Are Muslims To Blame?

[echo88 74]

What religion is really about peace? We pray before we go to war, boxers and mma fighters pray before they try to beat each other silly.

 

Hate to throw out the term white privilege but when a white person commits an act of violence, it only reflects on that particular person. A brown person goes crazy and it's an indictment of the whole culture.

 

I'm all for doing what we need to do to keep us safe, but there is always 3 sides to a story and all we're getting is one. When the question of why they hate us is asked, the answer is always clumsy and generic.

 

We destabilized that region. Also, they attacked Paris not Pittsburgh, why are we making it all about us?

 

I have no doubt that if I painted a picture of Jesus doing something scandalous on my house, my home would be burned down in the name of Christianity.

 

That's because the average American is an ill-informed moron who couldn't find Syria on a map if you told them the Kardashians moved there.

 

What??? Where do you live? If you painted a picture of Jesus on the side of your house fu(king Santa Claus with a broken mop handle, it would be turned into a meme.

[stdntDrvr 12]

Hey Echo,

 

What do you think it would take for us to defeat ISIS? Is the bombing campaign actually affecting their ability to fight/recruit?

 

Thank you for what you do every day.

[echo88 74]

Hey Echo,

 

What do you think it would take for us to defeat ISIS? Is the bombing campaign actually affecting their ability to fight/recruit?

 

Thank you for what you do every day.

 

Well my opinion doesn't matter, but the only way to defeat ISIS would be to sever ties with Israel and let them fend for themselves. I'd also replace Assad instead of funneling money toward the support of rebel groups (Al-Qaeda-affiliates, for those who dont know--let that sink in for a minute). We are currently paying/supplying AQ to resist Assad's forces.

 

The bombing campaign, just as it was against the Taliban, is a waste of taxpayer money. I wholeheartedly support our drone strikes, however, since they surgically remove key ISIS leadership....but dropping bombs on Raqqa, Aleppo, and other ISIS strongholds is just alienating the precious contingent of citizens there who oppose ISIS. Those cities are already leveled and clinging to life support as it is. As the quality of life in those places further deteriorates, military aged males (and kids) turn to ISIS just so they can continue to live. Also, they'd rather not be executed for failing to support the Levant.

 

The residents of those cities have nothing. They are devastated by Assad's ruthless answers to the rebel effort. No power, no running water, no sources of income. No hope.

 

Let ISIS have their caliphate. Give them their own nation that spans the outermost edges of both Syria and Iraq and treat encroachments upon other nations just as you would if a sovereign nation committed the offense. No innocent civilians pinned under their rule because residents would have to actually migrate to the caliphate, meaning they clearly support ISIS and it's cause. Not to mention, when they aren't blending into the populations of existing nations, we know exactly where to find them when they decide to be naughty.

 

So yeah, in a nutshell....

[stdntDrvr 12]

Interesting take. Not sure that I agree, but you have far more knowledge and experience in the matter than I do. I find it hard to let Israel fend for themselves. I'm also afraid that by having a ISIS state/country, it would allow them to train people to go out and commit the acts we are trying to stop on a daily basis.

 

I think the drone strikes are a plus, but I don't think they will actually put an end to ISIS. I agree with you about the bombing being a waste of money. It would be extremely difficult to stop ISIS without boots on the ground and without the ridiculous ROE the troops have had over the past few years.

 

I have no idea what the answer is to this problem, but I don't believe we're fully committed to solving it at this point.

[PursuitAce 0]

All I heard was yada yada yada...the Kardashians moved. How can they just move when Lamar is in such bad shape?

 

I thought terrorism was just another topic you can't have a real discussion about. Political correctness rules no matter how many people pay the price in blood for that rule.

[echo88 74]

Interesting take. Not sure that I agree, but you have far more knowledge and experience in the matter than I do. I find it hard to let Israel fend for themselves. I'm also afraid that by having a ISIS state/country, it would allow them to train people to go out and commit the acts we are trying to stop on a daily basis.

 

I think the drone strikes are a plus, but I don't think they will actually put an end to ISIS. I agree with you about the bombing being a waste of money. It would be extremely difficult to stop ISIS without boots on the ground and without the ridiculous ROE the troops have had over the past few years.

 

I have no idea what the answer is to this problem, but I don't believe we're fully committed to solving it at this point.

 

And so what if Israel fails to defend themselves? Our support of Israel is the primary reason that ISIS and other terror groups promote attacks on the West. What Im saying is that if we stop supporting them, ISIS might shift focus toward establishing their own state instead of waging jihad against those who spend resources preserving Israel. Israel is simply a proxy through which we can exert influence over the Middle East.

 

The drone strikes alone certainly will not end ISIS. As for boots on the ground, I think our current policy is the correct one---insert JSOC elements to infiltrate and eliminate leadership one target at a time. It's the lightning to the drone's thunder. We dont need to send more conventional forces into those places. It would be no different than sending conventional forces into IQ and AF. They're just an occupying security force that does more harm than good.

[coltssb 1,044]

Does ISIS really want land?

[echo88 74]

Does ISIS really want land?

 

They want a place to call their own, in order to establish a caliphate. They want their own government, citizens, and most of all, they want respect in the general world order. Right now, their caliphate spans about 24 nations so I was suggesting we just formalize a specific nation they can call their own....on the condition that they vacate sovereign nations.

[stdntDrvr 12]

And so what if Israel fails to defend themselves? Our support of Israel is the primary reason that ISIS and other terror groups promote attacks on the West. What Im saying is that if we stop supporting them, ISIS might shift focus toward establishing their own state instead of waging jihad against those who spend resources preserving Israel. Israel is simply a proxy through which we can exert influence over the Middle East.

 

The drone strikes alone certainly will not end ISIS. As for boots on the ground, I think our current policy is the correct one---insert JSOC elements to infiltrate and eliminate leadership one target at a time. It's the lightning to the drone's thunder. We dont need to send more conventional forces into those places. It would be no different than sending conventional forces into IQ and AF. They're just an occupying security force that does more harm than good.

 

Well, yeah with the current ROE the forces would be nothing more than a occupying security force. What happened to doing what was necessary to actually win a war? This does not only include the actual war itself, but we (a coalition) would also need to ensure stability before we leave so there is not a power vacuum. I'm all for the lightning/thunder, but at some point it will not be enough. When the enemy is on the offensive, clearly what we're doing is not as effective as we think. Perhaps increasing the number of JSOC elements on the ground and increasing the drone strikes would help. I just don't see how what we are currently doing is working. It appears (from my point of view) that most of it is done is for media highlights. I'm not saying that is necessarily the case, but it seems that we should be seeing some return on our investment. If it were me and I were them, I would be trying to find a way out of Syria/Iraq (as a refugee) in order to get away from the drone strikes and attack soft targets to actually make a difference...which is what we saw with the Paris attacks. From where I sit, it appears as though ISIS is gaining more ground than we are taking...and that does not seem like a winning strategy.

 

As far as Israel is concerned, you're willing to throw an ally to the wolves just so they leave us alone? If Israel were to fall, that would give ISIS a larger voice. Is that really a good thing?

[echo88 74]

Well, yeah with the current ROE the forces would be nothing more than a occupying security force. What happened to doing what was necessary to actually win a war? This does not only include the actual war itself, but we (a coalition) would also need to ensure stability before we leave so there is not a power vacuum. I'm all for the lightning/thunder, but at some point it will not be enough. When the enemy is on the offensive, clearly what we're doing is not as effective as we think. Perhaps increasing the number of JSOC elements on the ground and increasing the drone strikes would help. I just don't see how what we are currently doing is working. It appears (from my point of view) that most of it is done is for media highlights. I'm not saying that is necessarily the case, but it seems that we should be seeing some return on our investment. If it were me and I were them, I would be trying to find a way out of Syria/Iraq (as a refugee) in order to get away from the drone strikes and attack soft targets to actually make a difference...which is what we saw with the Paris attacks. From where I sit, it appears as though ISIS is gaining more ground than we are taking...and that does not seem like a winning strategy.

 

As far as Israel is concerned, you're willing to throw an ally to the wolves just so they leave us alone? If Israel were to fall, that would give ISIS a larger voice. Is that really a good thing?

 

1) Our military might is only realized when fighting a conventional force. Against an insurgency, we are fighting soldiers who are mixed in with civilians. Hostory has proven that we will never have success against an opponent like that.

 

2) Any terror group will have the upper hand when they can hide among indigenous populations.

 

3) Our support for Israel has far more negative side effects than benefits. We need to worry about ourselves instead of policing Arab nations into shifts toward democracy. We've already demonstrated that we can forge prosperous and mutually beneficial relationships with Middle Eastern nations without the influence of Israel (see Turkey and Jordan).

[stdntDrvr 12]

1 & 2) So all of the wars/battles we have fought over the past 40 years has taught our military leaders nothing? Nice. We can only attack/defend against Russia...and maybe China as long as we do not have to invade the mainland.

 

3) I don't see how defending Israel is policing anything. They are an ally. If they are attacked, we retaliate along with them. We should defend them as an ally, not provide full support when they attack whoever p'd them off on any given day.

[echo88 74]

1 & 2) So all of the wars/battles we have fought over the past 40 years has taught our military leaders nothing? Nice. We can only attack/defend against Russia...and maybe China as long as we do not have to invade the mainland.

 

3) I don't see how defending Israel is policing anything. They are an ally. If they are attacked, we retaliate along with them. We should defend them as an ally, not provide full support when they attack whoever p'd them off on any given day.

 

Sadly, from what I've seen and participated in, our military is too soft to even handle either of those powers in a traditional war. We are so reliant upon smart weapons and advanced targeting capabilities that we've allowed our soldiers to become weak and pussified. The bulk of our force is the product of a generation of entitlement and PC babying. I mean, we are talking about commanders being relieved of their duties when their drill sergeants hurt the feelings of recruits. Kids in Russia and China join their militaries because they love their country. Most of ours join for the benefits. That is the sad truth.

 

So we should defend Israel even if it means a relentless and strengthening war against our homeland? I think not. We get nothing from them yet they get everything from us. It is a relationship forged by the Jewish influence in our nation that is both political and financial in nature.

Edited November 16, 2015 by echo88

[stdntDrvr 12]

Living/Working next to Ft. Benning, I can see what you're talking about to some extent. A lot of the soldiers I see that are new to the military do not command a presence when they enter into a room. When I offer them thanks for their service, 90% of the time I'm greeted with 'It's just a job.' No it isn't, nor should it be viewed as 'just a job.' It's like they sign up just to get away from home or get a free education, but they're not willing to see the consequences in their decision like Iraq and Afghanistan. Yeah, they're just kids...but during previous generations, they had to grow up quickly and rely on each other much more than it seems they do today. Remote controlled war is great and all, but that's not where the battles are won. Our soldiers need to be tougher, and that starts at the top. As crazy and unpredictable as Putin is, you have to admit...the soldiers who believe in him would do anything they could to win any battle simply due to the amount of respect and accountability he appears to command...the same couldn't be said about our troops.

[jessemoore97 1,281]

Sadly, from what I've seen and participated in, our military is too soft to even handle either of those powers in a traditional war. We are so reliant upon smart weapons and advanced targeting capabilities that we've allowed our soldiers to become weak and pussified. The bulk of our force is the product of a generation of entitlement and PC babying. I mean, we are talking about commanders being relieved of their duties when their drill sergeants hurt the feelings of recruits. Kids in Russia and China join their militaries because they love their country. Most of ours join for the benefits. That is the sad truth.

 

So we should defend Israel even if it means a relentless and strengthening war against our homeland? I think not. We get nothing from them yet they get everything from us. It is a relationship forged by the Jewish influence in our nation that is both political and financial in nature.

 

Well you have to admit that the military is playing to the "strengths" of the generation and their ability to loaf around and play video games all day with no exercise etc., it makes it easy to play war with the same equipment they've been messing with all their lives in the comfort of their living rooms. Believe me that's not a positive observation on my part either. We are a nation of wusses, where people either just fold over when given a challenging task or go running to find someone to tattle to and let that someone fight their battle for them.

 

On my department, training officers can't lay into a rooki...oops first year recruit...anymore. Meetings have to be called when a rookie does something they weren't supposed to. We can't have hurt feelings. Yet these guys get eaten alive on the street by citizens who don't play by the nicey nice rules when they are unhappy and have Joe Law standing before them. The PC crap at all costs has really worn down a lot of the things that this country used to value and cherish.

[echo88 74]

Well you have to admit that the military is playing to the "strengths" of the generation and their ability to loaf around and play video games all day with no exercise etc., it makes it easy to play war with the same equipment they've been messing with all their lives in the comfort of their living rooms. Believe me that's not a positive observation on my part either. We are a nation of wusses, where people either just fold over when given a challenging task or go running to find someone to tattle to and let that someone fight their battle for them.

 

On my department, training officers can't lay into a rooki...oops first year recruit...anymore. Meetings have to be called when a rookie does something they weren't supposed to. We can't have hurt feelings. Yet these guys get eaten alive on the street by citizens who don't play by the nicey nice rules when they are unhappy and have Joe Law standing before them. The PC crap at all costs has really worn down a lot of the things that this country used to value and cherish.

 

Well, it's a voluntary military and so it is forced to pander to the military in order to to enlist and keep them in service. They offer incredibly enticing benefits nowadays.

 

Then, in return, when they're asked to deploy or to do anything that offends their delicate sensibilities, they're allowed to pursue any number of options to keep them sidelined: faking injuries/medical issues, claiming conscientious objection, or becoming such a pain in the a$$ to their chain of command that it becomes easier to leave them behind or to ask other soldiers to carry their load. It's maddening. Especially when the liberal masses get behind them. It's a contractual agreement. If you don't like the terms, don't enlist.

[ColinKSU 18]

Sadly, from what I've seen and participated in, our military is too soft to even handle either of those powers in a traditional war. We are so reliant upon smart weapons and advanced targeting capabilities that we've allowed our soldiers to become weak and pussified. The bulk of our force is the product of a generation of entitlement and PC babying. I mean, we are talking about commanders being relieved of their duties when their drill sergeants hurt the feelings of recruits. Kids in Russia and China join their militaries because they love their country. Most of ours join for the benefits. That is the sad truth.

 

I didn't think I would agree with a statement like that until I moved next door to a major military base and saw that for myself. It's not exactly the "best and brightest" that are stationed there -- there's a whole lot of people who are doing what they're doing for reasons other than a sense of duty, for whatever that says about them.

 

For instance, I recently learned what a "contract marriage" is in the Army.

[DTCBND03 0]

[ame]

[/ame]

[echo88 74]

 

People like Ben Affleck can comfortably sit back and defend Islam because he knows that when they finally execute another large scale terrorist attack (and they will), he will be safe and secure up in the hills. Probably letting everyone knows what he thinks via Twitter.

[ND3 0]

I'm not super informed on the history of the Middle East, so please speak up if anything I say here is off base (looking at you Echo), but here's my understanding (and my views are influenced by reading and listening to podcasts that pander to my mostly anti-interventialist views, so take everything below for what it's worth):

 

I understand that countries in the Middle East were progressing along very well up until the 50s. At least progressing along with the rest of the world in terms of social progress. Then, because of a multitude of factors relating to foreign intervention, they took some major steps back to what they are today.

 

1. Iran, in the 50s, had a parliamentary style democratic government. The company that is today BP had exclusive rights to their oil and Iranians worked for them in terrible conditions for little money. The Iranian government told them to treat workers better and threatened to nationalize the company if they didn't, they cried to Truman, and Truman ordered the CIA to overthrow their government. Which they did, and they installed the Shah, who took tons of money from the US and UK but used to keep themselves hyper-wealthy and powerful but kept the populace oppressed. The people revolted and installed what is now the Islamic State that is a real danger to the Western World.

 

2. The Ottoman Empire was powerful and stable until WWI, when the winning European forces broke up the empire along arbitrary borders that were not separated along cultural and ethnic borders, breeding the hatred and violence that we always see between people of different races in developing countries.

 

3. American and European powers established Israel, leading to distaste among the Middle Eastern countries for the Western countries.

 

4. Cold War times led western countries to restrict the growth of communism, and the ever increasing demand for oil led the same countries to feel a need to have friendly governments for trade in the region and so dictators like Saddam were placed in power, who end up using mustard gas on their own populace and pushing the region backwards in terms of human rights.

 

The fact that the West was responsible for the unrest in the region is well-known around the world, and it has led to a feeling of hatred among Middle Easterners for these countries, which still exists today.

 

Bin Laden founded al Qaeda in the 80s, a group based on violence and hatred towards the USSR occupation in Afghanistan and and US occupation in Kuwait, which led to several terrorist attacks in the next 20 years and fueled by continuing Western aggression in the region in response to their attacks.

 

It seems to me to be an endless cycle of the US continuing to have a strong presence in the region defending themselves against these completely legitimate threats, and these growing groups (al Qaeda, Taliban, ISIS) that establish themselves on the common thread of hatred toward the West for our aggression. It absolutely doesn't help that Islam is a fundamentally violent religion, and radicals actually believe that they are doing God's work by pushing this violence.

 

I think that fanatics of any religion can be dangerous and can breed terror (Christianity with the KKK, Hinduism with the RSS, and even Buddhist actions in Myanmar), but Islam especially denounces the existence of people who aren't followers.

 

What can we as a global society do? I don't know... These groups are definitely a threat to our safety, but I do think we've taken things too far in the name of national security to the point of fear mongering. If we stop our actions in the Middle East, anti-West groups will certainly gain power, but if we continue to bomb and overthrow governments, it will continue to breed hatred among the people who lost innocent (or even not innocent) friends and family members to our actions. There's just no easy answer. I do think that investing in alternative energy is a great start, as it will reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil and remove the financial need for us to be so involved in the region, but that doesn't kill the anti-West attitudes that have been breeding there for a half century.

[nickman54 0]

I'm not super informed on the history of the Middle East, so please speak up if anything I say here is off base (looking at you Echo), but here's my understanding (and my views are influenced by reading and listening to podcasts that pander to my mostly anti-interventialist views, so take everything below for what it's worth):

 

I understand that countries in the Middle East were progressing along very well up until the 50s. At least progressing along with the rest of the world in terms of social progress. Then, because of a multitude of factors relating to foreign intervention, they took some major steps back to what they are today.

 

1. Iran, in the 50s, had a parliamentary style democratic government. The company that is today BP had exclusive rights to their oil and Iranians worked for them in terrible conditions for little money. The Iranian government told them to treat workers better and threatened to nationalize the company if they didn't, they cried to Truman, and Truman ordered the CIA to overthrow their government. Which they did, and they installed the Shah, who took tons of money from the US and UK but used to keep themselves hyper-wealthy and powerful but kept the populace oppressed. The people revolted and installed what is now the Islamic State that is a real danger to the Western World.

 

2. The Ottoman Empire was powerful and stable until WWI, when the winning European forces broke up the empire along arbitrary borders that were not separated along cultural and ethnic borders, breeding the hatred and violence that we always see between people of different races in developing countries.

 

3. American and European powers established Israel, leading to distaste among the Middle Eastern countries for the Western countries.

 

4. Cold War times led western countries to restrict the growth of communism, and the ever increasing demand for oil led the same countries to feel a need to have friendly governments for trade in the region and so dictators like Saddam were placed in power, who end up using mustard gas on their own populace and pushing the region backwards in terms of human rights.

 

The fact that the West was responsible for the unrest in the region is well-known around the world, and it has led to a feeling of hatred among Middle Easterners for these countries, which still exists today.

 

Bin Laden founded al Qaeda in the 80s, a group based on violence and hatred towards the USSR occupation in Afghanistan and and US occupation in Kuwait, which led to several terrorist attacks in the next 20 years and fueled by continuing Western aggression in the region in response to their attacks.

 

It seems to me to be an endless cycle of the US continuing to have a strong presence in the region defending themselves against these completely legitimate threats, and these growing groups (al Qaeda, Taliban, ISIS) that establish themselves on the common thread of hatred toward the West for our aggression. It absolutely doesn't help that Islam is a fundamentally violent religion, and radicals actually believe that they are doing God's work by pushing this violence.

 

I think that fanatics of any religion can be dangerous and can breed terror (Christianity with the KKK, Hinduism with the RSS, and even Buddhist actions in Myanmar), but Islam especially denounces the existence of people who aren't followers.

 

What can we as a global society do? I don't know... These groups are definitely a threat to our safety, but I do think we've taken things too far in the name of national security to the point of fear mongering. If we stop our actions in the Middle East, anti-West groups will certainly gain power, but if we continue to bomb and overthrow governments, it will continue to breed hatred among the people who lost innocent (or even not innocent) friends and family members to our actions. There's just no easy answer. I do think that investing in alternative energy is a great start, as it will reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil and remove the financial need for us to be so involved in the region, but that doesn't kill the anti-West attitudes that have been breeding there for a half century.

 

 

Is this a declaration that this is all our own fault??