Annnnnd - The Terrorists win. Belgium irony

[Sheik]

Too bad we couldn't do what i used to do to flies that were bothering me.

I'd catch the fly, pull off it's wings, then I'd whisper "now, go back and tell your friends and family what happens when you fuck with me."

 

[dbair1967]

Too bad we couldn't do what i used to do to flies that were bothering me.

I'd catch the fly, pull off it's wings, then I'd whisper "now, go back and tell your friends and family what happens when you fuck with me."

Twisted

 

[VTA]

I don't believe there's not a decent solution. I think we need to call on peaceful Muslim leadership to hold extremists accountable and to solve the problem. We can back them as needed. But we don't need to be the face of radical Muslim extermination. America is a fraction of the population of Muslims worldwide. They are 1.6 billion, and a small percentage of them are extremists.

The problem is something no one wants to admit and a question no one can answer: Muslim leaders are not peaceful; and who are the peaceful Muslim leaders? Are the Saud's peaceful? Is Assad or Khameni? Is Farrakhan? In the U.S. Muslim leaders give more mouth time toward pretending to be victims of discrimination and much, much less toward condemning terrorism. Where are the peaceful leaders? Are they in Indonesia? No. Pakistan? No. Where?

1.6 Billion and the greater part of them might not be labeled extremists in the popular vernacular, but where they are the majority they are oppressive and could not care less about what somebody else does in their religions name. Can we call on a leader of a nation that crucifies Christians and torches churches? Beheads Monks? Even the cosmopolitan leaders like in Qatar finance terrorism.

I know these are ugly facts to face, but if we're not going to face the fact that our cultures are diametrically opposed we're going to continue lose a war our nation isn't even brave enough to identify, because it's busy trying not to sound prejudiced. Pffft. Maybe carpet-bombing their shit-holes isn't the answer, but pretending we're above a little judicious discrimination within our own borders is certainly an act of submission. As it stands we're too afraid to even react to our own home-grown instigators like Farrakhan; I don't suppose we can reasonably expect most people to even recognize what constitutes a real threat. Even when it does occur, it's diluted and repackaged as 'workplace violence'.

 

[Doomsday]

A Jewish/Israeli state existed at various times prior to 1946. Yes, Jihadists may have existed before we began sending military resources over there, but it wasn't coming down on Americans, and certainly not on our home soil until 2001.

Never officially recognized, and certainly never as a product of world war. Israel as it stands today IS the main beef the Mullahs have. Its existence is THE big issue, and our support of it makes us "the great satan."

If there was a true unified front against Muslim extremists, which was headed by peaceful Muslims, I would be all for supporting that type of effort.

There can't be, certainly not in the ME proper. Because the Mullahs rule it, not the various puppet heads of state.

I don't believe there's not a decent solution. I think we need to call on peaceful Muslim leadership to hold extremists accountable and to solve the problem.

Any such that do, get beheaded and replaced. Not one of them will bite the Mullah hand.

They are 1.6 billion, and a small percentage of them are extremists.

No, Man. They are 1.6 billion, and a large majority of them are Shia - the extremist denomination. Not all practicing Shia are violent, but the Shia side is where the violence emanates from. The peaceful Shia faithful are silent followers and not by choice - try to switch to Sunni let's say, and how fast do you think the Shia militia hunts you down and kills you and your family?

 

[Sheik]

I think it's time to just take them all out. How many of these attacks could have been thwarted if only one of their "innocent" family members would have alerted law enforcement?

I'm sick to death of turning on the tv or radio to learn of another Muslim blowing himself up in front of a starbucks and taking innocent life.

Kill them all. Little terrorists turn into big terrorists.

 

[marionbarberthe4th]

Sheik peplaw junk chocolate lab and midswat are the only persons here worth a shit

 

[marionbarberthe4th]

And hoodbite

 

[peplaw06]

The problem is something no one wants to admit and a question no one can answer: Muslim leaders are not peaceful; and who are the peaceful Muslim leaders? Are the Saud's peaceful? Is Assad or Khameni? Is Farrakhan? In the U.S. Muslim leaders give more mouth time toward pretending to be victims of discrimination and much, much less toward condemning terrorism. Where are the peaceful leaders? Are they in Indonesia? No. Pakistan? No. Where?

1.6 Billion and the greater part of them might not be labeled extremists in the popular vernacular, but where they are the majority they are oppressive and could not care less about what somebody else does in their religions name. Can we call on a leader of a nation that crucifies Christians and torches churches? Beheads Monks? Even the cosmopolitan leaders like in Qatar finance terrorism.

I know these are ugly facts to face, but if we're not going to face the fact that our cultures are diametrically opposed we're going to continue lose a war our nation isn't even brave enough to identify, because it's busy trying not to sound prejudiced. Pffft. Maybe carpet-bombing their shit-holes isn't the answer, but pretending we're above a little judicious discrimination within our own borders is certainly an act of submission. As it stands we're too afraid to even react to our own home-grown instigators like Farrakhan; I don't suppose we can reasonably expect most people to even recognize what constitutes a real threat. Even when it does occur, it's diluted and repackaged as 'workplace violence'.

Just because you don't hear of peaceful Muslim leaders doesn't mean that they don't exist. And peaceful is a relative term. There are instances you can look at and say that America isn't a peaceful nation if you want to get myopic. But by and large, the Muslim nations in the Middle East aren't sponsoring terrorism. They may not be doing everything exactly as you would like within their borders, but they're not attacking the US.

There are ways of "influencing" them to fight their own battles. If these countries who don't support ISIS want to continue to have our support, then they should deal with the problem. We should make it clear that we're not going to fight their battles for them. I find it hard to believe they will just let that small percentage of their population just overrun the entire region.

I certainly don't want to give the impression that I wouldn't engage terror within our own borders. I just happen to think our deeds in the ME region have created more of the terrorists we are trying to stop.

Hell, even if we did have some military involvement over there, making ISIS fight a battle on two fronts would at least redirect some of the acts of terror that we have been the victims of. That may be some of what is happening in Europe now... They have been more involved in taking in refugees and carrying out strikes against ISIS.

It will take time, clearly... I just think our course of action over the past 2-3 decades over there has been misguided.

 

[peplaw06]

Never officially recognized, and certainly never as a product of world war. Israel as it stands today IS the main beef the Mullahs have. Its existence is THE big issue, and our support of it makes us "the great satan."

We're not the only backer of Israel in the world. We have just been the most vocal about it, and we've been the most recognizable outside military force in the region for years.

There can't be, certainly not in the ME proper. Because the Mullahs rule it, not the various puppet heads of state.

Any such that do, get beheaded and replaced. Not one of them will bite the Mullah hand.

I don't believe that there can't be a unified front against extremists.

No, Man. They are 1.6 billion, and a large majority of them are Shia - the extremist denomination. Not all practicing Shia are violent, but the Shia side is where the violence emanates from. The peaceful Shia faithful are silent followers and not by choice - try to switch to Sunni let's say, and how fast do you think the Shia militia hunts you down and kills you and your family?

You're just flat out wrong here. Somewhere between 85 and 90% of Muslims are of the Sunni denomination. That's 1.5 billion of them.

 

[yimyammer]

Kill them all. Little terrorists turn into big terrorists.

I can't help but wonder what the children that were at Osamas compound when he was killed will turn out to be.

Imagine being a child and seeing your dad killed and whisked away by American forces in the middle of the night

and then add to that fact that he probably taught them to hate America/the west and I can't help but think we'll be hearing from one or more of these kids when they get older

 

[Doomsday]

You're just flat out wrong here. Somewhere between 85 and 90% of Muslims are of the Sunni denomination. That's 1.5 billion of them.

My bad, I stand corrected - I was using what I remembered for Iraq's demographics in that regard. Sunnis are a small minority there, with Shia making up 90 percent of the population. Here's infographic for those interested:

We're not the only backer of Israel in the world.

By a long, long way, the main one financially, technologically and otherwise.

I don't believe that there can't be a unified front against extremists.

In Islam, no. Particularly not in the ME itself.

It will take time, clearly... I just think our course of action over the past 2-3 decades over there has been misguided.

I'd love to see you detail what you think the correct strategy is.

 

[peplaw06]

I'd love to see you detail what you think the correct strategy is.

As a preface, I'm not a foreign policy expert by any means. If you want specific details as to who will be doing what over there, that's not my bag. I took a few classes in alternative dispute resolution and have a certificate in ADR... but I don't practice the stuff every day, especially not in the foreign diplomacy arena.

But if you'll excuse my indulgence in a comparison that I know isn't necessarily apples to apples... I do have some expertise in another area of conflict. I deal with people who are at some of the lowest points of their lives, and who go through wide ranging emotions. Many people are personally invested in their religion, but I would say just about everyone is personally invested in their children. When I'm preparing someone to go to court to fight for their children, I liken it to their own personal war. If we lose a preliminary hearing, I'll try to lessen the sting by saying, "we haven't lost the war." Not that I'm trying to minimize the real world effects of war, but that's what people who are going through this feel like.

I tell my clients that when you go into the courtroom and ask a judge or a jury to make a decision, neither them nor their ex is going to be happy with the result. There is almost always something they wish the judge would have done differently. When they and the ex can come to a resolution on their own, it's almost always better than the judge deciding. And that's just the emotional toll of it... not even considering the financial toll of it.

And to get them to agree to things, they have to willingly give a position up. I'm constantly preaching to my clients to take the high road and not engage in petty tit for tat arguments. Because in the grand scheme of things, those little issues don't mean anything. I encourage them to extend the olive branch first. Most times the parties are so dug into their position any little thing that they give in is perceived as weakness. But it doesn't have to be viewed that way. If you are comfortable with your decision and know why you made the decision, then the other side can think whatever they want... you know the truth as to why you did what you did.

I think the same can apply here. We're obviously talking about actual war here, so we should be even more mindful of the other options available before taking that step. If we go to war, there are going to be casualties that could have been avoided. There will be huge financial tolls that could be avoided and money will be spent that could be put to better use elsewhere.

If we back away and let someone else try to deal with the problem, sure extremists may think they've "won." But we would know better. If they were able to create some type of peace in the region, that would be a win, no matter what the perception of America's role in that is.

Just like Sheik I'm tired of seeing another terrorist attack happened when I turn on the TV... in Europe, Asia, the Middle East, but especially here. I just think we're beating our head against the wall thinking we can just go fix it ourselves, when the over-arching strategy we have used consistently for 30 years hasn't worked. And we have tried a lot of different tactics. Boots on the ground, bombing, diplomacy, covert ops, etc. None of it has solved the problem. At some point, don't we have to consider that the answer may not lie in our hands? Why wouldn't we welcome any new ideas or strategies?

It's like prohibition of alcohol or drugs, or any other illegal substance. How long did the country deal with gang wars associated with prohibition on alcohol? How long have we fought the war on drugs? It wasn't until prohibition was repealed that the bootleggers went away. No amount of federal enforcement was going to catch up to that. Same with cartels now. We're flushing money down the toilet trying to fight them, and imprisoning people who only do damage to themselves. At some point we have to think about taking a new direction there right?

At this point, I think if America is perceived as the face of the other side in any kind of peace negotiations, there won't be a good resolution. But we can be working behind the scenes. We can put pressure on the governments that represent the 85-90% of Sunnis over there to be the face of a resolution. We can step away... The extremists can think they drove us out of the region. Maybe that perceived "win" will nudge them in the right direction.

Really, how much more do we have to see before we consider a different strategy? What do we have to lose by stepping back?

 

[dbair1967]

Too long to read, give me cliff notes version pls

 

[Midswat]

Glad I'm not a mod anymore because I'd probably abuse my power and run peplaw off in this thread like I did with superpunk .... and so many others.

 

[yimyammer]

Too long to read, give me cliff notes version pls

right, that'll work. Like the Middle East's issues can be remotely addressed with cliff notes

 

[dbair1967]

right, that'll work. Like the Middle East's issues can be remotely addressed with cliff notes

We just need to make that area glow in the dark, problem solved

 

[yimyammer]

that's gonna take a lot of fire flies

 

[Doomsday]

At this point, I think if America is perceived as the face of the other side in any kind of peace negotiations, there won't be a good resolution. But we can be working behind the scenes. We can put pressure on the governments that represent the 85-90% of Sunnis over there to be the face of a resolution. We can step away... The extremists can think they drove us out of the region. Maybe that perceived "win" will nudge them in the right direction.

Really, how much more do we have to see before we consider a different strategy? What do we have to lose by stepping back?

For decades we failed to engage. Our true engagement only started after 9/11. Everything you suggest above is ongoing. The problem with getting other countries to "lead" is they simply cannot begin to afford it, and they also don't have the resolve to stay with anything such for any period of time.

Great post though. The essential problem I think you have is, you're counting these extremists thoughts and ideas as the same as the people you interact with on a daily basis. They're not, not by a long way. If we completely "cut and run" they won't think they have won, they will think they need to step up their tactics even more. They will quadruple their recruitment, and multiply their training centers exponentially. In five years you'll be dealing with a near unstoppable foe.

All that said I agree with your philosophy for the most part. I advocate hitting them were it will really hurt them, economically and financially. Embargo their oil, impose trade sanctions for all countries harboring Jihadists. The reason we won't do that is China and Russia won't join in, neither will the Saudis or the Pakistanis, and we also have this fear of hurting the innocent people in those regions, economically.

Targeted drone strikes and surgical special ops missions seem to be taking their toll on ISIS leadership, communication and command/control. I think this should continue but only along with what we stopped doing, intelligence gathering. I agree with you that putting lots of troops in there isn't smart use of our resources.

But really your own conclusion is, we can't completely disengage. So it just becomes a matter of degrees of engagement.

 

[yimyammer]

I don't think there is a solution, it seems to me all that can be done is to try and keep a lid on things as best as possible and kick the can down the road until that part of the world inevitably brings the entire planet into a catastrophic conflict that will likely drag Russia, China, the US and Israel into a mess that who knows which side each of the players will land on.

Saudi Arabia is as bad or worse than any of the countries and they're our allies, its so fucked up over there its astonishing (for a glimpse, check out Frontlines special)

If you live in the US or some other peaceful part of the world with freedom, you're damn lucky because life in many of the Middle East countries is brutal

Its scary when you look at all the places on the planet that are really fucked up.

Columbia and Mexico are incredibly corrupt, both of which are controlled by the cartels with no hope of ever changing because of the underlying corruption and huge poor population

North Korea might be the worst place on the planet

Russia is a mess

Europe is a mess

China is a mess with a huge population and a growing military

Pakistan is a mess

Afghanistan is a mess

India is literally a mess where the government is trying to teach people to stop taking a shit in the street. I shit you not, its so bad that a PSA video was made to encourage people to find a fucking toilet or at least not shit in the street

Take The Poo To The Loo - YouTube

The US seems to be eroding from within and the politicians/government are making things worse

The future looks pretty damn scary unless some technological miracle can somehow overcome all the bullshit forces that seem to be dragging everyone down with them.

Things are starting to feel like a pressure cooker about to blow imo and I don't know what can be done to stop it

 

[Doomsday]

I don't think there is a solution, it seems to me all that can be done is to try and keep a lid on things as best as possible and kick the can down the road until that part of the world inevitably brings the entire planet into a catastrophic conflict that will likely drag Russia, China, the US and Israel into a mess that who knows which side each of the players will land on.

I've always said that eventually (maybe sooner rather than later) the entire ME and far east will erupt in a nuclear conflagration. It'll be something like, a dirty bomb detonated in Israel, Israel takes this opportunity to nuke Iran, Pakistan decides it's finally a good time to do a pre-emptive strike on India (1000s of years hated enemies they are), India responds accordingly, meanwhile the whole thing erupts in mutually assured destruction.

Unclear to me if the major powers get involved. But it well could be.

And the above happens no matter our level of engagement, and probably happens sooner if we completely disengage.