• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The Islamic Dilemma

Deacfreak07 said:
I think this is true. I have no doubt that the masses of radical Islam are led by their faith beliefs. I liken it to a similar situation to prosperity gospel megachurches. There are usually a few charlatans gaining on the backs of earnest believers desperate to believe anything that will offer them or their children a better life. Obviously Joel Osteen and Creflo Dollar aren't leading their flock to violence, but the psychology is the same.
Click to expand...

that's pretty much my take on it. I think the President phrased it quite well in his post-San Bernardino speech:

That does not mean denying the fact that an extremist ideology has spread within some Muslim communities. This is a real problem that Muslims must confront, without excuse. Muslim leaders here and around the globe have to continue working with us to decisively and unequivocally reject the hateful ideology that groups like ISIL and al Qaeda promote; to speak out against not just acts of violence, but also those interpretations of Islam that are incompatible with the values of religious tolerance, mutual respect, and human dignity.

But just as it is the responsibility of Muslims around the world to root out misguided ideas that lead to radicalization, it is the responsibility of all Americans -- of every faith -- to reject discrimination. It is our responsibility to reject religious tests on who we admit into this country. It's our responsibility to reject proposals that Muslim Americans should somehow be treated differently. Because when we travel down that road, we lose. That kind of divisiveness, that betrayal of our values plays into the hands of groups like ISIL. Muslim Americans are our friends and our neighbors, our co-workers, our sports heroes -- and, yes, they are our men and women in uniform who are willing to die in defense of our country. We have to remember that.
Click to expand...
 
No wonder you guys don't think ISIS is a problem. You think these guys are like your church going friends.
 
so you think we should fire up a WWII style conversion of the national economy, bring back the draft and go all-in on invading Syria to "defeat" ISIS
 
Knowell, I really want to know: what does a person have to say to convince you that he thinks "ISIS is a problem"? It seems to me that you and 8xDeacs and others are beating this point over and over again that posters or Obama or whoever "don't think ISIS is a problem". I think ISIS is a problem, I just don't think it's a problem worth sending a bunch of American boys to die in the desert over, nor do I think it's a problem worthy of abrogating fundamental American values of religious non-discrimination over. What is your threshold for acceptable problem-acknowledgement? It seems to me that if someone doesn't agree with whatever your preferred policy response to ISIS may be (and you're keeping that pretty close to the vest, by the way), you think that person "doesn't believe ISIS is a problem".

So tell me, since we both agree that ISIS is a "problem", what is the policy response to that problem? Let's talk about that.
 
Deacon923 said:
Knowell, I really want to know: what does a person have to say to convince you that he thinks "ISIS is a problem"? It seems to me that you and 8xDeacs and others are beating this point over and over again that posters or Obama or whoever "don't think ISIS is a problem". I think ISIS is a problem, I just don't think it's a problem worth sending a bunch of American boys to die in the desert over, nor do I think it's a problem worthy of abrogating fundamental American values of religious non-discrimination over. What is your threshold for acceptable problem-acknowledgement? It seems to me that if someone doesn't agree with whatever your preferred policy response to ISIS may be (and you're keeping that pretty close to the vest, by the way), you think that person "doesn't believe ISIS is a problem".

So tell me, since we both agree that ISIS is a "problem", what is the policy response to that problem? Let's talk about that.
Click to expand...

I am not saying that I have the answer. I have thrown out some ideas. I would hope the last thing we consider is a go-it-alone war against ISIS.

I think we need to have an overarching strategy that has as an endgame the defeat of ISIS and Islamic terrorism. Currently, it does not appear that we have any strategy at all. I think working with countries in the region with a carrot and stick approach. Possibly economically isolating countries that do not address their own Islamic radicalism issues. Financially rewarding those countries that do. I would have no problem stopping immigration from countries that cannot get a grip on their terrorist problems. Military aid to countries that work with us. Boots on the ground if there is a large enough contingent.
 
knowell said:
They are a threat to getting your most liked candidate elected, but that's about it.
Click to expand...

We disagree on this.

It's terrifying to me that people who steadfastly believe everything written in a book over 2000 years are running our country. That is a much bigger threat than a terrorist group located halfway across the world that has killed 45 people in 15 years on American soil.

I'm not saying that ISIS isn't a problem either, but as 923 said, it's not worth sending our troops over there in harms way to prevent things from happening here that are occurring once a year.

That is much more of a threat domestically than ISIS over in the middle east.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
I think this is true. I have no doubt that the masses of radical Islam are led by their faith beliefs. I liken it to a similar situation to prosperity gospel megachurches. There are usually a few charlatans gaining on the backs of earnest believers desperate to believe anything that will offer them or their children a better life. Obviously Joel Osteen and Creflo Dollar aren't leading their flock to violence, but the psychology is the same.
Click to expand...

They also are similar in that they are homo sapiens.
 
knowell said:
I am not saying that I have the answer. I have thrown out some ideas. I would hope the last thing we consider is a go-it-alone war against ISIS.

I think we need to have an overarching strategy that has as an endgame the defeat of ISIS and Islamic terrorism. Currently, it does not appear that we have any strategy at all. I think working with countries in the region with a carrot and stick approach. Possibly economically isolating countries that do not address their own Islamic radicalism issues. Financially rewarding those countries that do. I would have no problem stopping immigration from countries that cannot get a grip on their terrorist problems. Military aid to countries that work with us. Boots on the ground if there is a large enough contingent.
Click to expand...

The current foreign policy team couldn't organize panic in a doomed submarine. - @MBCompanyMan
 
PhDeac said:
Your posts dismisses that the NRA is a problem and your only examples of complexity are gun free zones and an undefined "racial issue."
Click to expand...
My post does not dismiss anything of the sort. YOU read into the post what you wanted to read into it based on a stereotype.

Classic RJK behavior BTW. You're going down the same path IMO.
 
jhmd2000 said:
The current foreign policy team couldn't organize panic in a doomed submarine. - @MBCompanyMan
Click to expand...

I couldn't care less what knowell has to say on the matter. Do you think we should commit serious ground troops to Country X?
 
sailordeac said:
Does anyone believe that the problem of guns in the US is not complex?
Click to expand...
Apparently there are.

PhDeac said:
The solutions are complex because the problem is so simple. To solve our gun problem, we have to untangle American gun culture in which many people have faith in weapons to solve their problems.
Click to expand...
So if we ignore the racial makeup of gun violence, gangs, rights of self-defense, gun free zone failures, drug laws, hunter culture, political drivers (on both sides), gun industry, military contribution, history and then boil it down to "having faith in weapons to solve all their problems" which is bizarre in and of itself, then it's simple. Wow.

Sure, if you ignore all the complexities and then make shit up....then Voila! A seductive formula if you can get away with it for sure!
 
I feel the same way when jh tells me that a two-parent household is a silver bullet solution.
 
knowell said:
I am not saying that I have the answer. I have thrown out some ideas. I would hope the last thing we consider is a go-it-alone war against ISIS.

I think we need to have an overarching strategy that has as an endgame the defeat of ISIS and Islamic terrorism. Currently, it does not appear that we have any strategy at all. I think working with countries in the region with a carrot and stick approach. Possibly economically isolating countries that do not address their own Islamic radicalism issues. Financially rewarding those countries that do. I would have no problem stopping immigration from countries that cannot get a grip on their terrorist problems. Military aid to countries that work with us. Boots on the ground if there is a large enough contingent.
Click to expand...

So, a couple of observations. Before you can develop a strategy, you have to know what the end-state looks like. What does "defeating ISIS" look like to you (I'll get to defeating "Islamic terrorism" in a minute)? To some people/states/actors, it look likes restoring the status quo ante with Assad ruling Syria with an iron fist and the Iraqi government getting control over its Sunni population. To others, including the US, it looks like Assad out and some kind of democratic process taking place in Syria. To still others, it looks like a safe Kurdish homeland that doesn't now exist and the Islamo-crazies contained in their patch of desert. The US is not the only actor in this play, and all the other actors have guns and soldiers too. Some of them have ICBMs. So what you are suggesting is not nearly as easy as you make it sound. I am not going to pretend I have all the answers. I think I can see pretty clearly some stupid things to do that would make the situation worse, but I'm sure the Pub presidential candidates will explain all those tonight at the debate so there's no need for me to recite them.

The "defeating Islamic terrorism" is a whole 'nother ball of wax. This is not a situation where Patton's 10th Armored is going to roll into the capital of "Islamic Terrorism" and "Islamic Terrorism" is going to strike its colors. "Islamic terrorism" (and any other kind of terrorism) is a tactic or strategy that weak groups use to strike back at governments and institutions that they perceive are oppressive or evil or apostate or whatever, but that the groups have no hope of actually defeating in open warfare. Ending terrorism committed by Muslims in the Middle East is not something that any grand strategy cooked up in Washington DC has any hope of accomplishing. For one thing, it requires the resolution of the Israeli/Palestinian issue, and our "ally" Israel has no interest in solving that. Getting to a situation where all the Muslims in the Middle East are ruled by humane governments and all the conflicts there are resolved to America's satisfaction, so that no Muslim thinks it's a good idea to engage in violent terrorist tactics, is... immensely complicated, and that is an understatement of the highest order. No president, no general, and no presidential candidate has a strategy to get to this end state, and anyone who says they do is bullshitting. All America can or should do is manage the situation, protect its national interests and allies (maybe get rid of shitty allies, but that's another conversation), and impose appropriate security measures to protect Americans. And we have to do all that without violating Americans' civil liberties, because if you do that, the terrorists have won.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
When you use a straw man future argument for securing "liberties" it becomes extremely difficult to have a rational and useful conversation on anything.
Click to expand...
"Liberties" isn't a strawman, gun rights are in the Bill of Rights. When you act like it's a strawman, then you FEED the very fear you are talking about and eliminate any rational useful conversation. That's why gun regulations dropped post Sandy Hook. People have the basic right to have guns. The only real question is what guns should or should not be allowed. The line has gotten stricter and stricter over my lifetime. There does not seem to be an end in sight until people are completely disarmed. That's the fear.
 
pourdeac said:
"Liberties" isn't a strawman, gun rights are in the Bill of Rights. When you act like it's a strawman, then you FEED the very fear you are talking about and eliminate any rational useful conversation. That's why gun regulations dropped post Sandy Hook. People have the basic right to have guns. The only real question is what guns should or should not be allowed. The line has gotten stricter and stricter over my lifetime. There does not seem to be an end in sight until people are completely disarmed. That's the fear.
Click to expand...

Really?
 
It is probably more challenging now to assemble an arsenal of firearms than when pourdeac was born. Those challenges are, however, marginal at best.
 
If the line were getting "stricter and stricter" then there would have been noticeable legislation passed that makes guns harder/a lengthier process to buy. Is that the case? Just last week Congress voted down a measure to expand background checks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top