Paris

[deadheadskier]

Europeans tried that once. It was called colonialism, and one can point to colonialism and the artificial boundaries it created as at least part of the problem the region faces today.

You think the people of the middle east will except foreign occupation by nations that bombed the sh*t out of their families without the occupiers putting forth a massive effort to improve the lives of those who live there?

No chance. Terrorism would continue at a significant level as long as living conditions are so poor.

Did you guys read the article? Because I get the sense you didn't read the article.

The "living conditions" argument is liberal BS. When you actually learn about it, terrorists have a wide variety of motivations.

We can spin our wheels for the next 50 years and let the middle east continue to be unstable, or the rest of the world can take action and benevolently segregate the middle east along historic ethnic and religious lines. Sure, some people aren't going to like it. But it's the only real solution to the problem.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busines ... 7305331137" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... ts/384980/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I read some, not all of it. I don't disagree that it will help. I do disagree that it's enough.

I also do agree with Coydog that there's factions of Islam that needs to be snuffed out by the peaceful practioners of the religion. Indonesia should be a model. They have a secular constitution even though the country is 90% Muslim. Much less violence there.

You do need a major reality check on living conditions. It's not liberal BS. If some nation dropped bombs on NH, destroyed my house, killed my family members and then posted up as security on the street corner I'm not just going to say, "Man, I just happen to be unlucky and am victim of collateral damage." I'm especially not going to say that if the schools lay in rubble and there's no job for me. I'm going to be pissed and want those foreigners who destroyed my life to leave. So, then they kill me and guess what? My kid is pissed off that his father was killed and as soon as he's old enough he grabs a gun or bomb looking for revenge. The cycle continues.

Drawing lines on maps might change the dynamic of fighting between Muslim groups. It doesn't do enough to change their feelings towards occupying forces unless those forces bring a path towards a better life.

To say the terrorist problem is just Sunni and Shiite infighting or just the result of Islamic extremism is incredibly naive. There are global political influences, military influences and socio-economic influences all feeding in. The plan towards peace needs to focus on all of them.

[deadheadskier]

It was a bit more than just a bomb. Pretty much what we did in Japan as far as nation rebuilding is what I'm advocating for in the Middle East.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/19 ... nstruction" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[madhatter]

It was a bit more than just a bomb. Pretty much what we did in Japan as far as nation rebuilding is what I'm advocating for in the Middle East.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/19 ... nstruction" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

first you need surrender, then you need terms of surrender, then you need adherence to those terms by both sides...it'd be nice but the only way the japanese agreed to any of that was because absolute annihilation was all but certain otherwise...doubt there are any shortcuts so we'll likely need to start from square one, which as far as I can see, is to put the "enemy" in a position where its options are surrender or cease to exist...we're not anywhere near there right now...

[Bubba]

Europeans tried that once. It was called colonialism, and one can point to colonialism and the artificial boundaries it created as at least part of the problem the region faces today.

You think the people of the middle east will except foreign occupation by nations that bombed the sh*t out of their families without the occupiers putting forth a massive effort to improve the lives of those who live there?

No chance. Terrorism would continue at a significant level as long as living conditions are so poor.

Did you guys read the article? Because I get the sense you didn't read the article.

The "living conditions" argument is liberal BS. When you actually learn about it, terrorists have a wide variety of motivations.

We can spin our wheels for the next 50 years and let the middle east continue to be unstable, or the rest of the world can take action and benevolently segregate the middle east along historic ethnic and religious lines. Sure, some people aren't going to like it. But it's the only real solution to the problem.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busines ... 7305331137" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... ts/384980/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Actually no, I didn't read the article, but if the article says redraw the map along ethnic lines, that's what would need to be done. European colonialists and the Ottoman Empire drew the map as it is today and that is the cause of some of the issues. That was my sole point.

[Highway Star]

Europeans tried that once. It was called colonialism, and one can point to colonialism and the artificial boundaries it created as at least part of the problem the region faces today.

You think the people of the middle east will except foreign occupation by nations that bombed the sh*t out of their families without the occupiers putting forth a massive effort to improve the lives of those who live there?

No chance. Terrorism would continue at a significant level as long as living conditions are so poor.

Did you guys read the article? Because I get the sense you didn't read the article.

The "living conditions" argument is liberal BS. When you actually learn about it, terrorists have a wide variety of motivations.

We can spin our wheels for the next 50 years and let the middle east continue to be unstable, or the rest of the world can take action and benevolently segregate the middle east along historic ethnic and religious lines. Sure, some people aren't going to like it. But it's the only real solution to the problem.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busines ... 7305331137" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... ts/384980/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I read some, not all of it. I don't disagree that it will help. I do disagree that it's enough.

I also do agree with Coydog that there's factions of Islam that needs to be snuffed out by the peaceful practioners of the religion. Indonesia should be a model. They have a secular constitution even though the country is 90% Muslim. Much less violence there.

You do need a major reality check on living conditions. It's not liberal BS. If some nation dropped bombs on NH, destroyed my house, killed my family members and then posted up as security on the street corner I'm not just going to say, "Man, I just happen to be unlucky and am victim of collateral damage." I'm especially not going to say that if the schools lay in rubble and there's no job for me. I'm going to be pissed and want those foreigners who destroyed my life to leave. So, then they kill me and guess what? My kid is pissed off that his father was killed and as soon as he's old enough he grabs a gun or bomb looking for revenge. The cycle continues.

Drawing lines on maps might change the dynamic of fighting between Muslim groups. It doesn't do enough to change their feelings towards occupying forces unless those forces bring a path towards a better life.

To say the terrorist problem is just Sunni and Shiite infighting or just the result of Islamic extremism is incredibly naive. There are global political influences, military influences and socio-economic influences all feeding in. The plan towards peace needs to focus on all of them.

Again you're missing the point. We're not at war with these people because "they're ticked off we bombed them". Do you really understand how absurd that sounds?

[deadheadskier]

It was a bit more than just a bomb. Pretty much what we did in Japan as far as nation rebuilding is what I'm advocating for in the Middle East.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/19 ... nstruction" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

first you need surrender, then you need terms of surrender, then you need adherence to those terms by both sides...it'd be nice but the only way the japanese agreed to any of that was because absolute annihilation was all but certain otherwise...doubt there are any shortcuts so we'll likely need to start from square one, which as far as I can see, is to put the "enemy" in a position where its options are surrender or cease to exist...we're not anywhere near there right now...

The problem being the enemy of today isn't confined to a small island. It was easy to see annihilation coming.

How do you negotiate surrender and eliminate the extremists in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, all over Africa, Europe and here in the US?

We could nuke Raqqa, Mecca, Kabul, Tehran and Islamabad tomorrow and still probably not have anyone to negotiate conditions of surrender and peace after wartime with.

[deadheadskier]

Europeans tried that once. It was called colonialism, and one can point to colonialism and the artificial boundaries it created as at least part of the problem the region faces today.

You think the people of the middle east will except foreign occupation by nations that bombed the sh*t out of their families without the occupiers putting forth a massive effort to improve the lives of those who live there?

No chance. Terrorism would continue at a significant level as long as living conditions are so poor.

Did you guys read the article? Because I get the sense you didn't read the article.

The "living conditions" argument is liberal BS. When you actually learn about it, terrorists have a wide variety of motivations.

We can spin our wheels for the next 50 years and let the middle east continue to be unstable, or the rest of the world can take action and benevolently segregate the middle east along historic ethnic and religious lines. Sure, some people aren't going to like it. But it's the only real solution to the problem.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busines ... 7305331137" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... ts/384980/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I read some, not all of it. I don't disagree that it will help. I do disagree that it's enough.

I also do agree with Coydog that there's factions of Islam that needs to be snuffed out by the peaceful practioners of the religion. Indonesia should be a model. They have a secular constitution even though the country is 90% Muslim. Much less violence there.

You do need a major reality check on living conditions. It's not liberal BS. If some nation dropped bombs on NH, destroyed my house, killed my family members and then posted up as security on the street corner I'm not just going to say, "Man, I just happen to be unlucky and am victim of collateral damage." I'm especially not going to say that if the schools lay in rubble and there's no job for me. I'm going to be pissed and want those foreigners who destroyed my life to leave. So, then they kill me and guess what? My kid is pissed off that his father was killed and as soon as he's old enough he grabs a gun or bomb looking for revenge. The cycle continues.

Drawing lines on maps might change the dynamic of fighting between Muslim groups. It doesn't do enough to change their feelings towards occupying forces unless those forces bring a path towards a better life.

To say the terrorist problem is just Sunni and Shiite infighting or just the result of Islamic extremism is incredibly naive. There are global political influences, military influences and socio-economic influences all feeding in. The plan towards peace needs to focus on all of them.

Again you're missing the point. We're not at war with these people because "they're ticked off we bombed them". Do you really understand how absurd that sounds?

This is more than a faith based war.

[Highway Star]

This is more than a faith based war.

Not really. It is little more than a religious war. Why is that so hard to believe for some people, and especially liberals?

http://www.theatlantic.com/internationa ... ic/385710/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[deadheadskier]

This is more than a faith based war.

Not really. It is little more than a religious war. Why is that so hard to believe for some people, and especially liberals?

Have ever actually talked to an Iraqi?

Go ahead, ask them about the hatred for westerners. It extends beyond religious differences.

Don't know what's so difficult for you to understand that many of them are pissed we bombed the sh*t out of their country and killed there family members. They lose everything to the evil white man, so they kill us in the name of Allah because that justifies the behavior as okay. It's not all about spreading wahhabism. That's a big part, but not all of it.

[Coydog]

Actually no, I didn't read the article, but if the article says redraw the map along ethnic lines, that's what would need to be done. European colonialists and the Ottoman Empire drew the map as it is today and that is the cause of some of the issues. That was my sole point.

The Atlantic article is a long read, but quite good and worth the time. Saw it when it first came out and found it very illuminating. Don't recall it mentioning re-mapping, but I could be wrong. Here’s my Cliff notes version:

The Islamic State is the evolution of al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and gained increased power by taking advantage of the war in Syria. They are fundamentalist Koran-thumpers who adhere to a strict medieval interpretation of Islam. They wish to return the world to a 7th century system of law and order by establishing a caliphate that all Muslims must emigrate to. There’s a fair amount of in-fighting, but their ultimate goal is to drag the Western powers into the holy land for a final battle of civilizations to bring about the apocalypse. They win.

Presumably after that, they get their 100 virgins.

[madhatter]

It was a bit more than just a bomb. Pretty much what we did in Japan as far as nation rebuilding is what I'm advocating for in the Middle East.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/19 ... nstruction" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

first you need surrender, then you need terms of surrender, then you need adherence to those terms by both sides...it'd be nice but the only way the japanese agreed to any of that was because absolute annihilation was all but certain otherwise...doubt there are any shortcuts so we'll likely need to start from square one, which as far as I can see, is to put the "enemy" in a position where its options are surrender or cease to exist...we're not anywhere near there right now...

The problem being the enemy of today isn't confined to a small island. It was easy to see annihilation coming.

How do you negotiate surrender and eliminate the extremists in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, all over Africa, Europe and here in the US?

We could nuke Raqqa, Mecca, Kabul, Tehran and Islamabad tomorrow and still probably not have anyone to negotiate conditions of surrender and peace after wartime with.

you kill enough of them that no one will stand w them for fear of being killed also... ya know exactly what they are doing to gain power in their region, you are with them or you are dead...who's gonna stand up to that? submission only comes when defeat is certain...

[madhatter]

Actually no, I didn't read the article, but if the article says redraw the map along ethnic lines, that's what would need to be done. European colonialists and the Ottoman Empire drew the map as it is today and that is the cause of some of the issues. That was my sole point.

The Atlantic article is a long read, but quite good and worth the time. Saw it when it first came out and found it very illuminating. Don't recall it mentioning re-mapping, but I could be wrong. Here’s my Cliff notes version:

The Islamic State is the evolution of al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and gained increased power by taking advantage of the war in Syria. They are fundamentalist Koran-thumpers who adhere to a strict medieval interpretation of Islam. They wish to return the world to a 7th century system of law and order by establishing a caliphate that all Muslims must emigrate to. There’s a fair amount of in-fighting, but their ultimate goal is to drag the Western powers into the holy land for a final battle of civilizations to bring about the apocalypse. They win.

Presumably after that, they get their 100 virgins.

pretty much seems you can only beat an enemy that is happy with creating an apocalypse by absolute annihilation of that enemy...its where we will have to go eventually, us or them... that's the way they already see it, probably about time we wise up to it...


reality is a harsh mistress, best to see her for what she is and act accordingly, than to ignore and succumb to her will...

[Rime & Reason]

Presumably after that, they get their 100 virgins.

Dude, it's 72 virgins, not 100. Get yer facts straight.

Are the female suicide bombers also rewarded with virgins?

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

You all know about the allegations we funded those that"became ISIS" in order to destabilize Syria and take out Assad?

What do you all think of these allegations (such as the pictures of McCain with ISIS founders)? (or the video which supposedly came from McCain staffer showing "ISIS desert beheading video" actually being made in a sophisticated studio in front of a green screen?)

And....on the issue of accepting refugees in USA...

Just an idea here…. Some folks are addicted to the idea that we have to remain open to virtually all refugees …others are hesitant to extend that KINDNESS to all populations because of the assessment of risk inherent in admitting masses from CERTAIN populations.

I am hesitant to admit Syrian refugees because I think our government IS NOT GOOD AT ANYTHING and that would include vetting refugees.

So…all ye progressives… you say the risk is worth it for you, for your principles….how about “putting your money where your mouth is" and sign a pledge…

The pledge would say:

“I am of full confidence that our government will properly vet ALL Syrians refugees and I will therefore personally vouch for their behavior. If any Syrian refugee performs acts of terrorism I shall be held personally liable for the consequences of those acts up to and including damage to properties and premeditated murder. In any and all acts they perform I should be held legally liable as an accessory to those crimes.”

Might be able to make such a document legally binding?

If not for ordinary citizens….how about for legislators.

If my kids die from an act of terrorism involving refugees... I expect to see Malloy at the funeral.

I expect to go to jail shortly after.

[Coydog]

Presumably after that, they get their 100 virgins.

Dude, it's 72 virgins, not 100. Get yer facts straight.

Are the female suicide bombers also rewarded with virgins?

I’m sure sufficiently worthy female participants would receive the same rights and privileges as they had in the 7th century.