what would be the best way to eliminate isis/al queda

[Perknose]

How did we defeat other highly destructive ideologies?

Patiently. Over decades. With containment, and, when possible, constructive engagement. Even as hotheads wanted us to risk nuclear annihilation over Korea, over China, over Vietnam, and over Cuba, we had faith that ours was the superior ideology. We were correct.

Oh, you mean Herr Hitler. Long after Hitler had overrun Western Europe and was knocking on England's door, and even after his ally Japan attacked us, we did not declare war on Germany.

Read your history. Germany declared war on us, not vice versa.

There is always a bogeyman out there, be it the Nazis or the commies or ZOMGSaddamHussien or now, the Mooselums. And there are always those short-sighted cowards amongst us who are quick, in their quivering fear, to abandon our bedrock ideals while they urge Armaggedon, be it the scumbag scourge of McCarthyism then or those pandering politicians now saying we shouldn't take in any of the refugees fleeing ISIS terror because one or two might be moles.

Fear-based abandonment of our highest, most inclusive ideals -- give us your poor, your tired, yearning to be free -- is the reactionaries go to response, and always has been.

But it is our most tolerant, most inclusive ideals which are, and always have been, our highest, best strength, and our saving grace. It is those ideals, not always lived up to but still held as our goal, which have enabled us to prevail over the more hateful ideologies.

ISIS promotes fear, hate, death and exclusion. Our own right wing panderers promote their own brand of this in reaction. It is up to the rest of us not to let either prevail.

 

[Jaepheth]

Free iPads... preloaded with John Lennon's "Imagine" as the start-up tune.

 

[werepossum]

Patiently. Over decades. With containment, and, when possible, constructive engagement. Even as hotheads wanted us to risk nuclear annihilation over Korea, over China, over Vietnam, and over Cuba, we had faith that ours was the superior ideology. We were correct.

Oh, you mean Herr Hitler. Long after Hitler had overrun Western Europe and was knocking on England's door, and even after his ally Japan attacked us, we did not declare war on Germany.

Read your history. Germany declared war on us, not vice versa.

There is always a bogeyman out there, be it the Nazis or the commies or ZOMGSaddamHussien or now, the Mooselums. And there are always those short-sighted cowards amongst us who are quick, in their quivering fear, to abandon our bedrock ideals while they urge Armaggedon, be it the scumbag scourge of McCarthyism then or those pandering politicians now saying we shouldn't take in any of the refugees fleeing ISIS terror because one or two might be moles.

Fear-based abandonment of our highest, most inclusive ideals -- give us your poor, your tired, yearning to be free -- is the reactionaries go to response, and always has been.

But it is our most tolerant, most inclusive ideals which are, and always have been, our highest, best strength, and our saving grace. It is those ideals, not always lived up to but still held as our goal, which have enabled us to prevail over the more hateful ideologies.

ISIS promotes fear, hate, death and exclusion. Our own right wing panderers promote their own brand of this in reaction. It is up to the rest of us not to let either prevail.

It isn't because some of the refugees might be "moles". It's because once you reach a critical concentration of Islam, inevitably they begin to radicalize. Maybe they are rejecting radical Islam, but their children will be rejecting the decadent Western world. Each nation grows its own Molenbeeks where radical Islam is free to thrive because even those Muslims who aren't radicalized look the other way. Non-Muslims are driven out, mosques preach hate and traffic weapons, jobs and commerce stagnate. Once you have such a community inside your nation, there is no way to cut out the evil except by trampling your principles.

 

[Perknose]

It isn't because some of the refugees might be "moles". It's because once you reach a critical concentration of Islam, inevitably they begin to radicalize.

Your statement is flawed beyond belief and back. There are between 5 to 12 million Muslims already in the US. There have been millions of muslims in the US for years and years.

The idea that "they" then inevitably begin to radicalize is a lazy generalization shown to be factually untrue by our own history.

Some few might, just as some few American Christians have committed radical, "faith based" acts of terror in our country.

Does this indisputable fact mean that we should also bar any Christian immigrants because "they" inevitably begin to radicalize once "they" reach a critical concentration?

No. Such a supposition is no more true than your statement is.

 

[brycejones]

It isn't because some of the refugees might be "moles". It's because once you reach a critical concentration of Islam, inevitably they begin to radicalize. Maybe they are rejecting radical Islam, but their children will be rejecting the decadent Western world. Each nation grows its own Molenbeeks where radical Islam is free to thrive because even those Muslims who aren't radicalized look the other way. Non-Muslims are driven out, mosques preach hate and traffic weapons, jobs and commerce stagnate. Once you have such a community inside your nation, there is no way to cut out the evil except by trampling your principles.

Guess what? The terrorists have thoroughly beat your sorry ass. You are living in so much fear you are doing their job for them at this point.

Go werepossum, go!

 

[Moonbeam]

The best way to eliminate them would be to devote the world's resources to raising mentally healthy children.

 

[brycejones]

The best way to eliminate them would be to devote the world's resources to raising mentally healthy children.

Are you saying radical islam is a variation of CBD?

 

[werepossum]

Your statement is flawed beyond belief and back. There are between 5 to 12 million Muslims already in the US. There have been millions of muslims in the US for years and years.

The idea that "they" then inevitably begin to radicalize is a lazy generalization shown to be factually untrue by our own history.

Some few might, just as some few American Christians have committed radical, "faith based" acts of terror in our country.

Does this indisputable fact mean that we should also bar any Christian immigrants because "they" inevitably begin to radicalize once "they" reach a critical concentration?

No. Such a supposition is no more true than your statement is.

Seems to be about 1-2% population; we aren't there yet. Look at every European nation; this has happened if the Muslim population gets that high.

Guess what? The terrorists have thoroughly beat your sorry ass. You are living in so much fear you are doing their job for them at this point.

Go werepossum, go!

How so? I have no particular fear of terrorism; statistically I'm not likely to be affected, although a radical Muslim did recently murder several people about a mile from my workplace. However, I can recognize reality. Similarly, I have no particular fear of rattlesnakes, but I don't want to see my neighborhood get saturated with them.

I've never quite understood the left's insistence that pretending reality isn't happening is some sort of effective strategy. I mean, I'm glad you guys have finally found something which isn't a crisis, but pretending that Europe isn't pocketed by radical Islamic enclaves seems at bit foolish.

As an example for the future, fear would be if I supported special rules for Muslims that infringed upon everyone else's rights in the hopes that they won't go on a killing spree. You know, like insisting that drawing Muhammad shouldn't be allowed, but Piss Christ must be subsidized.

 

[Victorian Gray]

...and like always, you utterly ignore anything put forth and just hurl out an insult for not simply 'falling into line'.

I suppose this only proves what most of us knew already - it's pretty much impossible to discuss anything with lib-warriors... nothing gets through that blind zealotry.

*sigh* Well, if anyone can provide sound, logical reasoning for me to have a different opinion, I'll pore it over.

That's it, continue to follow the script. Careful though, keep on the lookout for an original thought. Wouldn't want you to get a brain cramp.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Your statement is flawed beyond belief and back. There are between 5 to 12 million Muslims already in the US. There have been millions of muslims in the US for years and years.

The idea that "they" then inevitably begin to radicalize is a lazy generalization shown to be factually untrue by our own history.

Some few might, just as some few American Christians have committed radical, "faith based" acts of terror in our country.

Does this indisputable fact mean that we should also bar any Christian immigrants because "they" inevitably begin to radicalize once "they" reach a critical concentration?

No. Such a supposition is no more true than your statement is.

but, but, but, but...the sky is falling.

 

[Nebor]

Your statement is flawed beyond belief and back. There are between 5 to 12 million Muslims already in the US. There have been millions of muslims in the US for years and years.

The idea that "they" then inevitably begin to radicalize is a lazy generalization shown to be factually untrue by our own history.

Some few might, just as some few American Christians have committed radical, "faith based" acts of terror in our country.

Does this indisputable fact mean that we should also bar any Christian immigrants because "they" inevitably begin to radicalize once "they" reach a critical concentration?

No. Such a supposition is no more true than your statement is.

Sounds like you're unfamiliar with the term "critical mass." It's not there yet here, and it likely never will be. We'll watch Europe implode and learn a lesson.

 

[Perknose]

Seems to be about 1-2% population; we aren't there yet. Look at every European nation; this has happened if the Muslim population gets that high.

Your statement that when Muslims reach some mythical critical mass "they" suddenly engender radicalism is as ignorant and, yes, bigoted as saying that when blacks reach some critical mass "they" suddenly become violent and lawless.

Both statements are lazy, ignorant, bigoted generalizaions that overlook an entire panoply of socio-economic and socio-political facts factors that pertain in each situation.

Please don't lazily mistake nature for nurture. Black people are not inherently violent and lawless and people of the Muslim faith are not inherently violent radicals . . . just as Asians are not inherently bad drivers.

'Possum, I'm taking the time to answer you because I do believe, of all the "muslims bad" posters here, you are better equipped than most to see the lazy, primitive, ignorant folly of such generalizations.

C'mon, man, like it or not, we humans are all in this predicament of trying to outgrow tribalism and sectarianism and racism and, yes, nationalism together.

It's not an easy task and it won't happen overnight, but we sure as hell can't kill or exclude our way out of this.

 

[Blue_Max]

Guess what? The terrorists have thoroughly beat your sorry ass. You are living in so much fear you are doing their job for them at this point.

Perhaps you missed when ISIS themselves bragged about how many operatives they were smuggling out in the masses?

Or is your devotion to lib-love so strong you choose not to notice the lack of women & children, let alone persecuted Christians? The male muslim majority somehow fade away if there's even one crying woman or child to focus on...?

 

[TheSlamma]

The best way to eliminate them would be to devote the world's resources to raising mentally healthy children.

How would you know if they are mentally healthy? what is measurement for that?

 

[JSt0rm]

You guys are gonna get puppet mastered by them. They are smart. They wants the west to reject young Muslims because its easier to radicalize them when they dont feel like they belong.

Just like osama puppet mastered bush into going into war in iraq. He literally stated he wanted 9/11 to pull the us into a intractable war in the middle east and to cost us lots of money. lol.

 

[JSt0rm]

basically we are playing checkers and they are playing chess.

 

[Blue_Max]

basically we are playing checkers and they are playing chess.

More like a game where the 'non' lose in just about every scenario. Attack, let them in unconditionally, heavy screening, deny access, pull out of their countries and not deal with them at all -- there's no winning move. None.

Just the horrible decision of which one will cause the least damage, or lose at the slowest rate.

 

[SP33Demon]

Patiently. Over decades. With containment, and, when possible, constructive engagement. Even as hotheads wanted us to risk nuclear annihilation over Korea, over China, over Vietnam, and over Cuba, we had faith that ours was the superior ideology. We were correct.

Oh, you mean Herr Hitler. Long after Hitler had overrun Western Europe and was knocking on England's door, and even after his ally Japan attacked us, we did not declare war on Germany.

Read your history. Germany declared war on us, not vice versa.

There is always a bogeyman out there, be it the Nazis or the commies or ZOMGSaddamHussien or now, the Mooselums. And there are always those short-sighted cowards amongst us who are quick, in their quivering fear, to abandon our bedrock ideals while they urge Armaggedon, be it the scumbag scourge of McCarthyism then or those pandering politicians now saying we shouldn't take in any of the refugees fleeing ISIS terror because one or two might be moles.

Fear-based abandonment of our highest, most inclusive ideals -- give us your poor, your tired, yearning to be free -- is the reactionaries go to response, and always has been.

But it is our most tolerant, most inclusive ideals which are, and always have been, our highest, best strength, and our saving grace. It is those ideals, not always lived up to but still held as our goal, which have enabled us to prevail over the more hateful ideologies.

ISIS promotes fear, hate, death and exclusion. Our own right wing panderers promote their own brand of this in reaction. It is up to the rest of us not to let either prevail.

Read up on Muhammad, their prophet and what he did in his life. Then and only then will you understand what they stand for and who the people strive to imitate. Do you seriously believe that he was tolerant of other cultures? That he was against "exclusion" (e.g. ISIL only following in their prophet's footsteps by wiping out cultures)? Seriously, study his life and what he did. He perfected terrorism long before these asshats did, so violence by the sword is fully justified to muslims who interpret any action as "mischief" against Allah. (Koran 5:33 as David Wood explains.)

Events from Muhammad's history:

Following the emigration, the people of Mecca seized property of Muslim emigrants to Medina.[102] Economically uprooted with no available profession, the Muslim migrants turned to raiding Meccan caravans, initiating armed conflict with Mecca.[103][104][105] Muhammad delivered Quranic verses permitting Muslims to fight the Meccans (see sura Al-Hajj, Quran 22:39–40).[106] These attacks allowed the migrants to acquire wealth, power and prestige while working towards the ultimate goal of conquering Mecca.[107][108]

In March 624, Muhammad led some three hundred warriors in a raid on a Meccan merchant caravan. The Muslims set an ambush for the caravan at Badr.[110] Aware of the plan, the Meccan caravan eluded the Muslims.[105] A force from Mecca was sent to protect the caravan, and continued en route to confront the Muslims upon receiving word that the caravan was safe. The Battle of Badr commenced.[111] Though outnumbered more than three to one, the Muslims won the battle, killing at least forty-five Meccans with fourteen Muslims dead. They also succeeded in killing many Meccan leaders, including Abu Jahl.[112]

Two pagans, Asma bint Marwan of the Aws Manat tribe and Abu 'Afak of the 'Amr b. 'Awf tribe, had composed verses taunting and insulting the Muslims.[119] They were killed by people belonging to their own or related clans, and Muhammad did not disapprove the killings.[119] Most members of those tribes converted to Islam and there was hardly any opposition from the pagans left.[120]

After the coalition's retreat, the Muslims accused the Banu Qurayza of treachery and besieged them in their forts for 25 days. The Banu Qurayza eventually surrendered; according to Ibn Ishaq, all the men apart from a few converts to Islam were beheaded, while the women and children were enslaved.[137][142][143]

The Meccans helped the Banu Bakr with weapons and, according to some sources, a few Meccans also took part in the fighting.[161][163] After this event, Muhammad sent a message to Mecca with three conditions, asking them to accept one of them.
These were: either the Meccans would pay blood money for the slain among the Khuza'ah tribe, they disavow themselves of the Banu Bakr, or they should declare the truce of Hudaybiyyah null.[165]

The Meccans replied that they accepted the last condition.[165] Soon they realized their mistake and sent Abu Sufyan to renew the Hudaybiyyah treaty, a request that was declined by Muhammad.[161]

Muhammad began to prepare for a campaign.[166] In 630, Muhammad marched on Mecca with 10,000 Muslim converts. With minimal casualties, Muhammad seized control of Mecca.[167][168] He declared an amnesty for past offences, except for ten men and women who were "guilty of murder or other offences or had sparked off the war and disrupted the peace".[169] Some of these were later pardoned.[168][170] Most Meccans converted to Islam and Muhammad proceeded to destroy all the statues of Arabian gods in and around the Kaaba.[168][171][172] According to reports collected by Ibn Ishaq and al-Azraqi, Muhammad personally spared paintings or frescos of Mary and Jesus, but other traditions suggest that all pictures were erased.[173]

A year after the Battle of Tabuk, the Banu Thaqif sent emissaries to surrender to Muhammad and adopt Islam. Many bedouins submitted to Muhammad to safeguard against his attacks and to benefit from the spoils of war.[14][177] However, the bedouins were alien to the system of Islam and wanted to maintain independence: namely their code of virtue and ancestral traditions. Muhammad required a military and political agreement according to which they "acknowledge the suzerainty of Medina, to refrain from attack on the Muslims and their allies, and to pay the Zakat, the Muslim religious levy."[177][182]

He also ordered destruction of any remaining pagan idols in Eastern Arabia. The last city to hold out against the Muslims in Western Arabia was Taif. Muhammad refused to accept the city's surrender until they agreed to convert to Islam and allowed men to destroy the statue of their goddess Allat.[179][180][181]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad

Some examples of the wild behavior of the muslim "prophet" which includes:
-conquering a city, ambushing/robbing/killing caravans,
-ok'ing the execution of people who made fun of muslims,
-beheading opponents who surrendered to him and enslaving their women/children,
-giving the option to either pay blood money for his dead friends or nullify a treaty, then not renewing the nullified treaty when it was requested,
-destroying all artifacts (statues/paintings) of non-muslim cultures they conquered, and forcing captured cultures to pay a "muslim religious tax" if they wanted to keep their traditions/culture.
-forcing people to submit to Islam or continue to be militarily attacked

This is the person they revere and strive to be like. This info on their prophet is all publicly available. The sooner we educate ourselves and aren't scared to have an open discussion about it (at the risk of being called racist/intolerant etc), the sooner we can agree that these values are not healthy for a normal functioning society to idolize. If someone makes fun of you, you cannot kill them, let alone behead them. Trying to wipe cultures off the map who don't believe the same thing using terrorist tactics is not ok, even if they don't agree with you and even mock you.
Some of these actions look familiar? Yes, ISIL kids simply imitating what they read and learn in a mosque about their revered one.

In the end, it will take muslim religious leaders either stealth rewriting or "reinterpreting" certain verses in their holy book to tone down the violence. I don't see any other option because a lot of these young muslim men are completely brainwashed and want to conquer the "enemy" like their hero Muhammad conquered Mecca. It doesn't help that ISIL is also claiming to be a Caliphate in an area of 10 million people, and we want to import 10000 people from that area here.

 

[brycejones]

Perhaps you missed when ISIS themselves bragged about how many operatives they were smuggling out in the masses?

Or is your devotion to lib-love so strong you choose not to notice the lack of women & children, let alone persecuted Christians? The male muslim majority somehow fade away if there's even one crying woman or child to focus on...?

That's awesome.....bragging by a terrorist organization as fact. Sounds like self serving propaganda to me.

We need to be vigilant, we need to respond strongly when attacked. What we can't do is give up our ideals. Religious freedom is one of our ideals as a nation. When we give up our ideals in the name of "safety" the fucking terrorists have won.

The rest of your post is word salad.

 

[zinfamous]

...and like always, you utterly ignore anything put forth and just hurl out an insult for not simply 'falling into line'.

I suppose this only proves what most of us knew already - it's pretty much impossible to discuss anything with lib-warriors... nothing gets through that blind zealotry.

*sigh* Well, if anyone can provide sound, logical reasoning for me to have a different opinion, I'll pore it over.

ah, but Blue_Max, you too are that which you despise. Surely you see that, no?

"not standing in line" simply for the sake of "not standing in line" seems to be your modus operandi.

Surely it would be wiser to come to your typical conclusions by at least investigating the root causes of "Standing in line" with well-sourced material and rational thought, rather than turn to doctored reports and boldly biased sources in anti-zealotry rages characterized by....zealous rage?

 

[zinfamous]

Sounds like you're unfamiliar with the term "critical mass." It's not there yet here, and it likely never will be. We'll watch Europe implode and learn a lesson.

Sounds like you are too.

Please, do enlighten us on the actual number where x group of x culture/religion reaches that wonderful number where they suddenly turn violent murdering racist psycopaths.

Please cite your sources and show your work, including controls for relevant variables such as cultural assimilation, socio-economic status and mobility, and do be sure control against religion in general, and specifically for each group to explain each critical mass number that turns each particular group into murdering assholes.

Or just that one group. Whatever.

 

[JSt0rm]

Sounds like you are too.

Please, do enlighten us on the actual number where x group of x culture/religion reaches that wonderful number where they suddenly turn violent murdering racist psycopaths.

Please cite your sources and show your work, including controls for relevant variables such as cultural assimilation, socio-economic status and mobility, and do be sure control against religion in general, and specifically for each group to explain each critical mass number that turns each particular group into murdering assholes.

Or just that one group. Whatever.

Christian americans became violent murdering psycopaths towards native americans.

 

[zinfamous]

Christian americans became violent murdering psycopaths towards native americans.

well yeah but they came here to do just that, so....

:hmm:

anyway, I did request that work be shown.

 

[JSt0rm]

Im definitely not doing any work sorry

 

[werepossum]

Your statement that when Muslims reach some mythical critical mass "they" suddenly engender radicalism is as ignorant and, yes, bigoted as saying that when blacks reach some critical mass "they" suddenly become violent and lawless.

Both statements are lazy, ignorant, bigoted generalizaions that overlook an entire panoply of socio-economic and socio-political facts factors that pertain in each situation.

Please don't lazily mistake nature for nurture. Black people are not inherently violent and lawless and people of the Muslim faith are not inherently violent radicals . . . just as Asians are not inherently bad drivers.

'Possum, I'm taking the time to answer you because I do believe, of all the "muslims bad" posters here, you are better equipped than most to see the lazy, primitive, ignorant folly of such generalizations.

C'mon, man, like it or not, we humans are all in this predicament of trying to outgrow tribalism and sectarianism and racism and, yes, nationalism together.

It's not an easy task and it won't happen overnight, but we sure as hell can't kill or exclude our way out of this.

Problem is that you are trying to outgrow tribalism and sectarianism and racism and nationalism while they are trying to usher in a glorious return to the seventh century where everyone believes in Allah and worships him in exactly the same way, five times a day.

Look at it this way. Assume there are ten Muslims living in a city. Let's call it Utopia, in the nation of Nevermore. Clearly a mosque preaching hate isn't going to prosper, for these Muslims are just like anyone else, right? Their neighbors are mostly not Muslim, but they are mostly good people who don't persecute the Muslims so that's fine. Radical mullahs tend not to come to Utopia because the chance of recruiting a warrior for Allah in this small population is not worth the allocation of manpower.

Now expand that to a hundred Muslims in Utopia. Now maybe there are one or two Muslims who are radicals, but they are relatively powerless because the majority are normal, peace loving people who just happen to worship Allah instead of G-d or Yahwey or Buddha or Vishnu. If these radicals try to convert other Muslims to their radical, hate-filled version of Islam (also known as strictly following the Quran) these good people will be all over them. Again, most of the people they know are not Muslims. The Muslims in Utopia are pretty typical Utopians and indeed, probably pretty typical Nevermorians. The Muslims worship in one or two mosques and probably know most of the others, at least casually. They identify as Utopians and Nevermorians, just like anyone else.

Now expand that to a hundred thousand Muslims in Utopia. As new families move in, they tend to move close to their fellow immigrants, especially from the same nation, for the comfort of the familiar but also for practical reasons since many won't be fluent in the new nation's tongue. In Utopia today, an immigrant can get by without learning Nevermorian because there are enough Muslims to serve his needs in Arabic or Pushti or wherever the majority originated. We have large numbers of Muslims living in Utopia who know virtually no non-Muslims. There are many, many mosques to serve this many Muslims, and no one can be familiar with the teachings of more than a few. Non-Muslims aren't really comfortable in this part of Utopia anymore - the shops sell different products, the people speak a strange language, everybody and everything feels foreign - so more and more move out. Thus Muslims growing up in the Muslim part of Utopia have less and less contact with non-Muslims. Consequently they have different social cues than the native population and thus more difficulty getting hired. On top of this, the dietary and other restrictions within Islam are firmly fixed in their minds as things that must be observed; virtually everyone they know follows these, so they see it as society's duty to accommodate them just as other Utopians expect society to accommodate their own native habits. The end result of all these things is that the Muslim immigrants increasingly identify as Muslims first rather than as Utopians and Nevermorians. This too widens the gap between Muslims and non-Muslims.

This many Muslims attracts radical mullahs because there are lots of ripe recruitment opportunities; that one or two fervent believers is now one or two thousand. These radical mullahs flourish because they have sizable followings AND because all they are doing is calling for people to live up to their religion's requirements. They also know who within their community can be trusted to keep his mouth shut, who needs to be leaned on, and who must not be allowed to see the strangers unloading AK-47s in the middle of the night. We are now at the stage where an attack like we just saw is not only possible, but is easy.

We saw the same thing in Elohim City with white supremacists. Dozens of people must have known that Tim McVeigh was up to something, yet even though virtually the entire town was on some federally government agency's payroll only one girl reported it. Whether or not the others were in favor of such terrorism, none of them would sick THEM of one of US. Even if that one of US was going to blow up innocent children. There are proportionally far, far more radical Islamists within Islam than white supremacists within white people. And they have the very words of Muhammad (and therefore Allah) to back them up. Often these people have memorized the entire Quran. These are not drug addicts sucked into a violent death by others, these are very, very religious people.