• 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!

islam

The so called "success" of the surge in Iraq was always a scam. It would only be a "success" if we kept paying (and probably increasing the bribes) forever. Once we stopped paying them, it was inevitably going to be game on and with more weapons.

There's no way around W's immoral war in Iraq and moronic disbanding of the Iraqi army created ISIS.
 
What do folks propose we do as America to stop the events that occurred in Istanbul yesterday?

They are no good options. I see two ways forward.

1) The Trump approach: Wall our selves off from the problem allowing the Muslims to fight it out amongst themselves probably leading to lots of death and suffering and a difficult to predict outcome. I would suggest that this approach will on the short term save American lives but in the long run will be very costly since Russia will probably just take over the Middle East on the pretense of peace keeping. Alternatively Further increasing conflicts will likely spill over in to Israel and Europe, and that will eventually force us to get involved under the rules of NATO or to save/protect Israel. The only way to keep our selves out of this in the long term is to become completely energy independent and politically isolationist very quickly. So, take all the money we save not re-invading Iraq, etc, and build a motherfucking-shit ton of windmills and electric cars. Additionally, climate change predictions indicate that vast swaths of the middle east (the core of the islamofascist world) will, within 50 to 80 years, be uninhabitable for humans due to extreme heat and lack of water... so, maybe this problem will just solve itself if we contain it for long enough.

2) Full scale D-day type invasion and subsequent Marshall type plan for the Middle East, and north/central African. The ultimate objective of WW2 was to stamp out the awful Nazi and Fascist ideas and philosophies that were the main stream in Germany, Spain, Italy and Japan. A war on an idea is difficult to conceive and organize and I believe eventually will require a full scale invasion and eradication of the adherents of those bad ideas. The allies during the lead up to WW2 and in the war's early stages did not realize this and believed that containing the problem or restricting the ideas to just Germany (etc.) was an adequate strategy. But they eventually realized there was no other choice. They had to invade and they had to round up and stamp out all the adherents to the bad idea. Of course the bad idea of Nazism still persists, but the ultimate success of DDay was because we were able to eliminate the idea from the main stream zeitgeist.

These two really bad options are the ways forward that I can see, if the problem is really as pervasive as it seems. I don't advocate for either of them. I suppose the half way approach that Obama has taken, of moderate military engagement and moderate political engagement while not really acknowledging the actual core of the real problem, is just as likely to be successful so we could also just continue down that road.
 
They are no good options. I see two ways forward.

1) The Trump approach: Wall our selves off from the problem allowing the Muslims to fight it out amongst themselves probably leading to lots of death and suffering and a difficult to predict outcome. I would suggest that this approach will on the short term save American lives but in the long run will be very costly since Russia will probably just take over the Middle East on the pretense of peace keeping. Alternatively Further increasing conflicts will likely spill over in to Israel and Europe, and that will eventually force us to get involved under the rules of NATO or to save/protect Israel. The only way to keep our selves out of this in the long term is to become completely energy independent and politically isolationist very quickly. So, take all the money we save not re-invading Iraq, etc, and build a motherfucking-shit ton of windmills and electric cars. Additionally, climate change predictions indicate that vast swaths of the middle east (the core of the islamofascist world) will, within 50 to 80 years, be uninhabitable for humans due to extreme heat and lack of water... so, maybe this problem will just solve itself if we contain it for long enough.

2) Full scale D-day type invasion and subsequent Marshall type plan for the Middle East, and north/central African. The ultimate objective of WW2 was to stamp out the awful Nazi and Fascist ideas and philosophies that were the main stream in Germany, Spain, Italy and Japan. A war on an idea is difficult to conceive and organize and I believe eventually will require a full scale invasion and eradication of the adherents of those bad ideas. The allies during the lead up to WW2 and in the war's early stages did not realize this and believed that containing the problem or restricting the ideas to just Germany (etc.) was an adequate strategy. But they eventually realized there was no other choice. They had to invade and they had to round up and stamp out all the adherents to the bad idea. Of course the bad idea of Nazism still persists, but the ultimate success of DDay was because we were able to eliminate the idea from the main stream zeitgeist.

These two really bad options are the ways forward that I can see, if the problem is really as pervasive as it seems. I don't advocate for either of them. I suppose the half way approach that Obama has taken, of moderate military engagement and moderate political engagement while not really acknowledging the actual core of the real problem, is just as likely to be successful so we could also just continue down that road.

Not a fan of either of these approaches. The D-Day thing would likely not work.

I would like to see us work with Muslim majority nations with a strong stick and carrot approach. Those that actually worked hard to eradicate the madrasas and the radical element would get a favored trading status as well as cash. The "rogue" nations would get no dollars and have no trade. I would try and get as many countries as possible to isolate these nations. These nations would be considered "outlaw nations" and would be open for military or paramilitary ops.

Make Muslim majority nations have to make a real choice with real financial consequences. Many are currently straddling the fence. They take our dollars, say the right things to US gov, and allow radicals to thrive within their borders.
 
Climate change is not going to solve the problem. It's going to make it worse. The Syrian war has its roots in a massive drought in which the government wasn't able to help its citizens. I don't go as far as to say climate change caused the Syrian war, but continued increased heat and drought that makes farming impossible in larger swathes of the middle east/north africa is going to inflame conditions even more and drive more refugees to Europe.

Knowell's approach sounds good and isn't an unreasonable idea at all; I just question whether it passes the test of realpolitik. It pretty difficult for the United States to trumpet "freedom of religion" on the one hand while trying to strong arm its allies into shutting down religious schools on the other. The US is seen as hypocritical throughout the Arab world already. We might not get as many takers on the carrot side of that deal as we think, and if that approach is taken rigidly it will create the same sort of vacuum for Russia and China to exploit as an outright isolationist stance.
 
lulz, republicans conveniently remove the RADICAL ISLAM from discussion when it suits their purpose. same as race.

disgusting
 
Climate change is not going to solve the problem. It's going to make it worse. The Syrian war has its roots in a massive drought in which the government wasn't able to help its citizens. I don't go as far as to say climate change caused the Syrian war, but continued increased heat and drought that makes farming impossible in larger swathes of the middle east/north africa is going to inflame conditions even more and drive more refugees to Europe.

Knowell's approach sounds good and isn't an unreasonable idea at all; I just question whether it passes the test of realpolitik. It pretty difficult for the United States to trumpet "freedom of religion" on the one hand while trying to strong arm its allies into shutting down religious schools on the other. The US is seen as hypocritical throughout the Arab world already. We might not get as many takers on the carrot side of that deal as we think, and if that approach is taken rigidly it will create the same sort of vacuum for Russia and China to exploit as an outright isolationist stance.

Just to be clear...the climate change comment was tongue in cheek. Of course increasing inhabitability of the Middle East will make it all much much worse.

While I think Knowel's approach is theoretically reasonable, I just don't see it working. So far the only majority Muslim nation governments that have been willing to address Islamic extremism are Turkey (and we can see how well that is going), Bahrain (probably), Qatar (probably), UAE, and who else? It seems probable those last three never had a problem with extremists in the first place.
 
I've still never gotten an answer from those on here supporting a Muslim or Muslim country ban, what do we do with the Muslims already here?
 
I've still never gotten an answer from those on here supporting a Muslim or Muslim country ban, what do we do with the Muslims already here?

If they are American citizens, nothing. If they commit crimes or are suspected to commit crimes then prosecute and monitor them accordingly, but don't kick them out. We're allowed to treat citizens and non-citizens differently, even though it is not PC to do so.
 
If they are American citizens, nothing. If they commit crimes or are suspected to commit crimes then prosecute and monitor them accordingly, but don't kick them out. We're allowed to treat citizens and non-citizens differently, even though it is not PC to do so.
Nothing? John Allen Muhammed (DC Sniper), Nidal Hasan (Fort Hood) Syed Farook (San Bernadino) and Omar Mateen (Orlando) were all born in America, and Muhammed Abdulazeez (Chattanooga) moved here when he was 6. Richard Reed (shoe bomber) was born in England. Trumps Muslim ban wouldn't have stopped any of those terrorists.
 
What do we do about the kids born in America to Muslims born in other countries?
 
A Muslim ban is very dumb. It would be better to simply shut the borders completely than isolate against a specific group.
 
A Muslim ban is very dumb. It would be better to simply shut the borders completely than isolate against a specific group.

Correct. It will not work because being Muslim is a religious "choice" not some independently identifiable characteristic. The smart terrorists will just deny that they are Muslim at the border. It really is just a dumb idea. I supposed you could try to eliminate immigration from Muslim majority countries, but that doesn't help with any of the assholes listed in MDMH's post.
 
Nothing? John Allen Muhammed (DC Sniper), Nidal Hasan (Fort Hood) Syed Farook (San Bernadino) and Omar Mateen (Orlando) were all born in America, and Muhammed Abdulazeez (Chattanooga) moved here when he was 6. Richard Reed (shoe bomber) was born in England. Trumps Muslim ban wouldn't have stopped any of those terrorists.

Correct, it would not stop immediate threats. The hope is that full American assimilation via ceasing immigration from high-Muslim countries would weed out the wackos over time and generations. If you have an immediate solution, I'm all ears.
 
Immediate threats? You think those guys came out of the womb terrorists? They each had 20+ years to assimilate
 
Immediate threats? You think those guys came out of the womb terrorists? They each had 20+ years to assimilate

They were radicalized while actively participating in mainstream American or British culture. So what now.
 
Correct, it would not stop immediate threats. The hope is that full American assimilation via ceasing immigration from high-Muslim countries would weed out the wackos over time and generations. If you have an immediate solution, I'm all ears.

i'd say your partial solution, as it's currently proposed, does way more harm than good. I totally believe it's possible to crack down on immigration from middle eastern countries without the immense worldwide backlash, but it's going to take a shit ton more finesse than dip shit Trump and his goose stepping nationalists have right now.
 
Back
Top