Badmovies.org Forum

So horrible - dozens dead in seven separate attacks.  ISIS is claiming responsibility.
The city of Paris is under curfew for the first time since 1944.
Thoughts and prayers and good wishes flowing out to the victims.

As for those who perpetrate such attacks or support those who do . . .

may they roast in the deepest, darkest bowels of hell forever!

I'm as opposed to US and western foreign policy as they come, anyone who has seen my posts on those issues in the last dozen years knows that. This is about Muslims families and communities. If you raise terrorist kids you failed as a parent. if your community raises terrorists plural your community has failed. whatever peoples grievences are they cannot bring foreign ways of dealing with them into western countries.

France has historically been a very brutal country.  I think ISIS will find it has made a big mistake.

The heart of the problem, I am convinced, lies in Islam's scriptures.
Muhammad repeatedly told his followers to make war on the unbeliever, and those instructions were never rescinded.
Throughout its history Islam has contained a brutal, dark thread of violence and intolerance for all other belief systems.


Or, to put it another way - a Christian who does his best to follow the teachings and example of Christ and the Apostles as contained in the New Testament will be a peaceful and compassionate person.
A Muslim who follows the teachings and example of Muhammad as contained in the Quran and the Hadith will talk about how merciful and compassionate Allah is while cheerfully killing those who refuse to convert.

They struck in Beirut the other night and blew up a Russian plane as well.

Saudi Arabia funds a lot of this and supports it ideologically.

http://theweek.com/articles/570297/how-saudi-arabia-exports-radical-islam (http://theweek.com/articles/570297/how-saudi-arabia-exports-radical-islam)

I dont give a f**k about their god-their religion (which ALL fanatics use as an excuse to murder people) or THEM. We should just start major atom bomb s**t on Isis.
How-I have no clue.
But-opinions are like a***oles-everone has one.
Muslims-as a whole-are good folks-I have nothing against their beliefs-as are Christians-but BOTH have used it as an escuse to kill-any one ever hear about the Spanish Inquistion,th e Crusades or the Salem Witch trials?

Muslims are fine-I dont equate ISIS with the Muslum religion at all-I equate the with Adolf Hitlers "Master Race " bulls**t-a bunch of disillusioned f**kers who want to "RISE ABOVE!"!

I'll skip a dissection of Islamic values here in favor of pointing out that once again an unarmed populace died like sheep.

Notice how few hostage situations there are in Texas?

Sure, a bomb can kill anybody, but a room full of armed, trained gun owners is a little harder for three men to corral and slaughter, as was the case in at least one of the venues attacked last night, and as was the case with a single gunman in that Colorado theater.

Those poor concert-goers died cringing and hiding while their murderers walked around re-loading, shouting deluded praises to their God, and taking advantage of the fact French society has banned most firearms. The innocent stood little chance.

Be armed. Be trained. Be ready. And for the love of mercy, admit there is an enemy at war with us who deserves not to have excuses made for it.

The results of allowing responsible citizens to be armed for self-protection are no longer hypothetical. Jurisdictions with concealed carry laws do not have higher incidents of shootings, or legally-armed individuals losing their temper and shooting their fellow citizens, as critics said would come to pass. What those places often do have is lower rates of violent crime. Cities like Chicago that have banned handguns have staggering murder rates, typically with guns having been used.

Take away gun, and who has guns? Criminals.

Another horrible night for western civilization. The enemy is running rings around us.

And "global warming" is our greatest foe, we're told?

How long til they get a nuke?

Or maybe I wont' skip a discussion of Islamic values.

I agree with you on the need to destroy ISIS. I disagree with your equating Christianity or all religions to Islam. When is the last time a Methodist or Buddhist blew up an airliner? Read the Koran sometime. Seriously. Read it. ISIS is exactly what Islam is about, right down to the beheadings. And if the Crusades, or what you think you know about them, disturb you, take a moment to consider that Islam was launched in a jihad (i.e. a crusade) that murdered people on three continents, destroying whole cultures, and forcing conversion onto millions. Neither Buddha nor Jesus told anyone to kill anybody: Mohammad said exactly that, and led by cruel example. If the condemnation for war is a matter of degree, there is no comparison between the defensive wars of the Crusades, and the offensive wars that spread Islam.

I have no one good word to say about a religion set on destroying all other ways of life, and my patience is gone with anyone else who does.

the failure of the Muslim world to keep up with the "west", that term is kind of silly considering it's pretty much every direction in the world except the Middle East, speaks for itself.

At the same time look at Central and South America. Why are Mexico and Columbia such basket cases? The answer is there is so much money in illegal drug trade that those people have effectively captured those states. People love cocaine is the problem. The idea that individual Mexican or Columbian people can stand up to them is a fantasy. One side has millions of dollars the other doesn't.


Of course there are  countries like Chile and countries like ....I don't know Morocco that have standards of living and such that they can't fairly be called hellholes but these are the exception to the rule.

There are parts of the world, in the same general latitude,that are in utter disarray in no small part because of all the money gangsters in their midst get from powerful people who get it from markets some legal some not.

As for us fighting ISIS: we are too compromised by our alleged allies Saudi Arabia Turkey and a few others.

Also, I'm not downplaying how violent Islam in and of itself is.

And...to add this:

The Salem Witch trials had nothing to do with religion.  It was essentially a real estate dispute and a sort of feud between two families.  The "judge" and political leaders involved were corrupt and more than a few innocents got caught in the crossfire.

The popular notion of the Witch Trials being a bunch of religious fundamentalists in a mass hysteria about witchcraft is not factual.  Further, it's been all but proven that the whole thing was premised on hoax claims.

Auto Defensas is TRYING to fight back.  Sometimes they make progress, but the machinery arrayed against them is huge.  Fast and Furious crap doesn't help.

Ulthar - thats great I didn't know that. My point was just that in the Middle East all these people are leaving Syria for the same reason people are getting out of Mexico and Columbia: between the criminal element and the corrupt dictators its impossible to live there. at the heart of it is the War on Drugs and the War on Terror. (and thus of course: drugs and terrorism)

Again, not to give Islam in and of itself a pass, particularly the Saudi variety

I think this is the end of ISIS/ISIL. They just attacked a NATO country on their home soil. We saw how well that worked for Al-Quaeda. This time they have the Russians p**sed at them too.

I actually wrote about this at some length in my blog this morning, if anyone cares to read it:

http://lewisliterarylair.blogspot.com/ (http://lewisliterarylair.blogspot.com/)

My freind-Ya got me there-I agree. The thing I was trying to say was that crazy people can use and abuse a belief and twist it into evil things-like Charlie Manson,Jim Jones-and Isis-which is some twisted s**t.

-and you know this-how? It was proven-by WHO??
If yer gonna say its a proven fact to me-I wanna hear yer how this was proven.!
If yer gonna say Im a dumbass-lets hear yer PROVEN FACT.

....and yes-the Salem witch trials had EVERYTHING to do about religion-these people burned people on steaks-now if steaks were cooked on people-I could do that-because when it all comes down tho the whole thing-I end up thinking about food.
I dunno why.
Ok-yeah

 :drink:

Well, you will notice that I said "all but proven."  So, let's examine what I meant by that, just briefly.

The statements I made was a summary of historical analysis of the court records, the people involved, etc, as well as the apology delivered by Ann Putnam (one of the accusers).

Check this out:

http://historyofmassachusetts.org/the-salem-witch-trials/ (http://historyofmassachusetts.org/the-salem-witch-trials/)



{emphasis added}

And, about Ann Putnam (one of the afflicted girls):

http://salemmawitchtrials.weebly.com/about-the-accused-and-accusers.html (http://salemmawitchtrials.weebly.com/about-the-accused-and-accusers.html)



This one gives a little more detail about Ann Putnam:

http://school.discoveryeducation.com/schooladventures/salemwitchtrials/people/putnam.html (http://school.discoveryeducation.com/schooladventures/salemwitchtrials/people/putnam.html)

And, you can read the actual words of her apology at

https://kellibarker.wordpress.com/2009/02/24/ann-putnams-apology/ (https://kellibarker.wordpress.com/2009/02/24/ann-putnams-apology/)

An excerpt:  "I, then being in my childhood, should, by such a providence of God, be made an instrument for the accusing of several persons of a grievous crime, whereby their lives were taken away from them, whom now I have just grounds and good reason to believe they were innocent persons;"

She still blamed Satan for doing it, but what exactly were her "just grounds and good reason to believe they were innocent" if not her own knowing she made the whole thing up?  Analysis of the other evidence at hand points to that as a distinct possibility.

Keep in mind this is just a BRIEF synopsis of the historical analysis that leads to the conclusion that the thing was not so much driven by religious fervor but political and personal motivations.

The Salem Witch Trials happened and were a tragedy.  A lot of innocent people were murdered, but the story is not as simple as "a bunch of religious freaks went on a witch hunt." 

Maybe it's semantics, but even granting the truth of everything you say, it still sounds like the Salem trials had everything to do with religion. Witchcraft is a religious belief, not a secular one. No court today acknowledges "witchcraft" as a crime. You have to live in a society that believes in and fears witchcraft in order to make such false accusations in the first place.

One very slight issue I have with the comments about the Salem trials:

Not one person accused or burned for witchcraft was ever BURNED in the American colonies, or at least, certainly not in Salem.
Out of the twenty who were executed, nineteen were hung and one man was "pressed to death" (crushed with heavy stones piled on top of an oak slab he was tied under).  Still horrific, still awful, but the whole thing of burning witches at Salem is a Hollywood invention.

Indeed, the persecution of accused witches overall has been greatly exaggerated - Dan Brown, in his books and in an interview, stated with a straight face that twenty million women were burned as witches by the European Church during the Middle Ages and Renaissance.  The actual number was twenty thousand over a five hundred year period.  That's still twenty thousand too many, but it's an example of how, when attacking the church, the most grotesque exaggerations are routinely stated as fact (and yes, I know Dan Brown is a fiction writer, but he did claim that his book's historical claims on this issue were accurate).

My thoughts are with the French people today: Vive la France!

My hate is for these murdering bastards who kill in the name of religion.

 Baise-tu terroriste.   :hatred:

whenever somethign like this happens people go to their usual hobby horses, we need to stop Muslim immigration or libertarians we need to get out of the middle eastwe need to ween ourselves off of oil.

I say let's do ALL of it. whatever we did so far didn't work at all. stop all Muslim imigration, get out of the middle east completely, do what we need to do within reason to support more electric cars and so forth. just focus solely on self preservation

At specific issue in this point of the debate is the court's acceptance of spectral evidence.  The community was religious, but the court system (the larger system) was biased strongly against acceptance of such evidence.  That this court allowed such evidence (even after receiving criticism for doing so) suggests the court was manipulating the juries and the popular acceptance of witchcraft verdicts.

But, this was a bit of an anomaly at that particular time.

The trials themselves were a travesty of justice, even when examined through the lens of that time.  Increase Mather, for example (whose son was the judge) urged against the acceptance of spectral evidence alone for convictions...and Increase was a minister. Spectral evidence was eventually rendered inadmissible and after that ruling, the conviction rate plummeted.

So, while it is true that the religious beliefs played into lay people believing the spectral evidence was important, the courts in MA had already generally divorced themselves from it and had decidedly gone more to a 'what can we physical prove' sort of mode.

The point is that this particular court acted in a way that flew in the face of accepted jurisprudence of the time.

Also, while perhaps seemingly a minor point, the Salem trials occurred at the tail end of the witchcraft fervor in Europe and the Colonies.  While it might be reasonably argued the religious motivation was widespread and widely accepted in the 1400's, this was far, far less true in the 1690's.

So, to say that trials had everything to do with religion is not quite on the mark.  The trials were (mostly) about a real estate dispute, and one side of that dispute used the fear of witchcraft has a tool to consolidate power in the town.

And bringing it back On Topic, I think the point I'm trying to make is that we should not let ourselves get distracted by scapegoats.  The scapegoat in this case is "religion."

Evil people do evil things.  Murdering people is the epitome of evil.  THAT should be the focus of our anger.

That these people hide behind a claim of 'religion' (like others in history have done) is a smokescreen.  Evil is evil, no matter what brand of "Mommy's Skirts" it is trying to hide behind or how it dresses itself up.

The Salem Witch Trials is an excellent example of what I'm trying to say.  The trials were not about "religion" nor were they really about "witchcraft."  The ONLY reason 20 people were murdered in Salem was because a small group of evil people manipulated the emotions of others for selfish reasons.  That's it.  It was GREED, not "religion."

That's not much different than most of the evil we see today, whether it's over "religion" or "drug money" or "political power" or whatever.  How the evil dresses up is just costuming, and getting our panties all twisted over the costume is to ignore the evil.

I'll leave the running commentary for others, but this video has gone viral here and is probably worth a look.

https://www.facebook.com/theprojecttv/videos/10153243154568441/ (https://www.facebook.com/theprojecttv/videos/10153243154568441/)

May I?

http://youtu.be/VVEy_augkys (http://youtu.be/VVEy_augkys)

This is pretty much my exact position.

Ah thanks, I couldn't find a copy that wasn't tied to some newspaper.

Remember there are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. If even just 1 in 10 wanted to destroy everyone else that would be 160million people. That's more than any active service personnel worldwide [as of 2013 through here: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.TOTL.P1/countries/1W?display=graph  (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.TOTL.P1/countries/1W?display=graph) ]

Other important stats worth thinking on:

In the USA according to the data I could find through the CDC: in 2013 [latest year I could find data for] there were 11,208 firearms deaths or 3.5 per 100,000 people.

In France there have been approx 160 deaths [sadly most of them this week] due to incidents relating to terrorism in the last fifteen years.

Not to be somewhat dismissive of a passionate and big issue, but put in that light it's not really a statistic threat to your everyday life. Cars kill more people in 1 month worldwide than terrorists do in years.

Not saying I have any solutions and I certainly hate the situation as it is, but worrying and hating is certainly not something I will partake in. It's the whole point of why terrorism works and I don't want those bastards to get what they want.

I just want those bastards to be stopped.  Completely and for good.

Risk Assessment is not only computation of the odds of the occurrence, but also the consequence.

You can high risk three ways:

Odds are high, consequence is pretty severe
Odds are very high, consequence is not very severe
Odds are low, consequence is very severe

Risk managers and engineers of life critical systems would never take an approach that says "oh, the odds of that happening are low, but if it DOES happen, lives will be lost to it's okay."  They take high consequence events, even low probability ones, very seriously.

The other problem with looking only at odds of something happening is that when it happens to you, the odds just went to 100%.  It's not about groups and collectives....and statistical populations.  These are the actions of INDIVIDUAL murderers killing INDIVIDUAL people.

Finally, your numbers are very a bit misleading.  You lump all gang-on-gang violence (about 80% or more of that number you quoted) into one pot for the US, but only look at terrorism related violence for France?  Nah.  Throwing a flag on this one.  Whatever conclusion you are trying to imply is not supported by numbers that compare apples to green beans.

ISIS is about Islamic/Muslim as Westboro/KKK is for Christianity. I would go on, but seeing as how many people have strong opinions on this I wont.

Oh I get the risk assessment element, and there's also a basic part of pure human psychology at play here too: people get fired up about terrorism because they think/fear it can happen to them whereas you may feel somewhat able to avoid say a car crash even if that's far more likely to happen to you at some point. My partner is a social psychologist and she mentioned something to that effect being just something people do [though I may have misquoted it somewhat]

Just sick of the people who get so worked up about it that they say 'let's just nuke the Middle East'. That kind of talk is inflammatory and makes people sound like Bond villains...

If you want to get back to the stats side, I didn't find one for France at the time but just did: homicide due to gun violence generally is 0.22 per 100,000 (2009).

I think that with how crazy we all get over terrorist attacks despite the relatively low incidence rate it hardly seems worth the effort, effort which is playing into IS hands.

I will disagree only to this extent:  ISIS is Islamic in the sense that it acts like the early Muslim armies under Muhammad and the first caliphs did: it sweeps through a territory demanding conversion, submission, or death.  Most of the world's Muslims reject that tactic today, but because it is written into their Scriptures, groups like ISIS can recruit from the much broader community of non-jihadist Muslims by accusing them of not honoring Muhammad's example.  That's how moderate Muslims like the Fort Hood shooter become radicalized.

There simply is no justification in the New Testament for hatred, murder, or oppression.  The problem is, that hasn't stopped many Christians through history from doing those things in the name of Christ  anyway.

What does talking about homicide statistics have the first thing to do with terrorist attacks?

Terrorism is not really "crime" like the vast majority of homicides are (including 'spree killings').  It is warfare.

(As an aside, you still can't compare homicide stats in European countries to that in the US for a variety of reasons, not the least of which the stats are kept and categorized very differently.  I'm still not sure what your point is of bringing up some arbitrary US crime statistics and something that sounds similar to, but is not the same thing, for France.  I think you are trying to imply some point with these numbers).

Westboro Baptist Church is like 4 people. There are millions of adherents of Saudi style Wahabi Islam

I dig when guys like this cut to the chase and tell it like it IS, rather than how we "wish" the world worked.

http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/11/16/thoughts-on-paris/ (http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/11/16/thoughts-on-paris/)

I think the Quran preaches tolerance for people of the book.  Like other testaments, the Koran has inconsistencies.  

...For they owned the bombing of the Russian jet filled with civilians and children... the whole world is despising them.  They think their terror will cow all of these nations?    I think there is a kind of naivete in their thought process.  It is certainly not political. 

Listen.  I have a high opinion of you, Ulthar.  I do not expect anyone to understand.  
I despise guns.  I see the logic of this writer.  I wish I had god-like powers for one moment, I would disable every single firearm in the world.  
I know.  I'm a fool.  But I hate the things.  More than any other purpose, they were designed to kill people.  

If no one had any guns, I could conquer the world with a butterknife!!! BWUHAHAHAHAHA!

I like you Ulthar and I respect your opinion but I know we're probably on either side of the gun debate. That's not my point though, even if I suspect that you think that it is.

What IS wants is for us to arm up, repress minorities, close borders. What they want is not to win a war, they can't and it's crazy to think they can. What they want is to build their caliphate and to make the world hate the Muslim people so much that Muslims everywhere have no other choice but to join them. This is despite my earlier statement about how most Muslim people hate what IS are doing. It helps their propaganda to have us be harsh, to effectively declare war on immigrants either through the closing of European borders or to just generally persecute. It's in their interests to do that. And I'm just sick of it the whole cycle.

What do you think they want to achieve? They want us afraid, they want us angry and personally I think we shouldn't. I put those statistics up really just to highlight how in, for example the USA, you are way more likely to die by at the local shops by a random shooter than you are by terrorist bomber/shooter. Yet you still go to the store usually without a second thought I imagine. I don't want them to win by letting them get under our skin. It's exactly what they get every time people go on a witch hunt. It's why people of completely different religions get labeled as a terrorist due to some Photoshopping and a healthy dose of ignorance and fear.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ellievhall/gamergate-photoshopped-a-canadian-sikh-man-to-make-him-seem#.nuq12JMWMq (http://www.buzzfeed.com/ellievhall/gamergate-photoshopped-a-canadian-sikh-man-to-make-him-seem#.nuq12JMWMq)


TLDR: It's what IS want: us blood thirsty and angry. We can be better than that. Sure bomb the hell out of them when they pop their heads up on the battlefield but let's not lose our minds and our souls in the process.

I dunno-isolation didn't work in WWII-in an era of terrorism-hell-ISIS is recruting American teenagers!-it won't work.
We can build a big ass wall-but that won't stop it-it will just limit our freedoms-to be a FREE society-ya gotta take chances-if you wann be a place that represents JUSTICE, and MERCY-and-(this is an atheist talking-me!)-GOD-what would Jesus do?
Would he keep out the Syrian refugees because he feared his own death to help his fellow man?
Me-I aint Jesus-but I dont fear the Syrian refugees-because I would rather try to help these terrified regular folk esscape the horror of their life-and I would deal with the wolves in the herd of running sheep when I find them.
We b***h and moan about terror at home-it's peanuts compared to the s**t going on in the Mideast. Were PUSSIFIED.

I agree totally that IS aim's here is to get the rest of the world against them. They want to get more countries to attack them. The more they can get to do this, the more they can appeal to the extremists out there to come and join them, and the more we repress Muslims in the rest of the world, the more we will push into the extremist bracket. Unfortunately this isn't a fight we are going to see end any time soon, but it is one we can win if we fight carefully and cleverly. Its easy and natural to look at extreme solutions at times like this (right now, between terrorist attacks, child abuse, slavery, repressing other religions and so on I am feeling pretty sick and tired of a lot of them not just stuff connected to IS and I am struggling not to think the best thing would be to ban the lot of them, mostly because the more rational part of me knows that it wouldn't solve anything).

If we are going to change the nature of our societies and all live in fear what are we fighting for anyway? If we go down that route (and many countries have to some degree), then we have already lost.

At the risk of sounding like some kinda hippie Abbie Hoffman kinda guy-

RIGHT ON,MAN!  :thumbup:

And I you.  If you would like to have a respectful conversation on the topic, we can do so in private.  PM me if you have such an interest.

But I will briefly address a couple of points below for the benefit of the larger discussion here on the act of terrorism in Paris.


But the reality is, of course, that you don't and you can't.  As grown-up, rational humans, we have to work with the world as it IS, not how we wish it would be.

I suspect that if you had god-like powers, a lot of things in this world would be better.  Perhaps one of those would be to remove the need for all tools of self defense.
  

So was atomic fission.  Yet it also provides electrical power to hundreds of millions of people.  

So were swords as well, of course.

Technology is neutral.  Technology has no "will" or "purpose."  Those things come from human hands.

But again, none of this really matters that much.  They do exist for whatever reason they were originally designed, and they cannot be disinvented.  And it simply doesn't matter; if you DID get rid of guns...the terrorism would continue.  As would violent crime.

The argument about "guns" is a distraction from the discussion of terrorism and acts of warfare committed by one group against another sovereign state.  Terrorists have used bombs, airplanes, guns and other tools to destroy.

Wait, though.  I did not bring guns up into this conversation at all.  I simply asked why you keep mentioning crime statistics in regard to an act of war.



This is well documented to be incorrect.  Sorry if being blunt is offensive, but I have no idea where you get such an idea.

Here's a good summary, and it's from The Atlantic lest I be accused of getting my 'neo con talking points' from Fox News or some such.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/)



No they don't want us afraid and angry.  They want us subjugated. To them. Their mandate and stated goals are, and have been for some time, very clear.  If ISIS rolls into your town, you have three choices: join them by becoming a Muslim jihadist, agree to be a slave and pay a "let me live" tax, or die.

Period.

To pretend they are anything but that is to ignore not only the objective data on the subject (ie, how they ACT) and what they, themselves, are saying.



But that's irrelevant.

I'm also more likely to drive to the grocery store without a flat tire, but that does not mean I ignore the big pile of nails in the road and drive over them...just because in the past, statistically, my odds of having a flat tire are low.

The risk equation regarding ISIS (warfare in general) has far different terms than local crime.  One has little to nothing to do with the other.



I don't go anywhere without a second thought.  Sorry.  As you point out, there ARE dangers (human and others) all around us.  I try not to live my life with blinders on.



First of all, in a war, you don't "let" anyone win.  Winning is forced.  

This is not a game of checkers.  We are not having a friendly poker game on Sunday night.  It's not an intellectual exercise.

Innocent people are being murdered by a group that claims they will not stop until they get what they want...their own country.  Some would argue what they want is "world domination."  I'll leave that alone since it does not really matter.  What matters is what they are doing to achieve their goals.

I don't disagree with some of Ron Paul's and our own lester's foreign policy doctrine.  BUT...this war will likely come to us, and we better be ready for it when it happens.  We sure ain't going to stop them by asking them to "play nice."

When that happens, wishing it away won't stop it.  Asking them nicely to respect our feelings won't stop it.  Telling them "But WE didn't do anything to hurt you" won't stop it.  There is historical precedent for this sort of thing.



I don't agree with "bloodthirsty and angry."  I don't agree with people going around beating up Middle Eastern Looking Shop Keepers (or just people they THINK look Middle Eastern) and all that.  I certainly oppose stuff like the Japanese / German internment camps.

But let's be honest.  ISIS doesn't care if we rip ourselves apart (civil liberties wise) from the inside or not.  They are in it to win...and they are committed to achieving that victory.

we didn't do it though, we fought in the war.

People changed their minds as a result of Pearl harbor (which many would argue was the result of an ACTION on FDR's part, not to open that whole can of worms.) Taking your point though I'd agree isolation doesn't ALWAYS work but neither does non-isolation.

isolation would have been great circa Vietnam. We could have avoided that whole thing and tens of thousands of Americans would still be alive. the downside would have been...? less of us getting conceived after protests Idk


would he have allowed gay men circa when AIDS first came on the scene to donate blood, contaminating the blood supply? or people with Ebola to fly on planes I mean it's just a common sense measure. No one is worried about Syrian refugees taking over our culture we're worried about getting blown up.

I get what you are saying about openness and compassion but there has to be SOME reaction to the Paris attacks and a plane getting blown out of the sky. I live in Boston, my Dad lives in NYC this is a genuine if statistically unlikely concern

I did write I was a fool.   :teddyr:

I didn't quote that part because I disagree with it.   :wink:

Dying may be inevitable, but I would fight to live and die trying to live, un-subjugated.  That's a fourth choice. 

Fair enough.  Now, what are you going to fight them with?

Though worded poorly, I did mean three acceptable choices to them.

In that context, there must be a gun musn't there be?  Otherwise, whatever I have. 

I tried quoting the Dean/Ulthar debate but the quote architecture was too difficult to recreate so I'm going to just write out some thoughts instead.

I don't think your two points of view are wholly incompatible. Dean seems to be looking at ISIS' short-term tactics, Ulthar at their long-term goals.

To be clear, ISIS does want to win a war: it's just not particularly important that they win the war they're currently fighting with Assad's regime and the other Islamic players in the region. To meet their prophecies they need to lure some infidel army to attack them (specifically at Dabiq).

They definitely need the West to, as Dean says, "arm up." They would love for us to repress Muslim minorities and close borders to Muslim refugees; it plays right into their hands. For the West to turn on Muslims galvanizes their base. I believe they see terrorism as a win-win tactic: it hurts Westerners, and backlash hurts "low Muslims" who are then spurred to radicalize when they face hostility from the infidels. ISIS doesn't care about the civil liberties of Americans, French or other infidels, but they would love it if we took away civil liberties of Muslims living in our lands, because that plays into their dualistic worldview.

They want us to be afraid and angry in order to provoke and antagonize us so that we will come to fight them on holy soil in fulfillment of prophecy. Only then can they move on to the next phase of their plot, subjugation. Fear and anger created via terrorism is their short term tactic, subjugation the long term game plan.

My main disagreement with Ulthar's emphasis is I don't see any "war" here involving the West. Wars are between nation-states. I don't see ISIS as a state, just a band of desert warlords informed by an apocalyptic cult mentality.  I see them as a criminal organization to be dealt with in the same way we dealt with Al-Qaeda. (I didn't see 9/11 as a war either, but as a crime. America did fight a war with Afghanistan, but not with Al-Qaeda or the concept of "terrorism").

In some ways, I think they must be frustrated that we don't want to play with them. What more do they have to do to get  the Crusaders to show up to the Holy War? They want WWIII. I think we win in the long term---and actually win rather easily, in the grand scheme---simply by not playing the game on their terms. Let them burn themselves out and encourage moderate Muslims. Their radical ideology is unsustainable in the long term. In the short term, they are an annoyance on the world stage.

ISIS aren't our equals, they aren't a serious threat to our lives or our way of life, and they don't deserve the respect and attention we're giving them. Not a single policy of ours should be affected in any way by ISIS' actions, other than at which coordinates the air force drops their bombs. Their beliefs are ridiculous, delusional and suicidal. They act like a little brother trying to goad big brother into punching him so they can go running to mommy. I am only slightly more afraid of being killed by ISIS than I am of being speared through the back by a unicorn.

With that said, I think I should stop talking about them.  :cheers:

I appreciate Ulthar's points, which I won't distill down here for brevity's sake. Certainly don't think a 'hippy dippy' completely passive approach will work. The idea that they'd be able to subjugate a western country like the USA is completely laughable also. Certainly they're capable of damage though and if they get their hands on a nuke they'll definitely use it so the west does have a role in trying to take them out but an all stick approach doesn't work, short of complete genocide I suppose which is nuts. We're not at war with the Muslim people, despite the rhetoric that is out there. 

I have a friend who gets yelled at on a nearly daily basis just based on the color of their skin despite not even being Islamic. And it seems that's due solely to hate and ignorance fueled by hyped up over-reactions by most media and I guess I'm just a bit tired of the whole cycle.

Guess that's easy to say as a guy who lives in a generally pretty safe country. But oh well.

Yeah-mu Ma lived in NYC on 9/11.I was born in the Bronx.
But taking your anger on the wrong enemy is not the way to do it-we lash out -and do nothing-if we let them in-here-we can spot them and kill them.
Bring them here-we aint gonna win out there-bring them here-in Western Territory-we'll wipe em out-were real good at that! :thumbup:
And I aint saying thaat in a sarcastic way-we really have  crazy great defense-well slaughter them.  :thumbup:
Let em in..... :wink: :cheers:

As been said-we dont live there.
We should pull a WW2 on Isis-pull out-and I dunno-but Isis is EVIL. And we should-HAVE TO! Stop it.
And let tthe world do what there gonna do-because even with ISIS dead-evil never dies. :bluesad:-
and it repeats it self-it never ends-sides change....DAM! That joint made me real retrospective.

the bottle of whiskey helped too.
 :drink:


! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Mk18aPydAU#)
The only way to defeat these a***oles is to get them close to our territory-then blitz em.
Otherwise they just gonna think they are bullies-we gotta be like Bruce Lee-put up with yer s**t-then kick there ass.
We-as a country-aint got nothing to lose if we just let them go apes**t and come here-WW3 is actually they way to be.

That ryhmes! :wink: :bouncegiggle:
hahahaha...am I joking??...?....................... :wink:
Its up to YOU!

 :teddyr: :teddyr: :teddyr: :teddyr: :teddyr:

First smile I've had all day.  :thumbup:

Terrorist ringleader got into EU as 'refugee'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/12006892/International-manhunt-underway-after-French-police-let-Paris-attacks-suspect-slip-through-their-fingers.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_term=Autofeed#link_time=1447984682 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/12006892/International-manhunt-underway-after-French-police-let-Paris-attacks-suspect-slip-through-their-fingers.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_term=Autofeed#link_time=1447984682)


"that's great let all of ISIS in as refugees so we can kill them here... or something" - guy who lives where no terrorist has ever struck. no disrespect RC

Fair enough.  I'm a big picture type.



To some degree, it's semantics.  Or, you know...we could recognize that Fourth Generation Warfare might actually be a thing.

But let's say that N-S's are required for "warfare."  What constitutes a nation-state?  That outsiders recognize them as such?

Let's examine that.  As Graeme Wood wrote in the March 2015 article at theatlantic.com,

"Control of territory is an essential precondition for the Islamic State’s authority in the eyes of its supporters. This map, adapted from the work of the Institute for the Study of War, shows the territory under the caliphate’s control as of January 15 {2015}, along with areas it has attacked. Where it holds power, the state collects taxes, regulates prices, operates courts, and administers services ranging from health care and education to telecommunications."

{my emphasis}

In June of 2014, the area they controlled was larger than the United Kingdom.  They have an "official' population of over 8 million people and it is growing. 

By what objective measures does that not satisfy any working definition of a "nation-state?"  We have to be very careful about letting textbook and theoretical technicalities get in the way of practical realities.

They also have the tools to wage war.  What makes them dangerous as a warring "nation" is their "political leadership" is aligned with USING their force to achieve it's goals.  There is little to no restraint. 

At present, the US Military boasts a frontline strength of about 1.4 million with about that in active reserve duty personnel.  Our military has tremendous force multipliers in the form of technology; but we also have a political machinery that by design hampers the application of this military force.  In short, we have to talk things to death and agonize over every little thing.  They just go shoot up or bomb cafes.

The other distinction we have to be very careful to make is that our government (rightfully) only sees other 'nation-states' as it's enemy...or, more precisely, only COMBATANTS of those nation-states are our enemies.  We do not, rightfully, apply military force to "civilians," even of our enemies.  There is STILL hand wringing over the fire bombing of Dresden, for example, or the use of the atomic bombs in Japan.

Putting this in context of the "Generations" of warfare, our government and our military is essentially operationally locked, aside from some Special Forces operations, in the Third Generation.

Their "government" and "military leadership" have no such qualms about killing civilians...precisely because EVERYONE that is not them (including other Muslims don't don't swear allegiance) is their enemy.  Our "Western Thinking" on this is creating a huge cost in dealing with them.  We are measuring them through OUR lens of "fair play" and "right and wrong" when they have a COMPLETELY different set of rules.


I disagree.  They don't care about that at all. I think they are patient and don't care if it takes 1 year, 10 years, or 5 generations.

Philosophically, they've been at this a looooonnnnnnggggg time.  Their belief base strategy is a "spreading of the cancer" not a "blowing of an embolism."


I'll grant you a "Maybe."

In the meantime, what do you tell the families of the victims of the 1-2 attacks per week...just of the ones we know about, and the mass slaughter of Muslims in the Middle East that they are perpetrating that our media does NOT talk much about?

As I mentioned before, this isn't something we can just ignore and it will go away...they are bringing the fight to US.  They already have activity in the United States.  There's no question they are active in Europe.  We say "No Thanks to your 'war'" and they set off a bomb vest at a mall.  Is that a "winning" strategy?


What data do you have to support THAT assertion?  They are GROWING, not declining.  They are GAINING support, expanding into new territories, etc.

If you are going to say that, show some data to support it, please.  Show me it is even possible for a movement like this to just burn itself out if it faces precisely zero resistance?  Has that EVER happened in history?

As counterpoint, let's turn again to Graeme Wood:

"Its rise to power is less like the triumph of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (a group whose leaders the Islamic State considers apostates) than like the realization of a dystopian alternate reality in which David Koresh or Jim Jones survived to wield absolute power over not just a few hundred people, but some 8 million.

We have misunderstood the nature of the Islamic State in at least two ways. First, we tend to see jihadism as monolithic, and to apply the logic of al‑Qaeda to an organization that has decisively eclipsed it.

...

We are misled in a second way, by a well-intentioned but dishonest campaign to deny the Islamic State’s medieval religious nature."


I'm sure a lot of folks in France are wondering about that right now, and not just based on last week's attack.


Um, how can you ignore them?  They are killing people.  And, more to the point, they are killing people just going about their day-to-day lives, and they swear to keep doing it.  There ARE here in the US.  They ARE in Europe.


This is a very common misconception, but you don't vanquish enemies by dropping bombs (at least conventional bombs).  And certainly not THIS enemy that hides among "innocents."  It takes 11B's rolling in the mud to the job done.  You have to hunt them down.

This notion you can fight this with the psychologically easy "drop bombs at these coordinates" is fantasy.  This is Fourth Generation Warfare and to think it can be fought using 3rd GW principles and doctrines is...well, let's take a look at how well the Soviets did in Afghanistan and the US, too, for that matter (yes, we could roll right over the country, but again, our political leadership will not bear that burden...but that's the entire point of emphasizing the 4GW aspect of this). 

Dropping bombs on an encampment here and there is political theater and nothing more.  If it was effective strategy, we'd see it working.  But, we don't.  ISIS is growing in influence and power.


I'm not really afraid of being killed by ISIS.  That's not the point.

The point is that the threats they represent, if they continue unabated, will eventually rise to the level that regular folks here will have something to fear.  They are not going away unless they are completely defeated.

Check that.  1-2 attacks, or more, per day.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/)

3 on the 20th, 1 on the 19th and 2 on the 18th.

Checking a week, 7 Nov - 13 Nov: 47 attacks with 392 deaths.

These are Islamist attacks so may not all be ISIS.

So, I am curious.  Exactly how high do such numbers need to get before the "threat is real" and more than token airstrikes and political hot air is expended?  

What is the threshold for "warfare"?

[NOTE: I am not claiming an allegiance to that web site nor have I ever even read it before today; just quoting some numbers on documented violent attacks in the recent past that involved a group of people that at least include ISIS as a subset].

Ulthar, I think its a serious problem for people who live in the Islamic countries where most of those attacks take place. Not sure what can reasonably be done beyond what we're doing now, though. Like crime and drug abuse, terrorism will always be with us. I can only suppose you want to send US ground troops to fight ISIS in a three-sided conflict, with the Russians supporting Assad? I disagree with that, sorry. Let Putin send troops to fight ISIS, he'll be happy to. Sorry, but I've already spent more time and paid more attention to this issue than I feel is warranted.

At some point it might come to that.  Maybe.

For now, I'd settle for our government to stop trying to pretend the problem does not exist.  Shore up our nation's defense...operative word being "defense" ... here.

My contention is that pretending this problem will go away as formal "national policy" will not make it go away.  As I mentioned early on in this discussion, I have a bit of an Isolationist bent...our military is for protecting here.

I'm glad nobody takes my hippy warmongering ideas seriously.
Tell the truth-I dont have a dam clue what to do-I just think its scary-Im an old f**ker sitting near a pickle barrel smoking a pipe and drinking whiskey b***hing about the world.  :bluesad:

^ lol   :smile:

I'd say what I really think about this stuff but I'm running low on tin foil right now.

The bottom line is the media controls the narrative, as always. Question or contradict the mainstream news and you're instantly a crazy conspiracy theorist. And yet, stand up in any court of law and say "I saw it on the news so it must be true" and you will get laughed out of town. Nuff said

We will never know the truth about anything-EVER!
The only TRUTHS are read in ancient history books written by dead fanatics and liars.

http://youtu.be/wXytOYsXt2k (http://youtu.be/wXytOYsXt2k)

.and if anybody ever thinks im one bit serious about any of this s**t called politics-they are more desillusional then me.
The TRUTH- for me
-f**k this whole cartoon s**t-I belong to the-"lets bomb the world and run around like scared roaches"party. :smile:

Im a delusional fanboy drunk-and I think I can solve world problems on a monster movie website-THATS a truth! :drink:

that our traditional enemies such as Iran, Russia and freakin Hezbollah are fighting ISIS should give us pause. Saudi Arabia to their non credit are bombing Yemen instead and Turkey are bombing kurds. Also, to say both their and other of our "allies" connections to ISIS itself are merely shadowy would be charitable

France was an allie of these guys-let them amnesty-they are f**king them up now-this world-I dont know what to do.

! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOTnvPE_LMY#)

and when Manson seems more sane than a world threat AND! get this-I want a crazy f**ker to be on my side-I will have bikers and drug addicts helping me kill ISIS!

And yes-my marbles have been lost a long time ago.
I thought you guys knew this,though.
Just reminding ya-yeah.... :wink:

BOO! :cheers:

! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbDekaqw3lQ#)

I mean-the f**king s**t that goes on in this world is so bizzare-I dont seem as crazy as I am!
WOW!

! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpeCa8rud3Q#)