Muslims burn 43 more to death....because the 40 last week wasn't enough

[Nick M]

It is lazy - killing people doesn't kill the ideas which drive them.

I don't give a damn about their ideas. I do give a damn about stopping them from chopping the heads off of non-muslims. They have excuse for their actions, and I don't have to try and understand why they want to do it. The only thing that needs to happen is they need to stop.

 

[Tinark]

I don't give a damn about their ideas. I do give a damn about stopping them from chopping the heads off of non-muslims.

Then all you'll get is endless killing and never ending terrorist attacks because the idea driving them isn't discredited. It will continue to draw new adherents until the point in time in which it has become largely discredited.

If we implemented your strategy with communism we'd be involved in endless war and communism would still have a large foothold in the world today.

 

[Tambora]

Except that these weirdo ISIS people WANT to and are TRYING to bring on the end of the world.

They are not trying to end the world.
They are trying to create a euphoric world where only Islam exists.

Launching nukes won't really deter that thinking like it did with Japan, will it?

Why do you think it is impossible for it to work?

Oh, never mind.
You are one that thinks there is no solution. So you just need to get out of the way.

 

[Tambora]

Then all you'll get is endless killing because the idea driving them and new adherents isn't discredited.

If we implemented your strategy with communism we'd be involved in endless war and communism would still have a large foothold in the world today.

Wait. You think communism doesn't exist anymore? Or are you saying that communism was weakened so much that it is no threat anymore?

 

[Tinark]

Wait. You think communism doesn't exist anymore? Or are you saying that communism was weakened so much that it is no threat anymore?

The latter. We don't see a large communist movement in the world today trying to overthrow governments, engage in terrorist attacks, voting in large numbers at the ballot box, and engaging in military coups to usher in a communist revolution like we did during the 20th century. The reason for it is that the idea driving people to be a communist fanatics has been so thoroughly discredited. Some still exist, but the threat that they could overthrow or control a major government is largely gone.

And also notice that communist ideology - the desire to impose communism on all of society, is quite distinct from those who wish to live under communism voluntarily in communist style communes or groups. Such groups peacefully co-exist within our society. One example is the Hutterites. Similarly, any Muslim who does not wish to impose Islam on the rest of society can peacefully co-exist within our society. There are plenty of such Muslims that exist who don't hold Islamist views.

 

[Nick M]

Then all you'll get is endless killing

You are challenging shaggy for stupidity. At least you admit their murder is really just mindless killing, and they have no excuse.

 

[Nick M]

The latter. We don't see a large communist movement in the world today

Except for the President of the United States.

 

[shagster01]

They are not trying to end the world.
They are trying to create a euphoric world where only Islam exists.

Go home and study the issue, little girl.

 

[Tinark]

Except for the President of the United States.

This simply shows your utter inability to understand what Soviet style communism was. It's bred by an extreme ignorance and your lack of education.

 

[Tinark]

You are challenging shaggy for stupidity. At least you admit their murder is really just mindless killing, and they have no excuse.

All I've stated so far that killing people who hold toxic ideas doesn't discredit those toxic ideas. Depending on how the killing is done (dropping a nuke which leads to indiscriminate slaughter of innocents, for example), it may actually fuel or confirm parts of those toxic ideas.

It's about a combination of best accomplishing self-defense goals, humanitarian aid, and discrediting ideas.

You seem more so to want to be vindictive and engage in a kind of collective punishment that has nothing to do with these goals (some Muslims are violent Islamists, therefore all Muslims should be punished, or all Muslims are of so little worth that slaughtering them in droves in careless attacks, as "collateral damage" against violent Islamists is just fine). Such vindictive and heartless attitudes fuel the ideology and violence which you claim to be against, make us less safe by encouraging even more terrorist attacks, and ultimately require a greater sacrifice of American lives from all the military interventions that such actions would result in, not to mention the great economic cost.

Nick - you are living in fear, and it is unhealthy and driving you into extreme irrationality and causing you to have violent fantasies. Your answer for every problem in the world is extreme violence. How did you get like this?

 

[OCTOBER23]

WAIT FOR THE NUKES TO START BLASTING PEOPLE AND NATIONS SOON.

 

[Tambora]

They can be contained. We need to provide defense for any towns they wish to attack to prevent them from gaining more territory.

I doubt ISIS is going to send us a list of the towns and dates they are going to attack.
You actually think we have the funds and manpower to guard every town for as long as it takes for your "ideas" to produce the result needed?

 

[Tambora]

little girl

Little girl?

 

[Tinark]

I doubt ISIS is going to send us a list of the towns and dates they are going to attack.
You actually think we have the funds and manpower to guard every town for as long as it takes for your "ideas" to produce the result needed?

Why do we need to do the guarding of every town? Last time I checked, these were middle eastern towns, and there are millions of armed forces in the Arab countries surrounding this area.

As I mentioned previously, we also liberate towns when the strategic opportunity arises, and let the society rot from within (which will play a contribution to discrediting the ideology).

When radical communism was spreading, do you think we had the manpower to guard every town in every country where the ideology was spreading that opposed the ideology? Do you think just attacking them non-stop at every opportunity would've had the same power to discredit communism as the rot that communism itself produced in these societies and the demonstration and evidence that societies that embraced western liberalism were far better off?

 

[Tambora]

It sounds to me like .....

We have already seen you say that you doubt there is any solution at all.
So you need to get out of the way.
You are useless.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Most likely.

Casualties of war, not the targets of war.

When there is war, it's pretty much impossible to avoid casualties.

So what should we do? Lay down our arms?

Well no. If you're a proponent of nuking cities then you're specifically targeting civilians along with any 'bad guys' you're hoping to take out. That includes women and children so you can't claim to be pro life if you adopt that approach at all.

Also, if you think the West would just happen to get away with launching a first strike offensive without serious reprisals in turn then that's flat out crazy. There'd be domestic 'casualties' in turn if the world wasn't actually plunged into full scale war.

It's sheer insanity, hence 'MAD' (Mutually Assured Destruction).

 

[Arthur Brain]

Still waiting for ya'lls solution.
What ya got?
Let's hear it.

Well if by 'solution' you mean the complete eradication of terrorism then I suppose in an odd sort of way your proposition might be the only actual method to ensure it. Unfortunately it would also likely result in the destruction of the entire planet as well so it depends if you think those odds are worth it?

Else, the sad fact is that as long as humans exist terrorism in its various factions will continue to exist as well.

 

[aikido7]

we went down this path before and i proved you wrong


why push the lie again?

Start cutting and pasting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_revolution

Over 60% of humanity has been successful in undergoing nonviolent revolutions.

Pacifism is an empty gong. Nonviolence is the power and is part of every human being.

 

[aikido7]

"Turn the other cheek...."

Jesus’ audience would likely have had firsthand experience with being degraded and treated as an inferior, including being cuffed with the backhand by a social superior, including Roman soldiers occupying first century Palestine. The typical options in the face of this violence were cowering submission or violent retaliation, which likely would have been suicidal. To maintain one’s position and offer one’s left cheek creates in the cultural and political context of the time a dilemma for the oppressor.

By turning the cheek, the servant or the leper or the homeless person or the child makes it impossible for the master to use the backhand: his nose is in the way…

The Jew was forbidden to use his or her left hand. It was only used for touching things deemed "unclean."

The left cheek now offers a perfect target for a blow with the right fist; but only equals fought with fists, as we know from Jewish sources, and the last thing the master wishes to do is to establish this underling’s equality.

This act of defiance renders the master incapable of asserting his dominance in this relationship … By turning the cheek, then, the"“inferior" is saying, "I’m a human being, just like you. I refuse to be humiliated any longer. I am your equal. I won’t take it anymore."

 

[intojoy]

Nuke 'em? Wouldn't that have killed the same people that were just killed anyway?

White devil