• 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!

London attack

sailordeac said:
you didn't answer the question
Click to expand...

Yes he did....What does it mean for a culture to be "equal" anyway? Obviously all cultures don't have the exact same beliefs, does that mean they're not equal?

The question I asked was whether conservatives think Islam should receive the same protection under the law as other religions. You seem to think the answer is "no," but I'd like to hear more
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/1.791954?v=FBAED08735812BD2447429DD931B773A

“An estimated 60 percent of those who espouse violent jihadism in Europe are second-generation Muslims who have lost their connection with their country of origin and have failed to integrate into Western societies,” Roy says.

They are subject to a “process of deculturation” that leaves them ignorant of and detached from both the European society and the one of their origins. The result, Roy argues, is a dangerous “identity vacuum” in which “violent extremism thrives.”

"In his recent book “Jihad and Death: The Global Appeal of Islamic State," Roy argues that about 70 percent of these young people have scant knowledge of Islam, and suggests they are “radical” before even choosing Islam. He dubs them “born again Muslims” who lead libertine lives before their sudden conversion to violent fundamentalism."
Click to expand...

This is what I have been posting and is also why the US has so much less of this type of terrorism. Muslims are much more integrated into our society than they are in Europe. Of course, with hate against Muslims in the US growing greatly (http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/us/islamerica-excerpt-hate-crimes/index.html ) by 67%. The alienation could lead more attacks in the US.

With Trump's inclusion of alt-hatemongers like Bannon at the top the current Administration, it's very likely that these will continue to grow in numbers and violence. Trump's own words and tweets also tacitly promote "defending ourselves from terrorists" which means less Muslims in the US.

we were in the strongest position in the world regarding terrorist acts until ran and won. He's made our country a bigger target and far less safe.
 
tintinisahottie said:
And what do you say to this?

Furthermore, the Labour leader’s linkage of western foreign policy to terrorist acts is psychologically convenient but unsupported by the stated priorities of the jihadis themselves. In July 2016 Islamic State was unequivocal: “The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam.”
Click to expand...

Got your rep, I agree our foreign policy has some negative effect. I don't think that can be denied. But while you could make some argument that it originated the issue (I don't know if I would agree, but it can certainly be argued), it can no longer be effectively argued that it is the reason ISIS and other radicals operate. Their stated goals are essentially for the west to convert or die, not leave us alone and live and let live. So frankly I don't see that our foreign policy really matters at this point, as the issue has progressed into literally we don't care what you do with foreign policy, you must either convert or we will hate you and attack you.

This isn't necessarily related I would say based off my experiences at State which has a large Muslim population, and just experience with life in general, I don't think there's much of an issue with Islam in the United States, beyond the bad eggs which you can find in any cross section of society


I have some more thoughts but gotta go, i'll try to check back in later
 
birdman said:
What I don't understand about this perspective is that these self-radicalized people are taking their inspiration and, in some cases, training from ISIS. So, is the root of the ideology coming from the Middle East / North Africa or isn't generating in isolated pockets in Europe? The US seems to think it's coming from the ME and seems to have the impression that wiping out the core group (Al Qaida 10 years ago, now ISIS) is going to eradicate the ideas. Seems like the tactics of drone strikes and lobbing bombs are instead dispersing the ideas and while ISIS's head quarters is weaker, the pedestrians in England and France (etc.) are less safe.

I personally think this has to be about eradicating a set of bad ideas that emerged from a perverted reading of the Koran. Battling ideas with weapons is extremely difficult because I think that requires ultimately killing nearly everyone that adheres to the bad ideas, some sort of full scale invasion like we had to do to "eradicate" extreme nationalism in Europe in the late 1940's. The west needs to develop a strategy for eradicating these bad ideas that doesn't involve reciprocating violence. Some research has shown that violence spreads similarly to contagious diseases (e.g., https://www.ted.com/talks/gary_slutkin_let_s_treat_violence_like_a_contagious_disease), perhaps reinventing our models on the spread of radical ideas and violence would be a good place to start in rethinking our policies on how to counteract Islamic terrorism, and any other form of terrorism.
Click to expand...

Yep. Ultimately this is a battle of ideas. Beliefs. No way to avoid some fighting and counter violence. But it seems wise to limit such endeavors as necessary and emphasize the larger, long-term solution that depends on winning ideals. As best possible. And a big part of this is emphasizing our common humanity, respect for "others", and the primacy of non-violent means to settle differences and solve problems.
 
Last edited:
tintinisahottie said:
Interesting article that I have a lot of agreement with. Doesn't go against my post you quoted at all though, in fact I think it agrees with it.
Click to expand...
“The large majority of Al-Qaida and Islamic State jihadis, including the Manchester attacker Abedi, commit suicide attacks not because it makes sense strategically from a military perspective or because it’s consistent with the Salafi creed,” Roy says. “These attacks don’t weaken the enemy significantly, and Islam condemns self-immolation as interference with God’s will. These kids seek death as an end-goal in itself.”

The stated goals of ISIS towards the secular/Christian west are not tactical, vs their actual military strategy in the middle east. Using military aggression to fight Islamic extremist propaganda is the equivalent of a dog chasing it's tail. You are looking for logic where there is none.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
 
The kid from Big was also one of Kurt Russell's kids in Overboard.
 
london-suspects-1_20170605_131753.jpg
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I'd like to hear someone articulate what should be done now policy-wise and what you believe should have been done from 2008-2016 that was not done.
Click to expand...

Gotta find the target's weak point. Halt all shipments of Adidas and Puma warmup pants to predominantly Muslim countries until the terrorism stops. Problem solved.
 
it's p cool that Adidas and puma were founded by rival brothers
 
Last edited:
ConnorEl said:
Yep. Ultimately this is a battle of ideas. Beliefs. No way to avoid some fighting and counter violence. But it seems wise to limit such endeavors as necessary and emphasize the larger, long-term solution that depends on winning ideals. As best possible. And a big part of this is emphasizing our common humanity, respect for "others", and the primacy of non-violent means to settle differences and solve problems.
Click to expand...

He says, to people who think women shouldn't be seen in public.
 
jhmd2000 said:
He says, to people who think women shouldn't be seen in public.
Click to expand...

Trying to reason with radical jihadists and trying to reason with board liberals are endeavors that offer roughly the same probability of success.

So after further reflection upon the matter, I made the decision to attempt neither.
 
Last edited:
I was going to ask BKF but since he has every body on ignore except you, I'll ask you, what is your solution? Aside from a full scale occupation, Nurembug trials, and Marshall plan for the ME and North Africa, it is hard for me to see a successful military based approach.
 
Well the allies/Germany did put in a massive de-nazification program/set of laws in place which would be grossly at odds with most notions of free speech. Quasi effective
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top