60+ killed in france truck drove through crowd...

He probably has WMD like Saddam did.

 

 

He probably HAD Saddams WMD (as in the trucks rolled across the border in the weeks we were jerking ourselves off over what to do about him)

What I'm most surprised of is that at least in Europe, there is a pattern to these people becoming radicalized. It's always a petty criminal, not religious, with a history of drug/alcohol abuse, usually known to police. How does a petty criminal who uses drugs become over the course of a few weeks a religious zealot willing to sacrifice his own life to take others? Makes little sense to me. I'd expect potential terrorists to be one of those extremely conservative types.

 

 

This has been debated ad nauseam here in the media .

 

I'm not in favor of the excuse policy but the consensus here is that they all have in common a very limited or extremely limited intelligence, weak minded psychological background issues , a fascination for violence, no will to assimilate, familial issues, the foolishness of

 

redemption in dying as a martyr i.e. they will be forgotten for their past sins : drugs, alcohool, haram food by their prophet if they suicide murder infidels (innocents) etc ...

 

I will say some really believe in this shit, the virgins, 'there is only one true god Allah' etc.... and others have found the perfect niche to exteriorate their death wish and their attraction for violence...

 

The world with Saddam Hussein could be very dangerous as well. And IMO, the creation of ISIS actually is not a direct result of the invasion. The invasion itself did not create a preordained outcome of something like ISIS arising. What created ISIS was the current Commander-in-Chief deciding to just pull all of the troops out of Iraq consequences be damned. This left a major power vacuum that then ISIS began to fill. Then when alerted of ISIS, he didn't take it seriously, referring to them infamously as the "J.V. squad." Remember, Al-Qaeda had been decimated by 2007 after The Surge. They had lost. The war was, to a degree, won. Won after far more blood and treasure then was supposed to be required, but still, the main scourge had been defeated.

 

Also I don't think the invasion left millions dead (although the number was still high). However, Obama did exactly as he said he was going to do. He made no bones about wanting to pull out the troops, and the American people voted for him, twice. So it is their fault, to a degree, for the rise of ISIS.

 

IMO, U.S. policy consisted of two major blunders. The Bush administration's blunder was in assuming that one could invade a country like Iraq and then quickly turn it into a functioning democracy. That was naivete in the extreme. On the other hand, Obama's major blunder was then in assuming that one could just pull the troops out and all would be well.

 

Two wrongs don't make a right...and that's best demonstrated here. Should Obama have waited longer before pulling troops? Probably, but to what end? As you mentioned, the idea that you can storm into a country and turn it from dictatorship to democracy in a few years was naive. Even after a decade the country was in shambles; so for how long could Obama keep forces there and continue to nation build? 5 more years? 10, 20 more years? And all on the US taxpayer's dime? That's not realistic or fair to the taxpayer, not to mention it won't necessarily mean that ISIS wouldn't still manifest somehow.

 

It's scary how the battlefield has changed over the past decade though. People are being recruited online and on forums and shit...the war isn't as simple as Iraq/Saddam anymore, its far more decentralized now and ISIS will obviously take credit for any attack even if it's some nutjob who was never actually recruited.

What I'm most surprised of is that at least in Europe, there is a pattern to these people becoming radicalized. It's always a petty criminal, not religious, with a history of drug/alcohol abuse, usually known to police. How does a petty criminal who uses drugs become over the course of a few weeks a religious zealot willing to sacrifice his own life to take others? Makes little sense to me. I'd expect potential terrorists to be one of those extremely conservative types.

 

One more thing I'm wondering about is how come politicians like Hillary Clinton, or Merkel or whatever keep telling us NATO can't do anything about these barbarians? Why can't ISIS which is comprised of what? 25-50 thousand fuckwads be eliminated in a week or so with a ground campaign? Why must we tolerate a terrorist state, accept refugees, bow to the likes of Erdogan who is strong arming the west to his will? Why? I see politicians are flexible enough to back out of campaign promises, why can't they be flexible and change tune to support stability in the middle east? In Syria's case it's Assad.

 

Can anyone tell me why Assad was so bad? Was he a bigger threat to the world than Isis? Not a bullet fired to Israel since the 70s, all minorities protected, peace and quiet, a stable country, no isis etc. Yes he opressed his own people when they wanted to engage in politics, but he also opressed islamists, many seem to forget that. Why is it that he can't be supported in order to restore order? Is it a point of principle? Politicians have principles now, is that it? What about the suffering of the 7-8 million people who are now displaced in Syria? What about their lives? Why subject them to this pain and suffering for a 'principle'? The minority of displaced people who have arrived in Europe are facing a hostile population, the rest also facing hardship and hostility, instead of living with their dignity intact in their own countries. Why was this necessary?

 

1) Anything is possible within a few weeks. Money, promises of riches in the afterlife and taking care existing family in this life are powerful motivators. You also have to factor in the cultural mind set. In a lot of Eastern cultures there is a view that the imperialistic west is a major threat to their way of life and that threat must be responded to. Can you blame them? Take a look at world history and Europe has done a lot of horrible things in the middle east in the name of expanding empires, so what we're seeing is the consequences of actions from a time long ago by cultures with very long memories.

 

2) They could probably eliminate a majority of those individuals but then you run into a few issues: A) You're fighting an idea, so you can kill all the people you want, but how do you kill the idea to keep another head of the hydra from re-spawning? As messed up as this sounds, instability in the east breeds fear and uncertainty, and being able to leverage that helps career politicians like Clinton stay in power.

 

3) Captain Chaos had and epic post summarizing that in another thread...if someone could track that down that's be great. Long story short, Assad is a hero and villain, and the whole situation is a total asteroid-sized cluster-f*ck.

 

By "reformation" we typically mean the rejection of archaic ideas written millennia ago by and for far less civilized people, without rejection of the entire religion.

 

In Christianity, it wasn't exactly EASY, but it was POSSIBLE. The Bible contains verses that purport to be "the word of God", but with the exception of the 10 commandments (which thankfully turned out to be fairly benign, and without a penalty clause) it is thoroughly acknowledged that it was written by men. Especially the New Testament which is nothing more than a collection of histories and letters from contemporaries and disciples of Jesus, re-telling his message. Its easy to reject, for example, a barbaric Proclamation of God to the Thessalonians, since we're not Thessalonians, the Thessalonians haven't existed as a culture or people for 2000 years, and the proclamation was directed at them... Or even more often, a specific Thessalonian. We pigeon hole that as "he's not talking to us, it doesn't make sense by todays mores, skip that one."

 

The Koran on the other hand purports to be the actual, dictated, words of God. It spends an awful lot of time going on about how "perfect it is" and how not a single word should be changed. Worse, Its not just a book of theology, "do this if you want to get to heaven". Its a legal text. Complete with crimes and punishments. Punishments to be carried out by faithful Muslims, less they be unfathful to the word of God. And finally, it casts a net over the entire world. It's commands aren't just to Muslims in 700AD. Its to Muslims TODAY... And theres no wiggle room! Everybody is to do this, or else... And the "Or Else's" aren't punishments in the after world with god being the judge. The "Or else's" are punishments and fines to be carried out BY MUSLIMS, here on earth... With one of the great catch-all's being "apostasy" or rejection of the faith... And ignoring the more radical versus is of course, in and of itself, a rejection of the WORD OF GOD, and thus apostasy...

 

How does that religion, with those rules, REFORM to the crazy ideals of a modern civilization, you know, where women have equal rights, and people have freedom of religious beliefs?

 

 

You can say there are "lots of schools of thought", but in Islam, none exist with the peace of mind that nobody wants them dead because they disagree.

 

 

Compare that to Christianity or Judaism. There are probably twenty different Christian churches within two miles of my house (yes, there are more churches than gas stations)... Baptist, Southern Baptist, Methodists, Amish, Episcopalian, Protestant, catholic, New Age, Calvinist, adventist, evangelical, lutheran, etc, etc, etc... None of them want the others dead, or are killing people because it thinks it gets them to heaven. THATS what a reformed church looks like.

 

Again, cultural perspective is what it's all about. We get the luxury of having a "reformed" religious outlook after centuries of bloodshed, imperialism and genocide have put us on top. Don't get me wrong, I am all for the USA and I love the f*ck out of this country. But what I am saying is if you place yourself in the shoes of the other side you can understand the "why" aspect of what we're seeing now. Let us not forget, the western world has done it's fair share of barbaric sh*t, our culture is not innocent by any means. But, because we've come out on top (look at the the impact of western influence on the globe) our viewpoint is radically different than a culture that used to be #1 in world influence and has lost that seat. I'm not justifying their methods, part of me does think it's be easier to nuke the entire region as way to hit the "reset" button.

 

Given that, you can see how it's very plausible that a culture that has remained intact for thousands of years would spawn certain facets of extremists in the modern world. And at the core, they are people are always going to protect "their way of life." The west has done this and these eastern cultures are doing it now. No one ever thinks their way of life is the problem and people are willing to die in order to keep that alive. So what do you do when you have someone that views protecting their way of life as "kill or be killed?" I'd say let them "be killed" because if they want to force the hand of "you or me," f*ck you I choose me.

 

My 2 cents

I think you've got it 180 degrees backwards.

 

I dont judge theologies. All theologies look odd to outsiders, especially without context. I kinda sorta belong to a theology that symbolically drinks blood and engages in pretend cannibalism to remind us to be good people... fcuking bizarre. But not a lot of roman catholic's blowing people up for god and pope.

 

I judge adherents. And the actions of adherents as they practice their theology. And yeah... By that standard, Islam is in need of a serious reformation movement (which of course is strictly forbidden by the Koran, since it purports to be the "last word" on the subject, and any attempt at reform is apostasy... Punishable by death.... quite a catch 22 there).

I agree with respect to the idea that there needs to be accountability on the part of the those who follow a theology, and you shouldn't simply be able to point to a book and say it told me to do it. I also agree that Islam needs reform but it's not going to happen by the force of outside nations. It's a very tough situation that really has no answer than but to use forward thinking, critical thinking, and scientifically backed reasoning to challenge and change the norms and beliefs of Islamic cultures. Then, over many years and even generations, the reality of Islam will change. Education + reasoning/critical thinking + a social push for equal treatment and rights of women (other groups too bust mostly women) will gradually push these cultures to the modern age. You may not be able to change the Quran, but you can educate the people reading it and this will change the culture that surrounds it. In that sense, you'd be right if we say we can "blame" Muslims.

 

When it comes to the theology, just as people can (and should) discuss and criticize political, social or scientific ideas, they should also be able to discuss and criticize (and defend - if they can) their religious ideas ... particularly if these beliefs result in rules and laws that apply to the masses. Without being able to criticize the theology and the scripture, how could you ever expect the followers to change? You say you don't judge the theology but the follower instead, but how could the follower ever change and progress if the theology is never challenged? How can Muslims move their cultures forward if they can't look at the theology first and ask why are we doing X, Y and Z? If someone can't defend their beliefs with any reasoning, they don't have a free pass to just plug their ears and go "alalala God is great"

 

I'm no bible expert but I do know there's some messed up stuff in there too and though you can take a snapshot of Christianity now and see that it's much more progressive than Islam, you can't ignore the fact that at some time in the past people were burning women because they thought they were witches...Such an idea didn't just disappear into thin air, it was pushed out because people saw that it just didn't make any sense and pushed against the theology behind it.

 

Witch burning may seem extreme, but now-a-days we still have people who won't seek medical help for their children who think they can pray an ailment away along with some nonsense herbal medications. Praying and using herbal medications may seem harmless enough if its a simple cold, but if someone is seriously ill, it's barbaric in this day and age to not seek help. So even in our western culture which is far more progressive than the mid-east, there are still non-reasonable ideas that stem from theology and fly in the face of modern science and innocent people (often kids) are paying the ultimate price for it.

 

 

I agree with respect to the idea that there needs to be accountability on the part of the those who follow a theology, and you shouldn't simply be able to point to a book and say it told me to do it. I also agree that Islam needs reform but it's not going to happen by the force of outside nations. It's a very tough situation that really has no answer than but to use forward thinking, critical thinking, and scientifically backed reasoning to challenge and change the norms and beliefs of Islamic cultures. Then, over many years and even generations, the reality of Islam will change. Education + reasoning/critical thinking + a social push for equal treatment and rights of women (other groups too bust mostly women) will gradually push these cultures to the modern age. You may not be able to change the Quran, but you can educate the people reading it and this will change the culture that surrounds it. In that sense, you'd be right if we say we can "blame" Muslims.

 

When it comes to the theology, just as people can (and should) discuss and criticize political, social or scientific ideas, they should also be able to discuss and criticize (and defend - if they can) their religious ideas ... particularly if these beliefs result in rules and laws that apply to the masses. Without being able to criticize the theology and the scripture, how could you ever expect the followers to change? You say you don't judge the theology but the follower instead, but how could the follower ever change and progress if the theology is never challenged? How can Muslims move their cultures forward if they can't look at the theology first and ask why are we doing X, Y and Z? If someone can't defend their beliefs with any reasoning, they don't have a free pass to just plug their ears and go "alalala God is great"

 

I'm no bible expert but I do know there's some messed up stuff in there too and though you can take a snapshot of Christianity now and see that it's much more progressive than Islam, you can't ignore the fact that at some time in the past people were burning women because they thought they were witches...Such an idea didn't just disappear into thin air, it was pushed out because people saw that it just didn't make any sense and pushed against the theology behind it.

 

Witch burning may seem extreme, but now-a-days we still have people who won't seek medical help for their children who think they can pray an ailment away along with some nonsense herbal medications. Praying and using herbal medications may seem harmless enough if its a simple cold, but if someone is seriously ill, it's barbaric in this day and age to not seek help. So even in our western culture which is far more progressive than the mid-east, there are still non-reasonable ideas that stem from theology and fly in the face of modern science and innocent people (often kids) are paying the ultimate price for it.

 

You have some good and interesting points, but what I would point out is that your bias is assuming your view point (western culture) is the correct standard by which all other cultures "should" be judged by. The narrative is they "need to change to be more like us." Science is usually thought of as the great equalizer but Science can only show you a "how", never a "why". And without the "why" spirituality and moral reasoning are going to be the guide people use. For example, science can tell you that all people are 99.9% the same biologically (the how), but it can't tell you "why" you shouldn't kill all people with blue eyes. There's no intrinsic value in the fact. If you want an example of science going to far, look no further than eugenics, which shows the dangers of a purely scientific idealism without any moral consciousness (like Nazi Germany).

 

So flip that around and look at it the west from their perspective. Your conservative culture has had the same core values and traditions for the last few thousand years. Now you find yourself dealing with an invasive culture that keeps telling you your culture is primitive, wrong and needs to be more like the culture that is condemning yours. How do you think you would react?

 

Again, I am not saying that one culture is intrinsically "better" than the other or that I condone the all actions of every culture. The point I am trying to illustrate is imagine being on the other side of the coin and then you will see there's a lot of what we're seeing makes a certain amount sense from a cause-reaction standpoint. When you understand that then you can get to the core issue which is "this is our way of life and we want to defend and preserve it."

 

Personally I think this is a war of ideology in preservation of a way of life, and in the long term I could see the eastern world winning out because the western world is far to PC and the eastern world with utilize any tactic to guarantee effectiveness and victory. In the west we have too much bureaucracy and public backlash for taking "extreme actions" for victory. On the other side, eastern culture is far more ruthlessly efficient. It's going to come down to "us or them" and personally I choose "us" 100% of the time.

 

"War doesn't determine who is right, just who is left." I'd rather be the one that is left.

You have some good and interesting points, but what I would point out is that your bias is assuming your view point (western culture) is the correct standard by which all other cultures "should" be judged by. The narrative is they "need to change to be more like us." Science is usually thought of as the great equalizer but Science can only show you a "how", never a "why". And without the "why" spirituality and moral reasoning are going to be the guide people use. For example, science can tell you that all people are 99.9% the same biologically (the how), but it can't tell you "why" you shouldn't kill all people with blue eyes. There's no intrinsic value in the fact. If you want an example of science going to far, look no further than eugenics, which shows the dangers of a purely scientific idealism without any moral consciousness (like Nazi Germany).

 

So flip that around and look at it the west from their perspective. Your conservative culture has had the same core values and traditions for the last few thousand years. Now you find yourself dealing with an invasive culture that keeps telling you your culture is primitive, wrong and needs to be more like the culture that is condemning yours. How do you think you would react?

 

Again, I am not saying that one culture is intrinsically "better" than the other or that I condone the all actions of every culture. The point I am trying to illustrate is imagine being on the other side of the coin and then you will see there's a lot of what we're seeing makes a certain amount sense from a cause-reaction standpoint. When you understand that then you can get to the core issue which is "this is our way of life and we want to defend and preserve it."

 

Personally I think this is a war of ideology in preservation of a way of life, and in the long term I could see the eastern world winning out because the western world is far to PC and the eastern world with utilize any tactic to guarantee effectiveness and victory. In the west we have too much bureaucracy and public backlash for taking "extreme actions" for victory. On the other side, eastern culture is far more ruthlessly efficient. It's going to come down to "us or them" and personally I choose "us" 100% of the time.

 

"War doesn't determine who is right, just who is left." I'd rather be the one that is left.

 

 

I'll say it... Our culture is better.

Two wrongs don't make a right...and that's best demonstrated here. Should Obama have waited longer before pulling troops? Probably, but to what end? As you mentioned, the idea that you can storm into a country and turn it from dictatorship to democracy in a few years was naive. Even after a decade the country was in shambles; so for how long could Obama keep forces there and continue to nation build? 5 more years? 10, 20 more years? And all on the US taxpayer's dime? That's not realistic or fair to the taxpayer, not to mention it won't necessarily mean that ISIS wouldn't still manifest somehow.

 

I would argue that yes, the U.S. should have established a permanent military presence in Iraq and continued to nation-build, which would have then only began to cost in terms of treasure as opposed to blood and treasure. We already have troops in many countries critical to national security, so what's the big deal with another. We have them in South Korea, Okinawa, Germany, etc...no big deal having them in Iraq. Yes, Iraq was in shambles, but then so was Europe after WWII ended. There were multiple civil wars and fights that were occurring in the aftermath of the war because of how much destruction had been wrought. A good portion of why Europe and Japan recovered and developed into thriving liberal democracies is because of the aid the U.S. provided in helping them rebuild. So maybe fifty years down the line, Iraq could have developed into a much more prosperous nation.

 

I'll say it... Our culture is better.

 

 

I would argue that yes, the U.S. should have established a permanent military presence in Iraq and continued to nation-build, which would have then only began to cost in terms of treasure as opposed to blood and treasure. We already have troops in many countries critical to national security, so what's the big deal with another. We have them in South Korea, Okinawa, Germany, etc...no big deal having them in Iraq. Yes, Iraq was in shambles, but then so was Europe after WWII ended. There were multiple civil wars and fights that were occurring in the aftermath of the war because of how much destruction had been wrought. A good portion of why Europe and Japan recovered and developed into thriving liberal democracies is because of the aid the U.S. provided in helping them rebuild. So maybe fifty years down the line, Iraq could have developed into a much more prosperous nation.

 

Tough to say. Europe is a western culture, Iraq is an eastern culture. You have to factor that in. Also with troops stationed there, the public opinion here is that we shouldn't be over there. The other countries no one cares. But with a loud PR issue in a foreign stationing of our troops (occupation) the career bureaucrats where eventually going to pull the plug. No bureaucrat ever thinks long-term...they only see "what's in it for me this election cycle."

So flip that around and look at it the west from their perspective. Your conservative culture has had the same core values and traditions for the last few thousand years. Now you find yourself dealing with an invasive culture that keeps telling you your culture is primitive, wrong and needs to be more like the culture that is condemning yours. How do you think you would react?

 

When your culture acts primitively such as beating and killing and oppressing women over trivial matters, then decides it wants to cut the heads off of the people who dare criticize it, then tough potatoes if they don't like what the West's opinion of them is.

 

Again, I am not saying that one culture is intrinsically "better" than the other or that I condone the all actions of every culture. The point I am trying to illustrate is imagine being on the other side of the coin and then you will see there's a lot of what we're seeing makes a certain amount sense from a cause-reaction standpoint. When you understand that then you can get to the core issue which is "this is our way of life and we want to defend and preserve it."

 

It has IMO nothing to do with "defending and preserving a way of life." The West is all for Muslims being able to be Muslim. They go out of their way for them to do so. It has more to do with the Muslims who are radical wanting to force their ways onto others. When one's "way of life" consists of constantly infringing on the rights of others, which is what Islam historically does, both to other cultures and peoples (conquer and kill, conquer and kill), and to its own women, then that "way of life" has to be destroyed.

 

Also, you mention about PC in the West, but I think you are falling for some of it yourself. Don't be afraid to actively say that certain cultures are better than others. The idea that all cultures are equal is PC nonsense. Certain cultures very much are superior to other cultures. What is not true is the idea of superior "races" or ethnicities. That isn't PC, it is just science. But humans have created many different cultures throughout history, some very inferior and some very superior.

Tough to say. Europe is a western culture, Iraq is an eastern culture. You have to factor that in. Also with troops stationed there, the public opinion here is that we shouldn't be over there. The other countries no one cares. But with a loud PR issue in a foreign stationing of our troops (occupation) the career bureaucrats where eventually going to pull the plug. No bureaucrat ever thinks long-term...they only see "what's in it for me this election cycle."

 

IMO, public opinion was against it because there was no strong argument being made in terms of why we should have troops remain. If we had a leader who presented such an argument, public opinion might have changed. If it remained strongly against it however, only then I could see pulling out the troops or most of them.

When your culture acts primitively such as beating and killing and oppressing women over trivial matters, then decides it wants to cut the heads off of the people who dare criticize it, then tough potatoes if they don't like what the West's opinion of them is.

 

 

 

It has IMO nothing to do with "defending and preserving a way of life." The West is all for Muslims being able to be Muslim. They go out of their way for them to do so. It has more to do with the Muslims who are radical wanting to force their ways onto others. When one's "way of life" consists of constantly infringing on the rights of others, which is what Islam historically does, both to other cultures and peoples (conquer and kill, conquer and kill), and to its own women, then that "way of life" has to be destroyed.

 

Also, you mention about PC in the West, but I think you are falling for some of it yourself. Don't be afraid to actively say that certain cultures are better than others. The idea that all cultures are equal is PC nonsense. Certain cultures very much are superior to other cultures. What is not true is the idea of superior "races" or ethnicity. That isn't PC, it is just science. But humans have created many different cultures throughout history, some very inferior and some very superior.

 

1) We say "primitive," they say "traditional." All depends on perspective.

 

2) This comes down to ideology...like human rights. No where in our genetic code is there such a thing a a human right..it's a pure social construct. Some countries have 14 human rights, others have 5 and others have 0. So we value them and they don't, but then we think they should be destroyed which violates the human rights that we uphold? It's an interesting topic.

 

3) For this thread I am not actively saying one culture is better than another because I'm PC and don't want to offend anybody. I am just playing a little devil's advocate to spark some thought and discussion on western paradigms of thinking vs eastern paradigms of thinking in the hope that people can at least see part of the "why" in the situation instead of everyone saying "i don't understand how...". Cultural bias is an interesting thing and we've seen it played out on this thread many times over. It's hard to foster objective conversation and debate if you're clearly rooting for one team.

 

My personal opinion (as stated before) is that we keep our people here, shut our borders down for 5 years to figure this sh*t out, any country that supports radical terrorists gets nuked and we call it a day. But that would be to "genocidal" if you ask the liberals out here in my area. I say f*ck that, my country comes first (sorry everyone in Europe, but I'm not sorry. Go USA).

 

When all is said and done, no one wants to be equal. Everyone wants to be #1, and I love living in a place that holds that crown and fully support us keeping it.

1) We say "primitive," they say "traditional." All depends on perspective.

 

Whatever they want to call it, it's oppressive to other cultures and as such, needs to be destroyed.

 

2) This comes down to ideology...like human rights. No where in our genetic code is there such a thing a a human right..it's a pure social construct. Some countries have 14 human rights, others have 5 and others have 0. So we value them and they don't, but then we think they should be destroyed which violates the human rights that we uphold? It's an interesting topic.

 

They don't need to be destroyed, just that type of violent culture. If they themselves must be destroyed, it is in self-defense, and as such violates no human rights. One loses their human rights when they start murdering others.

 

3) For this thread I am not actively saying one culture is better than another because I'm PC and don't want to offend anybody. I am just playing a little devil's advocate to spark some thought and discussion on western paradigms of thinking vs eastern paradigms of thinking in the hope that people can at least see part of the "why" in the situation instead of everyone saying "i don't understand how...". Cultural bias is an interesting thing and we've seen it played out on this thread many times over. It's hard to foster objective conversation and debate if you're clearly rooting for one team.

 

I think the "why" of the situation is quite clear: it's a murderous ideology that attracts murderous people with the rest being brainwashed from a young age.

They don't need to be destroyed, just that type of violent culture. If they themselves must be destroyed, it is in self-defense, and as such violates no human rights. One loses their human rights when they start murdering others.

 

The main point I'm driving at is that when all of this is forced to a bottleneck, it will come down to "kill or be killed." I want our side to be the be one doing the killing.

 

I think the "why" of the situation is quite clear: it's a murderous ideology that attracts murderous people with the rest being brainwashed from a young age.

 

Whatever they want to call it, it's oppressive to other cultures and as such, needs to be destroyed.

 

 

Again, that "why" as you framed it misses my point: From their perspective we're the murderous ideology that attracts murderous people with the rest being brainwashed from a young age. We represent a direct threat and as such, need to be destroyed. We want them to understand us and "modernize" their culture without first taking a minute to try and understand the people we want to change. Instead we dismiss them as "backwards savages" and then we wonder why they don't want to "modernize."

 

So long story short, we both view each other as the same thing: A oppressive force of evil that needs eliminating. And the inherent danger of such a view is becoming the very evil you set out to destroy. I think that's something to keep in mind, especially since people (on both sides) tend to adapt an "I'm better than them and am in no way like them" mentality. Christians did it in the crusades, Communists did it during the Stalin era, and Europeans did it during the "age of exploration.

 

When you say "they need to be destroyed," where does it end? Do we just kill ISIS, everyone we suspect is radicalized, all muslims, the entire middle-eastern region? We got Al Queda but then ISIS arose. so if we kill ISIS, how do we prevent the next head of the hyrda from spawning? These are interesting questions we need answers to if we are going to have an actionable solution to this issue.

 

Again, that "why" as you framed it misses my point: From their perspective we're the murderous ideology that attracts murderous people with the rest being brainwashed from a young age. We represent a direct threat and as such, need to be destroyed. We want them to understand us and "modernize" their culture without first taking a minute to try and understand the people we want to change. Instead we dismiss them as "backwards savages" and then we wonder why they don't want to "modernize."

 

So long story short, we both view each other as the same thing: A oppressive force of evil that needs eliminating. And the inherent danger of such a view is becoming the very evil you set out to destroy. I think that's something to keep in mind, especially since people (on both sides) tend to adapt an "I'm better than them and am in no way like them" mentality. Christians did it in the crusades, Communists did it during the Stalin era, and Europeans did it during the "age of exploration.

 

When you say "they need to be destroyed," where does it end? Do we just kill ISIS, everyone we suspect is radicalized, all muslims, the entire middle-eastern region? We got Al Queda but then ISIS arose. so if we kill ISIS, how do we prevent the next head of the hyrda from spawning? These are interesting questions we need answers to if we are going to have an actionable solution to this issue.

 

I do not see it that the radical Muslims see us as a murderous ideology with brainwashed people at all. They are fully aware that we are tolerant of their way of life for the most part, minus the oppression. If anything, I think that is one thing that they disdain about the West. They see it as weak. It accepts other cultures as opposed to oppressing them. They don't like that. I see it that they are adherents to an intolerant ideology that calls for the destruction of anything that does not submit to their way and that in particular disdains ideologies that are tolerant. Their terrorism has nothing to do with seeing us as a terrorist force. It has to do with them just hating the West and thus wanting to destroy us. Yeah, they are mad because we fight back and kill them in response, but they would still want to destroy us anyway even if we had nothing to do with the Middle East.

 

ISIS arose because we didn't follow up with a military presence afterwards. In terms of who we kill, we kill the violent Muslims, the terrorist fighters. We inflict so much damage to them that they stop fighting. Yes, easier said than done, that is the simple view though.

 

 

 

I do not see it that the radical Muslims see us as a murderous ideology with brainwashed people at all. They are fully aware that we are tolerant of their way of life for the most part, minus the oppression. If anything, I think that is one thing that they disdain about the West. They see it as weak. It accepts other cultures as opposed to oppressing them. They don't like that. I see it that they are adherents to an intolerant ideology that calls for the destruction of anything that does not submit to their way and that in particular disdains ideologies that are tolerant. Their terrorism has nothing to do with seeing us as a terrorist force. It has to do with them just hating the West and thus wanting to destroy us. Yeah, they are mad because we fight back and kill them in response, but they would still want to destroy us anyway even if we had nothing to do with the Middle East.

 

ISIS arose because we didn't follow up with a military presence afterwards. In terms of who we kill, we kill the violent Muslims, the terrorist fighters. We inflict so much damage to them that they stop fighting. Yes, easier said than done, that is the simple view though.

 

I can see that point of view. I do agree that they view us as weak, but a lot of radicalized people come from regions were the west has been significantly involved so there's even more of a reason to hate the west, as opposed to just hating us for the sake of it (though there is some of that too). That's the tough about about the human condition...there are no simple answers.

 

But western culture gave the world Lamborghini's and America, 2 of my favorite things

 

See mods, people can debate politics and religion in a respectful, coherent manner here. Now give us some avocados for unlocking that achievement

I'll say it... Our culture is better.

 

1) We say "primitive," they say "traditional." All depends on perspective.

 

2) This comes down to ideology...like human rights. No where in our genetic code is there such a thing a a human right..it's a pure social construct. Some countries have 14 human rights, others have 5 and others have 0. So we value them and they don't, but then we think they should be destroyed which violates the human rights that we uphold? It's an interesting topic.

 

3) For this thread I am not actively saying one culture is better than another because I'm PC and don't want to offend anybody. I am just playing a little devil's advocate to spark some thought and discussion on western paradigms of thinking vs eastern paradigms of thinking in the hope that people can at least see part of the "why" in the situation instead of everyone saying "i don't understand how...". Cultural bias is an interesting thing and we've seen it played out on this thread many times over. It's hard to foster objective conversation and debate if you're clearly rooting for one team.

 

My personal opinion (as stated before) is that we keep our people here, shut our borders down for 5 years to figure this sh*t out, any country that supports radical terrorists gets nuked and we call it a day. But that would be to "genocidal" if you ask the liberals out here in my area. I say f*ck that, my country comes first (sorry everyone in Europe, but I'm not sorry. Go USA).

 

When all is said and done, no one wants to be equal. Everyone wants to be #1, and I love living in a place that holds that crown and fully support us keeping it.

 

Under close scrutiny you will find some primitive aspects in western cultures as well. The difference between west and east is that the primitive aspects in the west are far more benign nowadays, 100 or 200 years ago things were very different. Religious nuts in the west today are content with simply talking shit instead of taking direction action. There is plenty of bad stuff I can identify. For example I find socialism and this obsession with equality, primitive, I think it's a return to tribalism. Despite its shortcomings in some areas, western culture is more advanced, and better suited to the times we live in.

 

I don't believe cultures are equal. Why should they be? Is it reasonable to assume the culture of France is equal to the culture of uncontacted tribes in the Amazon? They are only equal in the sense that they are both allowed to exist, but each in their own cultural space. Cultures can only coexist if they are similar enough, or start from the same premises and the only differences are nuanced and minor. For two radically different cultures to coexist, one must yield to the other.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Under close scrutiny you will find some primitive aspects in western cultures as well. The difference between west and east is that the primitive aspects in the west are far more benign nowadays, 100 or 200 years ago things were very different. Religious nuts in the west today are content with simply talking shit instead of taking direction action. There is plenty of bad stuff I can identify. For example I find socialism and this obsession with equality, primitive, I think it's a return to tribalism. Despite its shortcomings in some areas, western culture is more advanced, and better suited to the times we live in.

 

I don't believe cultures are equal. Why should they be? Is it reasonable to assume the culture of France is equal to the culture of uncontacted tribes in the Amazon? They are only equal in the sense that they are both allowed to exist, but each in their own cultural space. Cultures can only coexist if they are similar enough, or start from the same premises and the only differences are nuanced and minor. For two radically different cultures to coexist, one must yield to the other.

 

Well put. I agree that cultures are only equal in the sense that they are allowed to exist within their own cultural space. Now as fa as who's culture is more equal is a question of who you ask. Ask the natives and they say their culture is. As The French and they will say the French culture is. As the German and they will side with the french, ask Syrians and they'll probably say neither.

 

I do agree as well that the idea of eqaulism in the west does revert us to tribalism ironically, as each group fights for supremacy under the guise of equalism, but the reality is life is not equal. It's not fair and there is no "justice"...there "just is." The no such thing as a "human right" either, only privileges extended by various cultures. The concepts only are true and valid to the believers of the ideas.

 

When we look at the hierarchies in nature. We see apex predators, tertiary predators and at the bottom prey animals. We look at lion prides and when a new alpha male takes over he kills all of the cubs sired by the previous leader of the pack. We don't look at these things as being moral or wrong, we look at it as a fact of life just like a lion hunting a gazelle. However, when looking at ourselves as a species we instantly think of ourselves as separate or "above" all of that, despite our historical behavior being an almost direct mirror.

 

Maybe that's why I love capitalism, the socio-economic version of survival of the fittest, a world in which competition drives innovation and creation. Not trying to derail the thread, I just think especially with the times we're in now there's a lot of interesting questions and discussion to be had. Cultural darwinism seems to be at play in a grand scale. Or humans are just the most batsh*t insane species this planet has ever seen. Probably a little bit of both.

NO GUYS! He was just upset because he got a divorce and had no radical Islamic ties!!

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/...utor?CMP=twt_gu