Attack on gas plant in France.

[Lizard]

they don't listen to anything but sheer force.

Sheer force is what gains them power. We attack them - they call us evil for using force - the people with nothing more than 5 goats and a shack join them.

 

[Sanji Himura]

So attacking a holy site and potentially killing innocent people is completely justified if it means preventing a war?

Let's not forget history...

cira 587 B.C.: The Babylonians destroyed Solomon's temple, a Jewish site, in their conquest of the Kingdom of Judah. Another temple wouldn't be built until the time of Christ (4 BC) under the command of Herod the 3rd.

70 A.D.: The Romans, facing a third Jewish revolt in nearly 500 years of conquest under Alexander and Rome, leveled Herod's temple. The only wall left standing was what would be known as the Wailing wall.

The Muslims, later built Al Aqsa on the site of Herod's temple and declared it a holy site of Islam. Today, if you are a Jew wanting to visit the wailing wall for prayer, prepared to get ridiculed. Muslims in the area have a specific job to keep Jews and even Christians from reaching Al Aqsa.

If the Islamic religion is as "peace loving" as you claim it is, can you please explain why there are extra-tribunal courts set up all over the world, including right here in Texas, where the only law they follow is Sharia and not the laws of the land they are in?

Why not nuke Jerusalem and Vatican City while you're at it?

Destroying religious sites because a small fraction of religious fanatics is like trimming your fingernails with a chainsaw. There are millions of perfectly normal, rational Muslims who would likely join your fight against ISIS who would be inconvenienced, injured or killed.

This sort of thing isn't even an option for any rational human being.

Have you actually read what is in the Saudi's school books? That snide remark aside, the only reason why I won't advocate nuking Jerusalem and the Vatican is because the Jewish and the Catholics don't advocate killing non-believers like the Muslims do.

 

[KSaiyu]

Please allow me to fix your otherwise brilliant remark.
These problematic policies have been pursued by both major parties in the US since WWII. That's the broad mainstream left to right. Only libertarians and anarchists have been consistently and stridently anti-interventionist, IMO.

I agree it's played a role (I asked you about karma because my gut feeling is this is the 'general karma' for centuries of White European domination). but it's only given Muslims added incentive. The fact is Islamic expansionism happened well before Western intervention.

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

Islam is a vehicle for Arab Nationalism, and I'll expand on this in a post in another thread.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

If the Islamic religion is as "peace loving" as you claim it is

Except that I didn't claim that. I simply questioned why the West attacking Islamic holy sites is justified when Muslims attacking Western holy sites is abhorrent. It's hypocrisy of the highest order, and if you want to know why the extremists hate you, it's precisely because of this attitude.

 

[Carbonox]

Sheer force is what gains them power. We attack them - they call us evil for using force - the people with nothing more than 5 goats and a shack join them.

It doesn't make a difference. They think we're evil already.

and if you want to know why the extremists hate you, it's precisely because of this attitude.

I'd like to know where you got that from. At least in my case, extremists hate me because I'm an unbeliever who doesn't submit.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

They think we're evil already.

Have you ever stopped and wonder a) why they think that to begin with, and b) how attacking them with brute force will change that?

 

[Imari]

That snide remark aside, the only reason why I won't advocate nuking Jerusalem and the Vatican is because the Jewish and the Catholics don't advocate killing non-believers like the Muslims do.

Sure, they do.

It's just that most of the Jews and Catholics choose to ignore those parts of their holy books, just like the vast majority of Muslims do in theirs. Most members of all major religions are kind, normal human beings, despite all the bloodthirsty stuff that you can read in their holy books.

Catholics and Jews both have their own extremist groups that while not as large as ISIS are still pretty comparable in outlook, they abuse their interpretation of the religion to justify what most would call "extreme" behaviour.

Punishing an entire group of people for the actions of a few does nothing except create enemies. Should we nuke the Statue of Liberty and the White House to punish all Americans for the war crimes committed by a few Americans during the War on Terror? Should we give the whole class detention because Timmy punched the teacher in the groin?

Punishments should be directed at those who have committed the crime, not entire groups who may have nothing to do with it other than be loosely associated by name.

 

[Carbonox]

Have you ever stopped and wonder a) why they think that to begin with, and b) how attacking them with brute force will change that?

Yet again, you ask something I've already answered.

A) It's because they're grade-A dicks with guns who long for a state where they can kill and torture anyone they want. Not to mention their irrational hatred for people living in freedom.

b) It doesn't. Did you miss the part where I asked for annihilation of ISIS? Until all of them are imprisoned or in a bodybag, there continues to be an undeserved threat towards Western citizens.

 

[Liquid]

there continues to be an undeserved threat towards Western citizens.

And the innumerable Arabs/Muslims/Kurds/Insert Correct Demonym/ they murder every day across Asia Minor.

It's not just about the threat towards us.

 

[Imari]

Until all of them are imprisoned or in a bodybag, there continues to be an undeserved threat towards pretty much everyone who isn't part of ISIS.

FTFY.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Until all of them are imprisoned or in a bodybag, there continues to be an undeserved threat towards Western citizens.

And you don't think that there are elements of the Islamic community who feel that the West poses an undeserved threat towards Muslim citizens? Because they're the kind of people ISIL target for recruitment.

Yet again, you ask something I've already answered.

The answer so far has been "we're the West, so that makes us better", and it isn't worth much. Especially considering that, during the Charlie Hebdo attacks, you admitted that you have never had any contact with anyone from the Islamic community, so I'm still a little confused as to why you feel that you are ideally positioned to address the issue.

 

[KSaiyu]

OK I'll just ask.

What should we do with ISIS?

 

[Dennisch]

OK I'll just ask.

What should we do with ISIS?

What can we do?

Tiny cells, or lone wolfs are pretty hard to detect, and therefore hard to stop.

 

[Carbonox]

And you don't think that there are elements of the Islamic community who feel that the West poses an undeserved threat towards Muslim citizens? Because they're the kind of people ISIL target for recruitment.


The answer so far has been "we're the West, so that makes us better", and it isn't worth much. Especially considering that, during the Charlie Hebdo attacks, you admitted that you have never had any contact with anyone from the Islamic community, so I'm still a little confused as to why you feel that you are ideally positioned to address the issue.

Have I said that? It's almost as if you got bored of @KSaiyu and felt like speaking with my mouth instead.

By the way, no Islamic communities in sight anywhere nearby either, so not sure what you're expecting. It doesn't make a difference to the fact I feel threatened by Islamic militants living amongst normal citizens, while receiving state benefits even while they're busy murdering civilians in the Middle East. If even my own government supports them like this, then who's supposed to be on my side? Motorcycle gangs? Nazi street patrols?

 

[JKgo]

...I just can't believe what I read for past page and a half. What the hell? Really? Wipe everyone off and send a F-U and that's it? {shakes head} Talk about escalation.

I'm not gonna pretend I know all the answers in the world, but I can tell a pretty short-sighted one when I stumble upon one. Besides the horrific "scorched-earth" philosophy being preached by some here, how is spreading FEAR going to solve the root issue?

From intolerance, lack of education, poverty, history, and even lack of exercising will, political or otherwise, plus host of others that I've left out in a hurry, are some of the biggest driving forces of this.

How is killing off millions even in theory, solve that quandary?

...Too many Michael Bay fans in this thread, it seems...

 

[Dennisch]

Maybe it's time to go undercover in the various mosques throughout Europe.

Pick out those who seem a bit extreme and further investigate from there.

 

[KSaiyu]

What can we do?

Tiny cells, or lone wolfs are pretty hard to detect, and therefore hard to stop.

Destroy the caliphate. The simple fact is Muslims won't, and the longer we give legitimacy to these guys the worse it will be.

From http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/24/isis-brides-secret-world-jihad-western-women-syria

‘It’s time for action’
“The sickest thing I’ve ever done in my life is cross that Turkish border,” said Umm Umar on Twitter. She was using “sick” to mean “good”. “I’ll never forget that night.”

She was already in Syria and was the widow of an Isis fighter. In our private conversations, she tried to influence me with her single-minded energy. “It’s time for action,” she wrote. “Your Eemān [faith] will get sooo high during the border crossing,” she promised. “Big adrenaline rush.” After some thought, she added: “It’s sinful for u to be staying in UK whilst there is a khilāfah [a caliphate].”

.....

“Shariah is a perfect system who protects all,” wrote one female supporter on Twitter, “not just about cutting hands and stoning fornicators … like Saudi.”

Dr Katherine Brown of King’s College London compares the women who have travelled to Syria to join Isis to “individuals who went out to join the Soviet Union in the 1950s and 60s, who weren’t looking to fight, but were looking to become new citizens of the Soviet state. What’s interesting is that they believe it’s possible … Islamic State is saying: ‘You can have this perfect world – you just need to try a little bit harder.’” There is a totalitarian impulse behind this. By joining the state, these women think they will become, in Brown’s words, “perfect people”.

Melanie Smith of the Institute for Strategic Dialogue calls the “caliphate utopian ideal” one of the common “key pull factors” that draw women over.

They imagine a world in which there is little poverty and inequality, governed with perfect fairness under clear-cut, divine laws that work to the advantage of all. It is a vision that makes no allowances for the ambiguity and variety of traditional Islamic legal interpretations, or for the disorder of real life.

 

[Dotini]

OK I'll just ask.

What should we do with ISIS?

We should keep on encouraging them because they are engaged in self-destructive war with other Muslims?

 

[Dennisch]

Destroy the caliphate. The simple fact is Muslims won't, and the longer we give legitimacy to these guys the worse it will be.

That seems the most likely option. Unfortunately war is exactly what caused this crap, that and the hilarious way the borders were drawn 100 years ago.

We should keep on encouraging them because they are engaged in self-destructive war with other Muslims?

Fence up the entire region and just let them at it?

 

[Carbonox]

After some thought, she added: “It’s sinful for u to be staying in UK whilst there is a khilāfah [a caliphate].”

I actually like that. Someone should email this to Anjem Choudary.

 

[Dotini]

Fence up the entire region and just let them at it?

That's an approach to be taken by a realist, libertarian or paleo (Taft era) conservative.
The liberal or neocon does the same but dispenses with the fences.

 

[Rage Racer]

There is another alternative that would be just as unpopular. One nuke at Mecca, and another at Medina. Even the threat of nukes at two of Islam's holiest sites would stop a lot of the BS that is going on involving muslims. Granted that it could start World War 3, but let's be honest, it has already started.

You pick up a hammer and every problem looks like a nail, doesn't it?

 

[InSight]

Maybe France should ban all islamic symbols of hatred, violence and oppression, that seems a popular choice nowadays... It will be a great day when they finally do it, though.

 

[PeterJB]

Bombing the crap out of Syria (and killing millions of innocent people in the process) wouldn't make any difference because unlike Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, Al-Shabab and the Taliban, IS aren't confined to one general geographic locale. There are satellite groups and lone fighters dotted around all over the place that would still continue to fight. And because they've broke into social media, silencing them, let alone ignoring them completely has become extremely difficult. Even with loads men fleeing to Syria, there are probably plenty staying here and getting radicalised online, so it's only a matter of time before we start getting attacks in London, Madrid, Berlin, Amsterdam and Rome too.

 

[Christian_C]

I think we'll see more and more things like this happening until we can come up with an effective solution to the problem.

Let me be clear here that the problem is most definitely NOT muslims. Because that's the truth it is not. These people are not muslims they are simply a product of a desperate situation who are hiding behind Islam as a shield and using it to draw people to them. That is why naïve people are joining them, they don't truly understand what they're getting involved in but believe the propaganda and think it's wonderful. It's brain washing at its most finest and they truly are playing it to perfection.

The difficulty is creating an effective response and it's particularly un-helpful when certain factions immediately point the finger at Islam as a whole. It's not, surely that must be blindingly obvious in light of the recent mosque bombing? Granted that's a shia-sunni attack but it still shows you that shia muslims are suffering just as much if not worse than the west at the hands of IS.

A response is required to IS but it must be one truly directed at IS and its infrastructure and not one directed generically at muslims, that is exactly why the idea of nuking an islamic holy site is quite simply stupid. You would kill not only thousands of innocent people but inspire yet another generation of fighters even more radicalised than the current incarnation.

Muslims aren't the problem, vindictive, radicalised, hateful people are.

As a note, i'm an athiest but i respect peoples faiths, what they choose to believe is none of my concern providing they do as the vast majority do and keep themselves to themselves. It is not for me to talk down anothers faith or judge them based upon it. As such, i will defend them when they are unjustly picked out.

 

[KSaiyu]

Let me be clear here that the problem is most definitely NOT muslims. Because that's the truth it is not. These people are not muslims they are simply a product of a desperate situation who are hiding behind Islam as a shield and using it to draw people to them.

I'm afraid the unfortunate truth is these people are Muslims, and they are using the original form of Islam to appeal to a large group of disaffected Muslims. This is why you don't see massive marches from Muslims chanting "not in our name" and you have a major problem in Islam majority countries with convincing their populations to not take up arms.

I know you mean well, but not acknowledging the problem only makes it worse. And the assertion that Shia Muslims are possibly suffering more, especially considering the plight of Yazidi Christians is extremely misleading. Sooner or later people are going to have to start listening extremely closely to groups who actually understand Muslims, whether it be those who live in Muslim neighbourhoods or ex/current Muslims.

EDIT: The British attack was foiled by an undercover reporter.

For all those planning on coming to our capital city for either the gay pride parade or armed forces day here are a few suggestions.

- Don't be afraid to discriminate against the people immediately around you. By this I mean be suspicious of males over females, loners over groups and yes hard as it is to hear Arab/Asian over other ethnicities.
- You'll have to decide whether to stay and help/fight or run very quickly. Think about this beforehand.
- Try and have police/armed forces personnel in sight, but don't be too close to them.
- Have an exit strategy in mind. Keep it as simple as possible.
- Try and find suitable places of refuge. No need to discriminate at this stage, take an offer to hide in a shop from anyone as long as it looks safe.
- Follow police/fire/ambulance crew instructions.

These are just suggestions, and things to have in the back of your mind should you come - no need to obsess over it. People are told to "be vigilant" but I have doubts many know what that entails. I know this may come across as babying people but a lot of people from outside cities believe this ridiculous "we are all the same" pacifist view of the world and are unprepared for life in true multicultural areas.

 

[ECGadget]

You know, I am getting quite tired of hearing this "original form of Islam" being used to twist and manipulate people. Tell me what this original form is? Because if so, I have been practising my religion all wrong! Oh wait... 18 years of study in Islam... I must be quite an idiot to think that Islam is about peace and balance. Or maybe, just maybe YOU are the one who does not know what it is about. Sounds crazy doesn't it?

But no. Islam was spread by the sword. It was all about Jihad. There is that word Jihad. You know when the Quraan talks about fighting it does not use Jihad? The word there is Kitaal. That is fighting until the bitter end. How many times is this Kitaal mentioned? If memory serves me well, it is nine times. Nine times in 114 chapters and over 6000 verses. And each and every time it refers to a specific instance, not a generalisation. The most commonly quoted one is: "Kill them where they stand..." in chapter two, around verse 190. First of all, who is them? Them in this case refers to the makkan tribes who persecuted the muslims and caused them to flee Makkah. 13 years Muslims were forbidden to retaliate, despite being beaten, robbed, exiled etc. This verse in context refers to the treaty of Hudaibiyah, which was struck up to allow the Muslims to perform Hajj. Why was this verse revealed? Because the question arose that if the makkan tribes broke the treaty then what would happen? Being in the pilgrims guard they were forbidden from fighting so do they just leave Makkah with the Hajj unfinished?

I do wonder if you guys knew that circumstance? When today are Muslims barred from doing that? They are not. Therefore at this point in time there is no applicability to that verse. Similarly I could prove the same for other verses.

Moving on to the attacks in France, Kuwait and Tunisia. IS claims that this is what Islam told them to do. I assume they mean the original form of Islam, just like you? You mean the original form that operated like this in war?

- You shall not hurt a woman, a child or an elderly person
- You shall only fight on the appointed battleground
- A reasonable warning must be given in all circumstances
- You may only attack in the way you are being attacked. If they stop, you stop (with regards to not attacking more than they do)
- No religious building should be damaged
- Noone can be attacked whilst they pray in any way
- PoW must be treated with dignity and respect
- War must not be fought in anger
- A treaty is always better than war
- Only attack that person who is attacking you
- Livestock/farms cannot be destroyed
- No innocent should be harmed
- Food supplies cannot be cut off from an Enemy
- A peaceful resolution must be tried again and again

Need I go on? This original form of Islam you keep going on about is a fantasy of some peoples imagination. Extremism is disliked by God in every way, and Terrorism is completely forbidden. And whether anyone here believes that or not is irrelavent. A Muslim is meant to believe this and therefore is how he/she is meant to live their life. Original form of Islam? Probably far more beautiful than what we see of it today. Today the name of Islam is used in violence and people like some on this thread feed off this. Get to really know Islam, and you might be surprised. And if not, at least you will know that people like IS do not represent it.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

You know, I am getting quite tired of hearing this "original form of Islam" being used to twist and manipulate people.

It gives them a justification to hate without needing to feel troubled by their conscience. Some might even take it so far as to say that they have a moral obligation to hate.

The phrase "empty vessels make the most sound" springs to mind.

 

[KSaiyu]

Islam was initially "spread by the sword" as you say, and created rules to favour this. These rules have had to be changed in the ensuing centuries, culminating in the current manifestation of a caliphate in the form of ISIS. This is an evolution of the original laws, but being an evolution is still rooted in the logic and rules of the Islam of the years of Muhammad and the years following his death. I notice you conveniently didn't mention the views on slavery of those conquered.

Basically it's like you arguing if there was a neo-Nazi resurgence that neo-Nazis don't represent the original form of Nazism because they are going by a different game plan from the Third Reich. By your logic if you yourself were convinced to fight you would still fight, but by a different set of rules. What if ISIS in a few months followed the original rules to the letter? The reason a terrorist organisation can't announce their attacks is because it takes away the terror. Build a large enough caliphate and I'm sure they can then follow your rules of war.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Did it occur to you that, at the time of Islam's founding, the Middle East was incredibly unstable as warring groups prevented any form of stability from taking hold, and the early violence was a response to equally violent opposition that would have sought to tear down any rising power?

No, of course you didn't. You're off telling people what they believe in despite those people categorically rejecting everything that you say that they believe. What gives you the right to do that?