A Unique Threat

[TSwizzle]

I don't see Islam as a threat.

Nor even a UNIQUE threat. Strictly speaking, the Daesh isn't even a threat to the U.S. and Europe;

What does Daesh/ISIS have to do with teh islam ? I'm sure Obama said said that they were "nothing to do with islam".

 

[dismal]

Nor even a UNIQUE threat. Strictly speaking, the Daesh isn't even a threat to the U.S. and Europe; they're a threat to Syria, to Iraq, to Turkey and Iran

The are a threat right up to the place where people take up arms and stop them. Plus a few mass killings outside that boundary, if you consider that sort of thing threatening.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Nor even a UNIQUE threat. Strictly speaking, the Daesh isn't even a threat to the U.S. and Europe;

What does Daesh/ISIS have to do with teh islam ?

To the extent that they are Muslims and they are driven by mostly chaotic evil.

But if you're going to split those hairs for rhetorical purposes, here it goes:
Islam is not a threat because the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and do not participate in violent jihad.
Jihadism is not a threat because most Jihadists are not actively engaged in warfare against the West and those that are have limited resources with which to act.
And Daesh is not a threat, despite its proliferation, because it lacks the capacity to project anything outside its own borders other than propaganda.

Nor even a UNIQUE threat. Strictly speaking, the Daesh isn't even a threat to the U.S. and Europe; they're a threat to Syria, to Iraq, to Turkey and Iran

The are a threat right up to the place where people take up arms and stop them.

Which has already happened, hence the end of the threat. The problem is a lot of the people who were SUPPOSED to take up arms (e.g. the Iraqi Army) didn't bother to and Daesh moved in virtually unopposed.

Plus a few mass killings outside that boundary, if you consider that sort of thing threatening.

I consider it criminal and preventable. Hardly "threatening" from a national security standpoint.

I think Barbos had it right. As far as the Daesh and Al Qaida, Islam isn't a threat, it's a giant pain in the ass.

 

[4321lynx]

What does Daesh/ISIS have to do with teh islam ?

To the extent that they are Muslims and they are driven by mostly chaotic evil.

But if you're going to split those hairs for rhetorical purposes, here it goes:
Islam is not a threat because the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and do not participate in violent jihad.
Jihadism is not a threat because most Jihadists are not actively engaged in warfare against the West and those that are have limited resources with which to act.
And Daesh is not a threat, despite its proliferation, because it lacks the capacity to project anything outside its own borders other than propaganda.

Nor even a UNIQUE threat. Strictly speaking, the Daesh isn't even a threat to the U.S. and Europe; they're a threat to Syria, to Iraq, to Turkey and Iran

The are a threat right up to the place where people take up arms and stop them.

Which has already happened, hence the end of the threat. The problem is a lot of the people who were SUPPOSED to take up arms (e.g. the Iraqi Army) didn't bother to and Daesh moved in virtually unopposed.

Plus a few mass killings outside that boundary, if you consider that sort of thing threatening.

I consider it criminal and preventable. Hardly "threatening" from a national security standpoint.

I think Barbos had it right. As far as the Daesh and Al Qaida, Islam isn't a threat, it's a giant pain in the ass.

As were the Nazis in the 1920's

 

[Crazy Eddie]

To the extent that they are Muslims and they are driven by mostly chaotic evil.

But if you're going to split those hairs for rhetorical purposes, here it goes:
Islam is not a threat because the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and do not participate in violent jihad.
Jihadism is not a threat because most Jihadists are not actively engaged in warfare against the West and those that are have limited resources with which to act.
And Daesh is not a threat, despite its proliferation, because it lacks the capacity to project anything outside its own borders other than propaganda.

Nor even a UNIQUE threat. Strictly speaking, the Daesh isn't even a threat to the U.S. and Europe; they're a threat to Syria, to Iraq, to Turkey and Iran

The are a threat right up to the place where people take up arms and stop them.

Which has already happened, hence the end of the threat. The problem is a lot of the people who were SUPPOSED to take up arms (e.g. the Iraqi Army) didn't bother to and Daesh moved in virtually unopposed.

Plus a few mass killings outside that boundary, if you consider that sort of thing threatening.

I consider it criminal and preventable. Hardly "threatening" from a national security standpoint.

I think Barbos had it right. As far as the Daesh and Al Qaida, Islam isn't a threat, it's a giant pain in the ass.

As were the Nazis in the 1920's

And the Sandanistas
And the Bolivars
And the Khmer Rouge
And the Viet Cong
And the Tamil Tigers
And the ANC
And the IRA
And the Ku Klux Klan

Not every troublesome little organization that engages in terrorism and/or disruption and violence is a future Third Reich.

 

[4321lynx]

To the extent that they are Muslims and they are driven by mostly chaotic evil.

But if you're going to split those hairs for rhetorical purposes, here it goes:
Islam is not a threat because the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and do not participate in violent jihad.
Jihadism is not a threat because most Jihadists are not actively engaged in warfare against the West and those that are have limited resources with which to act.
And Daesh is not a threat, despite its proliferation, because it lacks the capacity to project anything outside its own borders other than propaganda.

Nor even a UNIQUE threat. Strictly speaking, the Daesh isn't even a threat to the U.S. and Europe; they're a threat to Syria, to Iraq, to Turkey and Iran

The are a threat right up to the place where people take up arms and stop them.

Which has already happened, hence the end of the threat. The problem is a lot of the people who were SUPPOSED to take up arms (e.g. the Iraqi Army) didn't bother to and Daesh moved in virtually unopposed.

Plus a few mass killings outside that boundary, if you consider that sort of thing threatening.

I consider it criminal and preventable. Hardly "threatening" from a national security standpoint.

I think Barbos had it right. As far as the Daesh and Al Qaida, Islam isn't a threat, it's a giant pain in the ass.

As were the Nazis in the 1920's

And the Sandanistas
And the Bolivars
And the Khmer Rouge
And the Viet Cong
And the Tamil Tigers
And the ANC
And the IRA
And the Ku Klux Klan

Not every troublesome little organization that engages in terrorism and/or disruption and violence is a future Third Reich.

Add the Sendero Luminoso in Peru, and the Bolsheviks in Russia to that list.

 

[untermensche]

As were the Nazis in the 1920's

Wow!

Imagine if we attacked every group that resembled the Nazi's in the 1920's?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

To the extent that they are Muslims and they are driven by mostly chaotic evil.

But if you're going to split those hairs for rhetorical purposes, here it goes:
Islam is not a threat because the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and do not participate in violent jihad.
Jihadism is not a threat because most Jihadists are not actively engaged in warfare against the West and those that are have limited resources with which to act.
And Daesh is not a threat, despite its proliferation, because it lacks the capacity to project anything outside its own borders other than propaganda.

Nor even a UNIQUE threat. Strictly speaking, the Daesh isn't even a threat to the U.S. and Europe; they're a threat to Syria, to Iraq, to Turkey and Iran

The are a threat right up to the place where people take up arms and stop them.

Which has already happened, hence the end of the threat. The problem is a lot of the people who were SUPPOSED to take up arms (e.g. the Iraqi Army) didn't bother to and Daesh moved in virtually unopposed.

Plus a few mass killings outside that boundary, if you consider that sort of thing threatening.

I consider it criminal and preventable. Hardly "threatening" from a national security standpoint.

I think Barbos had it right. As far as the Daesh and Al Qaida, Islam isn't a threat, it's a giant pain in the ass.

As were the Nazis in the 1920's

And the Sandanistas
And the Bolivars
And the Khmer Rouge
And the Viet Cong
And the Tamil Tigers
And the ANC
And the IRA
And the Ku Klux Klan

Not every troublesome little organization that engages in terrorism and/or disruption and violence is a future Third Reich.

But the question is, are we or should we be willing to turn our nation into a "Third Reich" or ourselves into Nazis in order to stop people we already think are Nazis?

 

[4321lynx]

As were the Nazis in the 1920's

Wow!

Imagine if we attacked every group that resembled the Nazi's in the 1920's?

You mean like Churchill wanted to in the 1920's? He was called a Warmonger for that.

 

[arkirk]

Do you think muslims should be allowed to impose sharia unopposed?

Where in America is this becoming even remotely possible? You are dealing in imaginary straw men here by asking that question. Do you think the Jehovah's witnesses should be allowed to establish the Kingdom of God on earth? It ain't happening and you well know it. I agree that Muslim faith is at best idiotic but I am still not sure if it is any more idiotic or threatening than Christian or Jewish belief systems. All seem to have a modicum of cruelty built into their character and all these faiths have long histories of inhumane acts in their pasts and in the present. Rest assured it will not be allowed. It is up to us to worry about the remainder of the pantheon of religious rule ideas active in America today.

 

[untermensche]

Wow!

Imagine if we attacked every group that resembled the Nazi's in the 1920's?

You mean like Churchill wanted to in the 1920's? He was called a Warmonger for that.

What did he want to do in the 1920's?

 

[arkirk]

You mean like Churchill wanted to in the 1920's? He was called a Warmonger for that.

What did he want to do in the 1920's?

Recently there was a two hour special on PBS about the life of Churchill. As a young man, he sought out wars , actually going to Crimea. He loved war and made no bones about it. He was a natural to lead England in WWII. I have always regarded him as a blustering cigar smoking sycophant and sociopath.

 

[untermensche]

What did he want to do in the 1920's?

Recently there was a two hour special on PBS about the life of Churchill. As a young man, he sought out wars , actually going to Crimea. He loved war and made no bones about it. He was a natural to lead England in WWII. I have always regarded him as a blustering cigar smoking sycophant and sociopath.

Sure, he was a racist who proposed the use of poison gas on civilians.

But in the 1920's the Nazi's were crushed in Germany, Hitler was jailed.

It isn't until the early 1930's that they have any real power.

To attack the Nazi's from England in the 1920's is not a rational plan.

 

[4321lynx]

Recently there was a two hour special on PBS about the life of Churchill. As a young man, he sought out wars , actually going to Crimea. He loved war and made no bones about it. He was a natural to lead England in WWII. I have always regarded him as a blustering cigar smoking sycophant and sociopath.

Sure, he was a racist who proposed the use of poison gas on civilians.

But in the 1920's the Nazi's were crushed in Germany, Hitler was jailed.

It isn't until the early 1930's that they have any real power.

To attack the Nazi's from England in the 1920's is not a rational plan.

My mistake. It was not till the 1930's , too, that Churchill started his warnings against them. In the 1920's he was preoccupied with the threat of Bolshevism.

 

[Malintent]

Yes. With one distinction...
We would aim to liberate, improve living conditions, education, and infrastructure in exchange for all resources and (represented) tax revenue.
As I said before... Welcome to the Middle Eastern States of America... we hope you enjoy your stay.
World power needs world government.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

But the question is, are we or should we be willing to turn our nation into a "Third Reich" or ourselves into Nazis in order to stop people we already think are Nazis?

That's not the question at all. The question is, is the thing we will turn America into worse (for us) than the thing we're trying to prevent? Conservatives assume that yes, of course it would, because that thing would still be America and America is always good. There's no debating with such people, since their definitions of "good" and "evil" are related to their definitions of "us" and "them."

For everyone else, it's a silly question. The THINGS that we love about our country are incompatible with the things we would have to do in order to forcibly suppress the Daesh. Again, it's like contemplating your neighbor's five-year-old son: you have a strong suspicion that the little bastard is going to grow up to become a serial killer, but the only thing you can DO about it is to murder him before he can grow up. If you're sociopathic enough to think that murdering a child because of the things he MIGHT do is justifiable, you're not the kind of person who would even care about that question.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

But the question is, are we or should we be willing to turn our nation into a "Third Reich" or ourselves into Nazis in order to stop people we already think are Nazis?

That's not the question at all. The question is, is the thing we will turn America into worse (for us) than the thing we're trying to prevent? Conservatives assume that yes, of course it would, because that thing would still be America and America is always good. There's no debating with such people, since their definitions of "good" and "evil" are related to their definitions of "us" and "them."

For everyone else, it's a silly question. The THINGS that we love about our country are incompatible with the things we would have to do in order to forcibly suppress the Daesh. Again, it's like contemplating your neighbor's five-year-old son: you have a strong suspicion that the little bastard is going to grow up to become a serial killer, but the only thing you can DO about it is to murder him before he can grow up. If you're sociopathic enough to think that murdering a child because of the things he MIGHT do is justifiable, you're not the kind of person who would even care about that question.

Take a laxative, dear.

 

[dismal]

The question is, is the thing we will turn America into worse (for us) than the thing we're trying to prevent?

The idea that not tolerating the misogyny, theocracy, brutality, rapeyness, etc of (some) Muslims is going to lead us to become so mysogynistic, brutal, theocratic and rapey that we start stoning rape victims for being impure and sawing off the heads of non-believers is low on my list of concerns.

Lower than ISIS expanding its borders or terrorism, low as the immediate existential risk of those things may be.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The question is, is the thing we will turn America into worse (for us) than the thing we're trying to prevent?

The idea that not tolerating the misogyny, theocracy, brutality, rapeyness, etc of (some) Muslims is going to lead us to become so mysogynistic, brutal, theocratic and rapey that we start stoning rape victims for being impure and sawing off the heads of non-believers is low on my list of concerns.

No, but the idea of us becoming a society that collectively believes that violence is the answer to all of the world's problems DEFINITELY should be. No one is disputing that the Daesh are running a deranged, sociopathic society that is nightmarish and inhuman even by Jihadist standards; what is worth disputing is whether or not "bomb the piss out of them" is actually a solution to that problem.

If we ALLOW that to b a viable solution, then violence and mayhem becomes the new normal; "kill em all and piss on their graves" starts to look like a viable solution to gang violence, to domestic violence, child abuse, armed robbery, petty theft, trespassing, eventually even just being an asshole. We've already gotten a big heaping apetizer of this with the militarization of law enforcement, where police training teaches officers to regard EVERY suspect as a threat to his life and police policies in many cities are written with the assumption of a "war on police" in progress. This is leading us inexorably to a reality where police officers are allowed or even encouraged to resort to violence in order to force compliance from suspects, with no limitations or repercussions.

The expanded borders or terrorism of the Daesh is a low priority for me too; the expanded violence and authority of U.S. policing policies and their increasingly close relationship with the military-industrial complex worries me a great deal. Do we allow ourselves to become a nation of cowards that solve all of our problems with guns?

 

[bilby]

The idea that not tolerating the misogyny, theocracy, brutality, rapeyness, etc of (some) Muslims is going to lead us to become so mysogynistic, brutal, theocratic and rapey that we start stoning rape victims for being impure and sawing off the heads of non-believers is low on my list of concerns.

No, but the idea of us becoming a society that collectively believes that violence is the answer to all of the world's problems DEFINITELY should be. No one is disputing that the Daesh are running a deranged, sociopathic society that is nightmarish and inhuman even by Jihadist standards; what is worth disputing is whether or not "bomb the piss out of them" is actually a solution to that problem.

If we ALLOW that to b a viable solution, then violence and mayhem becomes the new normal; "kill em all and piss on their graves" starts to look like a viable solution to gang violence, to domestic violence, child abuse, armed robbery, petty theft, trespassing, eventually even just being an asshole. We've already gotten a big heaping apetizer of this with the militarization of law enforcement, where police training teaches officers to regard EVERY suspect as a threat to his life and police policies in many cities are written with the assumption of a "war on police" in progress. This is leading us inexorably to a reality where police officers are allowed or even encouraged to resort to violence in order to force compliance from suspects, with no limitations or repercussions.

The expanded borders or terrorism of the Daesh is a low priority for me too; the expanded violence and authority of U.S. policing policies and their increasingly close relationship with the military-industrial complex worries me a great deal. Do Why did we allow ourselves to become a nation of cowards that solve all of our problems with guns?

FTFY.