Serious Thread Topic: Can Terrorism Really Be Stopped?

[RightyTighty]

He's talking about the either-or fallacy.

Maajid Nawaz is a Muslim, no?

He can enact reformation from within.

I, as a non-Muslim, can criticize and exhort change, but not demand anything (at least not without being an asshole, since it's not my religion).

What I can control, which he alludes to, is my own government's counterproductive foreign policy decisions when it comes to terrorism. That doesn't mean I am "aligned" with Muslims extremists.

So you don't want to assist those who are pushing for Reformation.

I believe you.
.

And now you employ the very same fallacy that Maajid Nawaz described.

I want to assist in things I can change.

I provided my opinion on what people outside of the religion can do.

You ignored it.

It's now clear to me that many don't want a Reformation.
.

How long before you come to grips with the idea that the answer to you wanting the Muslims to be as faithless as the West is - fuck you and the horse you rode in on?

Great. I'll agree with Mr. Nawaz, you spin and deflect for jihadist atrocities.

There's really nowhere for this conversation to go.
.

There's nowhere to go because you can't deal with the fact it's none of your fucking business whether they "reform" for you benefit or not. We can back the reformers all day long, I back anyone who wants there to be no religion or make it so tepid it causes me no issues, but it's none of your fucking business.

Go clean up Christians beating on gays here, then tell those terrible Muslims why throwing gays off of roofs is really, come on guys, kind of rude (even though Paul wouldn't have minded).

 

[OldLady]

Jihadist terror can ultimately be permanently reduced if the religion can finally go through its desperately-needed Reformation.

That would probably require a certain degree of isolation, where enough of the world demands and supports it.

Unfortunately, too many (the Regressive Left primarily) refuse to hold the religion accountable and make such a demand.

What are their reasons for that? Well, that's an interesting question.
.

I looked into stonings and other capital punishments in Muslim countries a couple days ago. Not extensively, but enough to realize that the world community IS having an impact on stonings. While the laws are still on the books, countries who want to be accepted by the modern world are not carrying out the sentence so much anymore. Not in many years, in many places.
Every religion is tied up in its social customs. The customs of the society that creates the religion are totally entwined with the belief systems.
So I guess my point is, have a little faith, Mac, that slowly the religion is evolving, as all do.

 

[RightyTighty]

Regressive Left? Explain this to us. Donald Trump just had a very pleasant visit with the very people who not only funded, but also supplied, the people responsible for 9-11. And you think the Left is the problem here?

There's a problem here alright, and it ain't those on the left calling for Western restraint and religious tolerance and understanding.

Mr. Nawaz carefully explained the term he coined in the very post you quoted.

Read it, or don't. I'm not expecting to make any headway here.
.

You have a true gift for ignoring all salient points that don't fit your narrative. Those "alliances" that he speaks of, Trump was was just shaking their hands and drinking their coffee. Saudi Arabia, a Muslim kingdom, finances terrorism around the world (with our cash) and chops off heads but it's the American Left that's the problem? Fascinating.

Trump is a dangerous clown, and this deflection has nothing to do with my point.
.

You posted a quote from a guy who says don't cut deals with repressive theocratic totalitarian barbaric regimes? Trump just did.

How, exactly, does that not apply?

Um, again, I agree with Mr Nawaz.

How many times do I have to say this?
.

Here's his opinion on cutting deals with Saudi Arabia - don't, and Trump just did. You post his quote but you are clueless as to what he is talking about. The U.S. loves to cut deals with the regimes he denounces, that's how we get our fucking oil for the love of God.

 

[dcbl]

9/11 was 16 years ago. Can you still use it as an example of terrorism or not?? The 1993 Attack was 24 years ago. I suppose it no longer applies?

fair point

but it is really the only example you have

and it was not a persistent & perpetual thing that was funded, supported & sponsored by a group whose agenda is to destroy our peace and way of life

it was an attack on the government specifically; not an attack meant to cause fear of doing everyday activities in the general public

big difference; again, it was an anomaly, not a pattern of new behavior from a known enemy group

 

[Weatherman2020]

Not a lot of time for a detailed response right now but I think the following; forget about stopping it totally. Be it Radical Islam or Radical Christianity…there will be people who hate.

comparing "radical Islam" to "radical Christianity" is fallacious

seriously - Christians are not chopping off heads or perpetuating suicide attacks with mass support from an organized group

does not happen

If I believe that homosexual activity is a sin & express that view, or vote for people that would make it illegal =/= Islamic jihad

it's not in the same universe; yet, many on the left seek to draw moral equivalency - makes you look foolish and it makes it hard to take you seriously

I made an effort to answer OP without being argumentative; however, there IS one more thing.

We need to find a way to come together & agree on a solution.

Rhetoric like you are spewing in this quoted post serves to make that more difficult

we need to identify the actual problem & unite in an effort to slow it down & make it more difficult

talking about the Crusades or Timothy McVeigh or the Westboro Baptist Church (which is a hateful group, but still nowhere NEAR as bad as Jihadists) is counterproductive

So what would you call the OKC attack if it wasn’t terrorism?

McVie was not a Christian - his own words.

You don’t need to tell me. his actions proved it.
The same way a true muslim wants no part of beheading people, blowing people up, etc…

So you are saying there are tens of millions of fake Muslims? Because according to numerous polls, tens of millions support the jihadism taking place. You know why? BECAUSE THE KORAN SAYS TO DO IT.
You have no clue as to what you just said.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Not a lot of time for a detailed response right now but I think the following; forget about stopping it totally. Be it Radical Islam or Radical Christianity…there will be people who hate.

comparing "radical Islam" to "radical Christianity" is fallacious

seriously - Christians are not chopping off heads or perpetuating suicide attacks with mass support from an organized group

does not happen

If I believe that homosexual activity is a sin & express that view, or vote for people that would make it illegal =/= Islamic jihad

it's not in the same universe; yet, many on the left seek to draw moral equivalency - makes you look foolish and it makes it hard to take you seriously

I made an effort to answer OP without being argumentative; however, there IS one more thing.

We need to find a way to come together & agree on a solution.

Rhetoric like you are spewing in this quoted post serves to make that more difficult

we need to identify the actual problem & unite in an effort to slow it down & make it more difficult

talking about the Crusades or Timothy McVeigh or the Westboro Baptist Church (which is a hateful group, but still nowhere NEAR as bad as Jihadists) is counterproductive

So what would you call the OKC attack if it wasn’t terrorism?

McVie was not a Christian - his own words.

You don’t need to tell me. his actions proved it.
The same way a true muslim wants no part of beheading people, blowing people up, etc…

How would you define "true" Muslims? I find that interpretation rather interesting as true MuslIm culture treats women as property to stone under shariah law, if the men feel they have (in any way) been dishonored. Perhaps you are in fact referring to the "refined" Muslims, adapted to the customs and living among a nation that believes in women's rights and individual liberty without religious persecution? The two in fact are hardly the same.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Jihadist terror can ultimately be permanently reduced if the religion can finally go through its desperately-needed Reformation.

That would probably require a certain degree of isolation, where enough of the world demands and supports it.

Unfortunately, too many (the Regressive Left primarily) refuse to hold the religion accountable and make such a demand.

What are their reasons for that? Well, that's an interesting question.
.

The "reforms" you want are what happened to Christianity and Judaism in the modern world - the believers (mostly) don't believe or act in accordance with the faith. The faithful don't have actual faith. The faith of most is now equal to their Jesus Saves bumper sticker and that's roughly the depth (and knowledge) of their faith as well.

I'd be interested to know how you are going to suggest to faithful Muslims, who believe they are in an eternal war in defense of God, that they should instead act and think like the pluralistic and faithless capitalistic immoral Western nations who produce all of the immorality they are required, by faith, to reject? Good luck with that one.

Morality changed following the added interpretation of "separation of church and state", and the Christian believers had nothing to do with that.

 

[Mac1958]

Go clean up Christians beating on gays here, then tell those terrible Muslims why throwing gays off of roofs is really, come on guys, kind of rude (even though Paul wouldn't have minded).

One of these days I'll get you folks to stop spinning and deflecting for the jihadists like this.

Probably not soon, but one of these days.
.

 

[candycorn]

9/11 was 16 years ago. Can you still use it as an example of terrorism or not?? The 1993 Attack was 24 years ago. I suppose it no longer applies?

fair point

but it is really the only example you have

Hardly.

and it was not a persistent & perpetual thing that was funded, supported & sponsored by a group whose agenda is to destroy our peace and way of life

it was an attack on the government specifically; not an attack meant to cause fear of doing everyday activities in the general public

big difference; again, it was an anomaly, not a pattern of new behavior from a known enemy group

Eric Rudolph ring a bell?

As for modern day terrorism, they most often resemble Columbine than OKC; light arms and home made bombs. Or did someone special at ISIS make the pressure cookers in Boston????

The only reason there seems to be this difference you guys want to draw is the professed religion of the perpetrators—right?

Do you think that there are actually 1.5 Billion Muslims who are just waiting to be activated and will do whatever they are told based on their religion? I hope not.

So, therefore, you have to conclude that the terrorists are the exception; not the rule.

Now the OP asks what can be done. Now that I have time to weigh in…you have to deny you’re doing it this way but when ISIS claims credit for an attack, you have to hit them and hit them hard. As I said, every terrorist installation that we have 80% certainty of (or greater) gets tomahawked. If it is in a Hospital…well, that is probably something you are not going to hit. But if you’re talking about a base somewhere in the boonies…light it up. Every time. Make it clear that the days of non-retaliation are over. And by “tomahawked”, I don’t mean tomahawks every time. Sometimes assassins, sometimes bombing, sometimes drones with missiles.

Something else I’d do is that if the perpetrator has any relatives in an ally nation, they are on the next boat to whatever ancestral homeland they claim. It won’t always work. But if Junior Jihadi knows that mom and pop and Gand Dad Mohammed are going to be sent back to a Beirut ghetto instead of their nice brownstone in New Rochelle…maybe he thinks twice about what he is going to do. Fair? No. And, by the way, bill them for the move up to the full amount of their life savings. Indsicriminant Cruelty is the only thing the terrorist understand.

Will any of the above end it? No. But if you stop one attack…I think it’s worth looking at.

 

[candycorn]

Not a lot of time for a detailed response right now but I think the following; forget about stopping it totally. Be it Radical Islam or Radical Christianity…there will be people who hate.

comparing "radical Islam" to "radical Christianity" is fallacious

seriously - Christians are not chopping off heads or perpetuating suicide attacks with mass support from an organized group

does not happen

If I believe that homosexual activity is a sin & express that view, or vote for people that would make it illegal =/= Islamic jihad

it's not in the same universe; yet, many on the left seek to draw moral equivalency - makes you look foolish and it makes it hard to take you seriously

I made an effort to answer OP without being argumentative; however, there IS one more thing.

We need to find a way to come together & agree on a solution.

Rhetoric like you are spewing in this quoted post serves to make that more difficult

we need to identify the actual problem & unite in an effort to slow it down & make it more difficult

talking about the Crusades or Timothy McVeigh or the Westboro Baptist Church (which is a hateful group, but still nowhere NEAR as bad as Jihadists) is counterproductive

So what would you call the OKC attack if it wasn’t terrorism?

McVie was not a Christian - his own words.

You don’t need to tell me. his actions proved it.
The same way a true muslim wants no part of beheading people, blowing people up, etc…

So you are saying there are tens of millions of fake Muslims?

If it’s anything like Christianity, I’d put the number into the hundreds of millions.

Because according to numerous polls, tens of millions support the jihadism taking place. You know why? BECAUSE THE KORAN SAYS TO DO IT.
You have no clue as to what you just said.

What polling is that? Where was it done? If you ask the prison population if you think prisons are fair, you’re likely to get a different response than if you were to poll the police population.

 

[candycorn]

Not a lot of time for a detailed response right now but I think the following; forget about stopping it totally. Be it Radical Islam or Radical Christianity…there will be people who hate.

comparing "radical Islam" to "radical Christianity" is fallacious

seriously - Christians are not chopping off heads or perpetuating suicide attacks with mass support from an organized group

does not happen

If I believe that homosexual activity is a sin & express that view, or vote for people that would make it illegal =/= Islamic jihad

it's not in the same universe; yet, many on the left seek to draw moral equivalency - makes you look foolish and it makes it hard to take you seriously

I made an effort to answer OP without being argumentative; however, there IS one more thing.

We need to find a way to come together & agree on a solution.

Rhetoric like you are spewing in this quoted post serves to make that more difficult

we need to identify the actual problem & unite in an effort to slow it down & make it more difficult

talking about the Crusades or Timothy McVeigh or the Westboro Baptist Church (which is a hateful group, but still nowhere NEAR as bad as Jihadists) is counterproductive

So what would you call the OKC attack if it wasn’t terrorism?

McVie was not a Christian - his own words.

You don’t need to tell me. his actions proved it.
The same way a true muslim wants no part of beheading people, blowing people up, etc…

How would you define "true" Muslims? I find that interpretation rather interesting as true MuslIm culture treats women as property to stone under shariah law, if the men feel they have (in any way) been dishonored. Perhaps you are in fact referring to the "refined" Muslims, adapted to the customs and living among a nation that believes in women's rights and individual liberty without religious persecution? The two in fact are hardly the same.

“true” was probably a bad choice of words. “Average” would be better.

The “true” Chrisian would kill someone for working on the Sabbath if they follow the Bible.
The “average” Christian would probably be working on Sunday if their job required it.

So the definition is a Muslim who accepts that the Koran is no more to be taken literally than the Bible.

 

[dcbl]

Eric Rudolph ring a bell?

As for modern day terrorism, they most often resemble Columbine than OKC; light arms and home made bombs. Or did someone special at ISIS make the pressure cookers in Boston????

The only reason there seems to be this difference you guys want to draw is the professed religion of the perpetrators—right?

Do you think that there are actually 1.5 Billion Muslims who are just waiting to be activated and will do whatever they are told based on their religion? I hope not.

see, I never said that all Muslims are terrorists - so there's that

and again, Eric Rudolph was a much different situation - part of the problem is that we are trying to lump the Rudolphs & McVeighs in with Jihadist terrorism - they are 2 different animals

I don't necessarily disagree with your suggestions (unquoted here) - but part of the solution is to identify the problem

treating a possible situation like we saw with McVeigh the same as we treat a situation like Manchester is foolish

claiming that "homegrown terrorists are just as bad, if not worse" is not helpful

 

[SYTFE]

I'd like to get some thoughts from the liberals on this, because as a liberal, I really don't hear a whole lot of solutions to stopping terrorism. Probably because it can't be stopped. But I'd still like to hear if there have been any solutions proposed by the left.

Also would like to hear thoughts from the right about a real solution. Do you guys really think that bombing people into oblivion is going to end terrorism? We're talking about religious extremism here -- violence against them only adds fuel to the fire. Does the right actually have a real, actionable solution to ending terrorism?

My personal point of view is that you can't really stop it. I don't see how it's possible as long as people still cling to these poisonous ME religions. The only real way we'd ever end global terrorism is through a sort of collective spiritual and psychological evolution to the next level, where as a society we've moved past the violent idiocy of archaic organized religion. The change must come from within. But that just isn't in the cards for the foreseeable future. In other words, we're screwed and terrorism will become more and more of a "normal" part of life.

Discuss...

Um, cough..........While there will always be mice, some believe you actually exterminate those living in your house so it doesn't get worse. See in your case, you let them roam free and declare it a normal part of life. In fact, you open your doors to them, because most mice are very sweet, while a smaller percentage carry disease. Eventually your home is infested.

There lies the difference between the conservative and liberal approach.

If I ask myself, "What group of people would be best to put in charge of stopping terrorism?" Conservatives would be at the absolute bottom of the list. You guys fail at everything you set out to do. In fact, the only thing conservatives seem to be good at are making existing problems worse.

 

[Coyote]

People who are talking about domestic terrorism are also addressing the topic, but you seem to discount the toll that domestic terrorism takes. Jihadist attacks get much more media focus - in part because although fewer, they generally do a lot more damage, but in terms of overall fatalities - the incremental toll taken by other terrorist attacks adds up to almost twice as many fatalities between 9/11 and 2015. It's foolish to ignore them in trying to figure out what to do about terrorism.

Lone whackos can be terrorists as well, in fact, a number of Islamic terror attacks have been done by "lone whackos".

This is between 9/11 and 2015:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/...llenges-perceptions-of-top-terror-threat.html

WASHINGTON — In the 14 years since Al Qaeda carried out attacks on New York and the Pentagon, extremists have regularly executed smaller lethal assaults in the United States, explaining their motives in online manifestoes or social media rants.

But the breakdown of extremist ideologies behind those attacks may come as a surprise. Since Sept. 11, 2001, nearly twice as many people have been killed by white supremacists, antigovernment fanatics and other non-Muslim extremists than by radical Muslims: 48 have been killed by extremists who are not Muslim, including the recent mass killing in Charleston, S.C., compared with 26 by self-proclaimed jihadists, according to a count by New America, a Washington research center.​

Um, no, I do not discount any terrorism

But the kid in Charleston who shot up the black church? Calling that an act of terrorism that is comparable to Islamic terrorism is just silly,

I have to say that is a truly bizarre claim to make. This "kid" was a white supremacist, who planned and carried out a massacre with the intention of starting a race war - and that isn't an act of terrorism?

Yes, you *do* discount terrorism. Try explaining your logic to the survivors.

Redefining a word to fit your narrative does not change the facts - this is why many on the right refer to the NYT as "fake news"

I'm not redefining anything. What is terrorism?

• The United States Department of Defense defines terrorism as "the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological." Within this definition, there are three key elements - violence, fear, and intimidation - and each element produces terror in its victims.

• The FBI uses this definition: "Terrorism is the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."

• The U.S. Department of State defines terrorism to be "premeditated politically-motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience".

Seriously , trying to put the Charleston incident in the same bucket as what we saw in Manchester is deceitful

Really now? What makes it different - the number of casualties? Nine isn't enough to make it "terrorism"?

And when I say "lone wolf" - I mean an individual that acts alone, without support from an organization trying to push an agenda


This is why I asked for a link

Your link does not advance your argument, but it does bolster mine

The only example they cite is something that was really not terrorism in the sane vein as what we saw in England. The terroristic attack in Manchester was a coordinated attack by an organized group with worldwide funding and a global agenda

We would be well served if our media would make that distinction

But they won't, because it doesn't fit their narrative

You want the US media to spend less time on Dylann Roof's terrorism and more time on an incident that occurred in England? Personally, I think it's all pretty important.

Nothing you said makes the incidents I listed "not terrorism" or any less dangerous. The only difference is the involvement of organized groups. Ignoring those who aren't funded or coordinated by an organized group is dangerous thinking. Groups are easier to infiltrate, monitor, de-fund and act on - individuals not so much.

In 2011 Anders Brieviki hunted down, shot and killed 68 children and young adults, injured 110, 55 of them seriously. He detonated a bomb in Oslo that killed 8 and injured 209. He was a lone wolf, with extremist ideology but had no ties or funding with terrorist organizations. He had an agenda though.

 

[LaDexter]

the only thing conservatives seem to be good at are making existing problems worse.

especially since precisely NOTHING the GOP has done since 1998 qualifies as CONSERVATIVE....

 

[SYTFE]

the only thing conservatives seem to be good at are making existing problems worse.

especially since precisely NOTHING the GOP has done since 1998 qualifies as CONSERVATIVE....

The GOP apparently didn't get that memo.

 

[candycorn]

Eric Rudolph ring a bell?

As for modern day terrorism, they most often resemble Columbine than OKC; light arms and home made bombs. Or did someone special at ISIS make the pressure cookers in Boston????

The only reason there seems to be this difference you guys want to draw is the professed religion of the perpetrators—right?

Do you think that there are actually 1.5 Billion Muslims who are just waiting to be activated and will do whatever they are told based on their religion? I hope not.

see, I never said that all Muslims are terrorists - so there’s that

Yes but a ban on Muslims until “we can figure out what the hell is going on” indicates that some are painting with a broad brush.

and again, Eric Rudolph was a much different situation - part of the problem is that we are trying to lump the Rudolphs & McVeighs in with Jihadist terrorism - they are 2 different animals

Yes, I’m waiting on the difference…

I don't necessarily disagree with your suggestions (unquoted here) - but part of the solution is to identify the problem
treating a possible situation like we saw with McVeigh the same as we treat a situation like Manchester is foolish
claiming that "homegrown terrorists are just as bad, if not worse" is not helpful

Mcveigh’s victims are just as dead as those in Manchester. Not sure why you think one is better than the other.

 

[Mac1958]

Well, at least we've moved chronologically from the Crusades to Timothy McVeigh in an effort to spin for the jihadists.

So that's progress, I guess.
.

 

[ptbw forever]

comparing "radical Islam" to "radical Christianity" is fallacious

seriously - Christians are not chopping off heads or perpetuating suicide attacks with mass support from an organized group

does not happen

If I believe that homosexual activity is a sin & express that view, or vote for people that would make it illegal =/= Islamic jihad

it's not in the same universe; yet, many on the left seek to draw moral equivalency - makes you look foolish and it makes it hard to take you seriously

I made an effort to answer OP without being argumentative; however, there IS one more thing.

We need to find a way to come together & agree on a solution.

Rhetoric like you are spewing in this quoted post serves to make that more difficult

we need to identify the actual problem & unite in an effort to slow it down & make it more difficult

talking about the Crusades or Timothy McVeigh or the Westboro Baptist Church (which is a hateful group, but still nowhere NEAR as bad as Jihadists) is counterproductive

So what would you call the OKC attack if it wasn’t terrorism?

McVie was not a Christian - his own words.

You don’t need to tell me. his actions proved it.
The same way a true muslim wants no part of beheading people, blowing people up, etc…

How would you define "true" Muslims? I find that interpretation rather interesting as true MuslIm culture treats women as property to stone under shariah law, if the men feel they have (in any way) been dishonored. Perhaps you are in fact referring to the "refined" Muslims, adapted to the customs and living among a nation that believes in women's rights and individual liberty without religious persecution? The two in fact are hardly the same.

“true” was probably a bad choice of words. “Average” would be better.

The “true” Chrisian would kill someone for working on the Sabbath if they follow the Bible.
The “average” Christian would probably be working on Sunday if their job required it.

So the definition is a Muslim who accepts that the Koran is no more to be taken literally than the Bible.

The "average" Muslim agrees with Shariah law....

The apostates that you believe constitute the "average" Muslim are less 1% of the world's Muslim population.

 

[Snouter]

Yes, I’m waiting on the difference…

So it is your contention the afro american on white violence is also at the same level is Islamic Terrorism? Don't make the Black kids angry!