Islamic State

[naTia]

WBC isn't shut down because their message is not an incitement to violence. ISIS's message is a call to violence. I probably should have added a harmful in front of the second censorship, but most people would agree that very limited censorship is a net benefit to society (i.e. shouting fire in a theater or calling for a lynch mob). We absolutely can censor based on net harm to society, the whole rational behind American freedom is freedom unless it infringes on another's rights.

As far as the original post goes, the backing behind their eradication is that they are religious fundamentalists. As far as I am concerned, this is a very bad way to generalize what should happen to anyone who has these types of religious beliefs.

 

As far as what you are saying goes, I feel like your words are definitely more concise and focused on what ISIS really stands for and I definitely agree a lot more with it. The only real counterargument I can concoct at this time is the fact that many of the militants fighting under the ISIS name are not solely there for this call to violence. Many are there for reasons we may consider to be "just" and "fair". Sourcing is most certainly needed for what exactly they are fighting for, however I can recall enough online posts and newscasts to be able to make a general statement such as that.

[Greatnate]

As far as the original post goes, the backing behind their eradication is that they are religious fundamentalists. As far as I am concerned, this is a very bad way to generalize what should happen to anyone who has these types of religious beliefs.

 

As far as what you are saying goes, I feel like your words are definitely more concise and focused on what ISIS really stands for and I definitely agree a lot more with it. The only real counterargument I can concoct at this time is the fact that many of the militants fighting under the ISIS name are not solely there for this call to violence. Many are there for reasons we may consider to be "just" and "fair". Sourcing is most certainly needed for what exactly they are fighting for, however I can recall enough online posts and newscasts to be able to make a general statement such as that.

 

You are probably right that a fair number of their recruits are there to address just and legitimate concerns, whether they be about western influence in their countries or the internal corruption of their own governments. Both of these things should be ok to struggle against, but radical Islam offers a false hope for solution. It might seem that Islamic fundamentalism would address local corruption and foreign intervention, but the result is so very reactionary and oppressive that the Islamic regime would likely be worse than the current dictatorships. At the end of the day many people view their local Imam's are their best shot at a voice in a semi-democratic state, but relying on religious figures results in a government that is too easy to exploit by religious extremists.

[Dietrich]

This statement suggests that the expressions of one's opinions via religion is somehow punishable by death. This, just as getting rid of pro-democracy supporters in the USSR, is censorship. Is it not considered by many to be considered a basic human right? Censorship is censorship no matter who it targets. Just as American and French Revolutionaries did in the past, ISIS demonstrates its own agenda by use of force. Many would consider American and French Revolutionaries to be pro-public. They were also against people who supported the other side. American revolutionaries used to pour hot tar and feathers on supporters of England within the Americas. As gruesome and out for blood ISIS and other extremists may seem, eradicating the beliefs of many people is hurting us more than helping.

 

I agree wholeheartedly.

 

The problem with the Islamic State is not their ideology, and I would argue that it isn't even their use of violence in order to enforce that ideology, because violence is to the Middle East what elections are to the West: a highly imperfect and often undemocratic form of deciding which government will be in power next. The problem with the Islamic State is their tremendous brutality towards anyone and everyone in the region, foreigners included, and their blatant ambition to expand their Caliphate across the entire planet.

 

To be perfectly honest, in principle, I would have no problem with an Islamic Caliphate existing in the Middle East; hell, it might even be good for the place, since the Islamic State seems to be one of the few principled, relatively corruption-free organizations in the region. I'd like to say that everyone should sit down and debate their beliefs, but that's not going to happen, and I don't feel that I - as a foreigner - have the authority to say conclusively who has the right to govern in the Middle East.

 

It really doesn't. There is a stark difference between living by your religious code and expecting all of your fellow citizen to follow the same code. The problem with ISIS is trying to establish a religiously fundamental state. If the American revolution was about the Puritans establishing a Puritan state, you can bet that the country would be drastically different. In the US, censorship is not censorship if it targets hate speech, if a group of religious fundamentalists were preaching that everyone of their religion had to follow their rules and everyone outside of their religion had to leave the area or be murdered, that would very much be hate speech. Hate speech, fundamentalism, and religious extremism are all things that run counter to western democracy, Allowing an extremist minority to dominate a moderate majority is always damaging, whether in the middle east or in the USA.

 

Western democracy is incompatible with Islamic values, just as Islamic government is incompatible with Western values. This is the West's problem today: there's all this talk of how even foreigners in Western countries should be free to retain their non-Western values, but simultaneously there's a great effort to force Western democracy upon any foreign country which hasn't yet adopted such a government of its own accord. This is contradictory; in fact, this is downright hypocritical.

 

I think we have to recognize that Western democracy is not the best, most ethical, or even most practical form of government available, especially to non-Western countries, and I'm sure that many would agree with me when I say that U.S. democracy is by far among the least effective and least democratic forms of Western democracy in existence today. There is no one perfect form of government, and while some are clearly more effective than others, nobody can conclusively say that Western democracy is the most effective one. In fact, it could be argued that it's among the least effective, since it openly encourages political instability and parliamentary gridlock, as the U.S. has most poignantly demonstrated time and time again in recent years; at least dictators can govern, and many do it quite well.

 

I've said it before and I'm sure that I'll have to say it again: Americans need to learn to keep their grubby American hands out of the Middle East, or, better yet, out of the Eastern Hemisphere entirely. The U.S. is a world power in decline, and sooner or later it's going to need to recognize that its brief post-Cold War hegemoney is coming to an end.

 

Just ban travel to the region and let them sort out their business for once.

 

The Middle East is complex and imperfect; this solution is simple and perfect. It has my vote.

 

Highly doubtful that would work, let alone be ethical. 

 

It would work just fine; turn back anybody trying to enter, and shoot anybody trying to leave. It may not be a perfectly ethical solution, but to be frank, there is no perfectly ethical solution available, and few are more ethical than that one. Some governments in the region may come to resent U.S. inaction, but as it is, the vast majority of the population in the region already resents U.S. action. It's evident that public opinion, both at home and abroad, has little bearing on the policies of the U.S. government anyway.

Edited October 23, 2014 by Dietrich

[WISD0MTREE]

We still won't send ground troops. If anything we'll send Kurds, maybe the Iraqi Army if they can pull it together. Whatever regional ground forces that can be trained and sent in will be, but there is no political will for another American ground campaign.

All the weapons we are sending them are either getting stolen by ISIS or sold to Al Qaeda. 

 

Airstrikes? They will hide in schools and hospitals because we follow international laws. 

[Aisha Greyjoy]

The United States has a lot of religious fundamentalist extremists too.  

They think Gods law is the only law they have to follow.

They want their faith taught in schools to every student.

They want to imprison people who don't share their faith.

They want to kill people who violate their interpretation of their Holy Book.

They believe revolution and violence is their birthright.

They think women must dress modestly.

 

Eradication by murder isn't what I was suggesting.  I'm suggesting wiping out fundamentalists by confronting their backward beliefs as publically and frequently as possible.  And lets face it, they are violence-prone, so when they get their gun, you get yours and we can settle it like Ironborn.

 

As for ISIS, I am a believer in Colin Powell's famous "you break it, you bought it" line about Iraq.  We're responsible.  Its our fault, and it sucks that we might need to see our soldiers keep dying there, but we need to make it right.

Edited October 24, 2014 by Aisha Greyjoy

[Emmad]

Whatever we do will just make things worse in the area, gotta love radicals!

[Codonian]

Something really does need to be done...

Just the other day, On the news (I live in the UK) They were reporting an attempted (attempted plot more like) assassination on the queen, The planning was done by Islamic extremists, Born and Bred in the UK, The plan was foiled by the local police, so no harm done.

Now, The thing is, I'm not religious, not even the teeniest of bits but, I do believe that these things being done by the Islamic Extremists is only adding to the Islamophobia, Someone, somewhere needs to deal with Islamic Extremists, And Extremists of any religion, whether it be Obama, Cameron, Putin or A tribe in the Amazon.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Codonian

[Fox Fire]

The world in general and the western country in general must stop taking things easy. They must stop relying on the air strikes and start sending in the ground forces to stop those extremist ISIS once and for all. We have tolerated ISIS far too long.

This is easy to say when youre not the one in a fox hole getting shot at....

[Fox Fire]

Also, I would just like to mention that the west created this problem and now we are paying the price. There is nobody to blame for the rise of IS other than the US and Bush's sensless warmongering. Way more Iraqi civilians died in Iraq as a result of that invasion than any combatants. Thats exactly what put extremism in such a high position to begin with.

The more we wage war in that area, the more Sunni civilians become the majority of the casualties which only strengthens the Islamic States position.

 

How do you win such a war?

 

The short answer: You dont.

The long answer: You dont.

 

Just look at Vietnam and ask yourselves if you think there is any stopping this. We should have never disolved the Caliphate after WWI to begin with. That right there is the primary source of all the middle easts problems.

[elsuper]

We should have never disolved the Caliphate after WWI to begin with. That right there is the primary source of all the middle easts problems.

 

I think I agree with this. The Ottomans were on their way out anyway, but it should have happened on the terms of the locals.

[Ayayay]

The Ottoman Empire was on its last breath. In fact, had the British not gone out of their way to save the Ottomans, the Empire would have fallen well before The Great War. 

 

Also, the Caliphate lost meaning after the Siege of Baghdad and the fall of the Abbasids. After that, the Caliphate was used to give legitimacy to the Mamluks rule of Egypt. The Ottomans never really used the title after they took it either. 

Edited November 12, 2014 by underlordgc

[Fox Fire]

The Ottoman Empire was on its last breath. In fact, had the British not gone out of their way to save the Ottomans, the Empire would have fallen well before The Great War. 

 

Also, the Caliphate lost meaning after the Siege of Baghdad and the fall of the Abbasids. After that, the Caliphate was used to give legitimacy to the Mamluks rule of Egypt. The Ottomans never really used the title after they took it either. 

But, its what we did with the Ottoman emire that is everything wrong with the middle east. What we did was the very definition of divide and conquer. We created nationalism and borders that werent real, we drew imaginary lines in the sand that do not even cooralate with cultural boundaries and opinions, andwe litterally just puzzle peiced !@#$ together without giving a !@#$. As long as we could exploit all the oil to fuel our own industrialization, thats all that mattered.

The people of the middle east do not need us to govern them. They can do that themselves.

Edited November 12, 2014 by Fox Fire

[WISD0MTREE]

The people of the middle east do not need us to govern them. They can do that themselves.

<insert picture of planes and towers here> 

Yeah, no. 

Edited November 14, 2014 by WISD0MTREE

[Greatnate]

But, its what we did with the Ottoman emire that is everything wrong with the middle east. What we did was the very definition of divide and conquer. We created nationalism and borders that werent real, we drew imaginary lines in the sand that do not even cooralate with cultural boundaries and opinions, andwe litterally just puzzle peiced !@#$ together without giving a !@#$. As long as we could exploit all the oil to fuel our own industrialization, thats all that mattered.

The people of the middle east do not need us to govern them. They can do that themselves.

 

Because everyone knows that Turkish suzerainty is better than western suzerainty. We &#33;@#&#036;ed up by promising the Arabs self-determination and then not delivering, it would be wrong to assert that the existing Turkish system was better than what came after.

[Seryozha Nikanor]

If wouldnt of invaded iraq it wouldnt be such a craphole of a place. Saddam Hussein atleast provided a strong and stable country.

[Dongs (old)]

We should indeed turn a blind eye to genocide.

[Wiliam]

If wouldnt of invaded iraq it wouldnt be such a craphole of a place. Saddam Hussein atleast provided a strong and stable country.

 

Agreed. I don't see any point in pushing for a democracy in such a vulnerable country. At least an established dictator will provide stability. All we see in the 'Democratic' middle-east is power hungry militias fighting for power.  

[Fox Fire]

<insert picture of planes and towers here> 

Yeah, no. 

lol. Ask yourself for a minute..... Why would anyone do that?....

 

 

Because everyone knows that Turkish suzerainty is better than western suzerainty. We !@#$ed up by promising the Arabs self-determination and then not delivering, it would be wrong to assert that the existing Turkish system was better than what came after.

It was. What right do we have to come in and tell people where they can live, what laws they can have, and where their borders are? And you all seriously wonder why muslims blow themselves up in crowds? The point is, everyone has their own domestic issues. They can handle it themselves. Would you find it "fair," "just" or "equal" if Saudi Arabia came into America and chopped up the states into a puzzle that doesnt corospond with the actual states and then convinced us that "The USA doesnt exist, you are all separate nations now and can never be unified again. Why? Because we said so. No other reason."

Does anyone here know what the Sykes-Pikot agreement is, or perhaps the Balfour declaration? Both of these are why the middle east remains so shitty while the entire western world has jumbed ahead in advancement and industrialization. The western world has intentionally supressed the middle east to fuel its own industrialization. We have taken advantage of the entire muslim world for numerous generations, and these are the consiquences of those actions. Americas dick is not that big. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, as they say.

 

 

If wouldnt of invaded iraq it wouldnt be such a craphole of a place. Saddam Hussein atleast provided a strong and stable country.

That he did. Not only did he keep extremists under an iron boot, he kept such a divided craphole stable. Plus, we litterally no excuse to invade Iraq, so when we did, Al-Queda immediately exploded in members. Thats why we still sat there fighting for years, long after the entire Iraqi army was disbanded.

 

 

We should indeed turn a blind eye to genocide.

So instead, we should intervene and get even more Sunni civilians killed so that IS can turn around and throw all that blame on us to incite even more rage from Salafists? You should see the mess we've made in Iraq. Keep in mind, American interventionism created this. What makes you think that repeating the same thing, over and over, will acheive a different result? There woulnt be a genocide going on if it wasnt for good old American Democracy.

Also, if our job to police the world and prevent mass murder, we need to go wipe out N. Korea a long time ago.

[Fox Fire]

Here is an interesting database graph of those killed in Iraq since our invasion.

[SoS]

If wouldnt of invaded iraq it wouldnt be such a craphole of a place. Saddam Hussein atleast provided a strong and stable country.

Which intended to spread stability to kuait, Saudi Arabia, likely others.

[WISD0MTREE]

lol. Ask yourself for a minute..... Why would anyone do that?....

Please leave with your tin foil hat. 

[Greatnate]

It was. What right do we have to come in and tell people where they can live, what laws they can have, and where their borders are? And you all seriously wonder why muslims blow themselves up in crowds? The point is, everyone has their own domestic issues. They can handle it themselves. Would you find it "fair," "just" or "equal" if Saudi Arabia came into America and chopped up the states into a puzzle that doesnt corospond with the actual states and then convinced us that "The USA doesnt exist, you are all separate nations now and can never be unified again. Why? Because we said so. No other reason."

Does anyone here know what the Sykes-Pikot agreement is, or perhaps the Balfour declaration? Both of these are why the middle east remains so !@#$ while the entire western world has jumbed ahead in advancement and industrialization. The western world has intentionally supressed the middle east to fuel its own industrialization. We have taken advantage of the entire muslim world for numerous generations, and these are the consiquences of those actions. Americas !@#$ is not that big. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, as they say.

 

The freedom they were fighting for in 1918 was against the Turkish government. You should note that Turks don't consider themselves Arab and Arabs don't consider Turks Arab. The British and French replaced a bad system with a bad system, no more and no less. It would be as if in 1776, the French decided that America was French territory and demanded Canada from the English, the American's would still be pissed, but would they be worse off than under the English? Doubtful. Replacing !@#$ eyalets with !@#$ nations does not make a chamberpot smell worse. Yes, we know the Sykes-Pikot agreement and the Balfour declaration, but these are simply manifestations of the regional weakness of the Middle East. If a serious movement were to have united the Arab peoples, you can bet that these foreign decisions would have been substantially more moderate.

 

If the British had kept their deal with the Arab revolt, we might be seeing a stable and powerful middle east, but that would be against British regional interests, so why would we assume that they would have ever kept their word. Small unstable countries benefit Western powers who can construct regional hegemoney to their temporary benefit, we shouldn't expect altruism from the victors of a world war.

 

Edit: Bet not Be.

Edited November 16, 2014 by Greatnate

[Fox Fire]

 

The freedom they were fighting for in 1918 was against the Turkish government. You should note that Turks don't consider themselves Arab and Arabs don't consider Turks Arab. The British and French replaced a bad system with a bad system, no more and no less. It would be as if in 1776, the French decided that America was French territory and demanded Canada from the English, the American's would still be pissed, but would they be worse off than under the English? Doubtful. Replacing !@#$ eyalets with !@#$ nations does not make a chamberpot smell worse. Yes, we know the Sykes-Pikot agreement and the Balfour declaration, but these are simply manifestations of the regional weakness of the Middle East. If a serious movement were to have united the Arab peoples, you can bet that these foreign decisions would have been substantially more moderate.

 

If the British had kept their deal with the Arab revolt, we might be seeing a stable and powerful middle east, but that would be against British regional interests, so why would we assume that they would have ever kept their word. Small unstable countries benefit Western powers who can construct regional hegemoney to their temporary benefit, we shouldn't expect altruism from the victors of a world war.

 

Edit: Bet not Be.

So because it was against Britians personal greedy desires, its perfectly acceptable to exploit an entire continent and culture of people....

Got it....

 

 

Please leave with your tin foil hat.

What tin foil hat? I was just asking why you think someone would do that? What could possibly piss off a group of people so bad, that they would steal a bunch of airliners and fly then into WTC? These people arent stupid. They've succefully beaten the worlds dominant military power in warfare, yet you think they are too stupid to govern themselves?

Typical closed off western mind. No wonder they hate the west so much.

[WISD0MTREE]

What tin foil hat?

Oh, I thought you were going to say something like "the gubbament did 9/11!!!1!11!!11!!!1!!!one!2!11" Nevermind... 

Edited November 16, 2014 by WISD0MTREE

[SoS]

What tin foil hat? I was just asking why you think someone would do that? What could possibly piss off a group of people so bad, that they would steal a bunch of airliners and fly then into WTC? These people arent stupid. They've succefully beaten the worlds dominant military power in warfare, yet you think they are too stupid to govern themselves?

Typical closed off western mind. No wonder they hate the west so much.

You could view this differently. Were Americans so pissed off that we invaded Afghanistan? Or did politicians use anger as a means to an end?

 

Terror is possibly the single greatest FA exploit. The west can justify doing anything, anywhere through fighting Terror. And by fighting terror, the west guarantees a future of terror to exploit. If politicians could wave a wand to eliminate terror they wouldn't. It's too damn useful.

 

If our respective positions of power were reversed, they would do as we do and we would do as they do. There's no morality in this, just expedience and grasping for wealth.