hundred thousand innocent people.
I also understand that one may lead to the other.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
Would you advocate covert operations? Non-drone stuff?
sturg33
I
What specific problem? The France attack? do you want us to send the military in on every crime event across the world?
That wouldn't happen. All these terrorists will just drop their core beliefs and leave the world alone. We wil all hold hands and sing cumbaya.
sturg33
I
i would be much more supportive of that (something like a marque and reprisal), or - work with the governments across the world for them to arrest people harboring in their boarders. There is no need to start full scale occupation or bomb campaigns.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
In broad strokes, I doubt that most of us who have posted in this thread are too far apart when it comes to how we feel about the ISILs and Boko Harams of the world.
In purely pragmatic terms, I don't think that ISIL, or al-Qaeda, is an existential threat to either the US or to the liberal democracies of the world (Israel being an exception, if a convoluted one). As others have suggested, it'll take "them" a long while to behead everyone on their ****list. To thethe and some others: I think you have a legitimate blind spot when you discuss these issues. Although a lot of horrific things have happened in European countries with large and disaffected Muslim minorities, most of the turmoil wreaked by violent jihadists or islamic extremists has happened in places where there is widespread disconnection and/or power vacuums owing to either old-school colonialism or contemporary neo-colonialist policies. I think that you should at least acknowledge this context, and the fact that violence motivated by religion is one of the most predictable things to emerge from such situations. In Rwanda it was purely ethnic. In the Balkans it was ethnic, with religion sort of half-heartedly grafted on top. In today's Nigeria, it's religious, in the the Levant it's both sectarian and religious . . . with the political, as always, lurking behind the scenes. Boiling it down to an essential religious or even ideological war seems to me to playing into the hands of the putative enemy.
I don't think that the strategic missteps of the past should cause up to throw up our hands and do nothing. I don't think that we should talk about chickens coming home to roost or glass houses, and expect that to be the end of the conversation. But I also think that we should be clear-eyed about some things. ISIL is the sum of our last 10-12 years of middle east policy. The prominence of the Salafi jihadist school of thought is a direct result of Western intervention in the Hejaz region. We--the US and the Brits--elevated those weirdos to power in the gulf, with their retrograde religious thoughts in tow, and kept the money faucet flowing while they bribed their imams to keep the jihad outside their borders because we wanted cheap fossil fuels. It's complex, but it's also exactly that ****ing simple.
That in itself isn't a reason to do nothing, or to make excuses, or to tolerate savagery. I admire the appeals to the best parts of our nature, no matter what political quarter they emanate from. I think it's worthwhile for all of us to examine our own values and beliefs and how we go about creating the world that our kids and grandkids will live in. We should be damned cautious and thoughtful about how we approach confronting the issue, but we should confront it.
Dalyn
Fredi Gonzalez Supporter
No. I would like to see us join with our allies to eradicate this particular threat once and for all. It's not the only threat out there. It's not the last or the first. But it's a threat that is slowly spreading and taking what was once a wonderful part of the world with it, and it's a threat that can and should be dealt with.
There is plenty of blood on our hands but for whatever reason they are here they are here and as you mentioned we need to figure this out.
sturg33
I
Can you describe the specific threat that you are referring to? A threat against the US? Someone else?
sturg33
I
So maybe we shouldn't double down on bad foreign policy decisions
It's a threat against every living person in this world.
sturg33
I
Is that right? Well then we're ****ed
Why do you assume I want to do what we've been doing? I have said that we simply can't turn a blind eye to this. I have advocated for creating a world coalition to unify and fight in whatever way is needed. That is why what Obama just did was a tremendous and costly blunder.
We won't be as long as we are truthful and acknowledge what the true threat is.
Words and strapping bombs to 9 year old girls are two completely different things. It's disappointing that someone as intelligent as you cannot recognize just what we are dealing with.
Dalyn
Fredi Gonzalez Supporter
Religion is the real threat, but you can't focus at the source when it is so heavily protected and armed. First you deal with the most dangerous active parts. In this case, that will take a collaborative and unfortunately physical opposition. Once the immediate danger is gone, you can start the real fight. Empower the women. Educate the children. Promote freedom of expression and thought. That's how you ultimately deal with this problem.