Why The Right Will Never Allow Solution To Islamic Jihad Problem...

Remove the real factors that the extremists play on, and the extremist's message will become increasingly irrelevant to the audience to which it was intended.

I had rather remove the extremists. This seems to be the best, most efficient and direct way, to solve the problem of extremists, don't you think?

You can take a look at virtually any radical movement, and you will not find one single instance of them going away because someone capitulated to them and gave them what they were after. Not to compare or draw analogy, but if this were the case, Civil Rights could have been solved by changing the laws about where people sat on buses.

You want to key on the things that you think fuels their rebellion, and the point you are missing is, you don't understand their objectives. For whatever reason, you buy into the propaganda, you are just pinheaded, you read it in a book... whatever, you seem to think, if we could just better understand what is making them mad, and fix it.... Well, look, I am going to cut to the chase, what makes them mad is living in the same world with infidels and jews. Unless you are willing to help them kill all of the jews, then commit mass suicide yourself, we can't ever solve this problem for them. You can't resolve problems with people who are not interested in negotiating, and not interested in your solutions. Giving them what you think they want, is not going to accomplish anything, except to further embolden and empower them, and telling yourself otherwise, is beyond foolish.

I read your posts, and always get this impression that you think of Israel as being a problem, you've called them terrorists, and apparently equate what Israel has done, with what Islamofascists are doing now. I don't know why you have such anti-Semetic views, and I really don't care. Apply your same principles and logic to the other side, go tell the Palestinians and Muslims that they need to be undermining the "cause" of the Jew and Infidel to fight them, which is their unwillingness to allow Jews and Infidels to exist in the same world. Get them to go along with a viable two-state solution, and stop preaching and teaching that Jews are pigs and Infidels are monkeys. Maybe your liberal bullshit will work on them? Who knows!
 
Remove the real factors that the extremists play on, and the extremist's message will become increasingly irrelevant to the audience to which it was intended.

"I had rather remove the extremists. This seems to be the best, most efficient and direct way, to solve the problem of extremists, don't you think?"

if only they had some distinquishing mark on them, eh? the problem, of course, is that "the extremists" is a constantly evolving group of folks who happen to look like all the other folks...and the guy who isn't an extremist today and becomes one tomorrow won't look any differently. It is sort of like that Dr. Suess book about Sneetches on Beaches...

So "removing the extremists" is a very very inefficient way to solve the problem unless you are, as I said earlier, willing to remove any and all folks who might be extremists now or in the future. Dealing with the socioeconomic issues that drive people to become extremists is, in fact, much more efficient AND effective, don't you think?
 
I had rather remove the extremists. This seems to be the best, most efficient and direct way, to solve the problem of extremists, don't you think?

No, it's simplistic and won't work.

Unless you resolve the genuine political problems, undermine the arguments the extremists use to radicalise and gain recruits, unless you isolate them from their mandate, every offensive action that you take will simply radicalise more Muslims.

If you first undermine their arguments and isolate them from their mandate, you can take down individual extremists easily, without the problem of it exasperating the situation.

I know this, because we used your approach initially in Northern Ireland, and this simply prolonged the problem for decades. When we changed tact, we resolved the underlying political causes, the IRA/INLA became increasingly more isolated to the stage that their actions rebounded back on them and made them more isolated (Omagh for eg). Then we took out the extremists without it causing more problems.

Now, the IRA is down to a very few members and is essentially nothing more than a criminal gang who run drugs and rob banks. Learn from the mistakes we made, because the scale of your problem won't continue the problem for decades, but generations.

For whatever reason, you buy into the propaganda, you are just pinheaded, you read it in a book... whatever, you seem to think, if we could just better understand what is making them mad, and fix it....

This is why I refer to you as articulate and rhetorically gifted, but not very bright. Comprehension difficulties, and an inability to laterally think.

No-one is talking about placating extremists. I am refering to removing the link that causes young Muslims to be radicalised, removing the extremist's chance of recruitment. Draining the pond.

and always get this impression that you think of Israel as being a problem,

The Israel/Palestine situation is the primary problem.

you've called them terrorists, and apparently equate what Israel has done, with what Islamofascists are doing now

Both target civilians in an effort to gain political momentum or change. If you don't like me refering to the IDF as terrorists, campaign for them to stop being terrorists.

I don't know why you have such anti-Semitic views,

Weak. I'm not anti-Semitic. Firstly, Arabs are Semites too, this is simply a dispute between two sides of an ethnic group. Your antagonism towards the Palestinians could prompt me to accuse you of anti-Semitism, but I'm not that slow. Secondly, the State of Israel is a political entity. It is responsible for its actions and cannot continue to hide behind accusations of anti-Semitism. I have no feelings towards the Jewish religion, aside from my contempt for all religions.

You seem to have no real argument against my points, which is why you are relying on argumentum ad hominem tactics such as accusations of anti-Semitism.

Do you want more time to think of a proper, well-thoughout retort to my points, or are you only capable of mud-slinging?

 
Last edited:
maineman said:
Remove the real factors that the extremists play on, and the extremist's message will become increasingly irrelevant to the audience to which it was intended.

"I had rather remove the extremists. This seems to be the best, most efficient and direct way, to solve the problem of extremists, don't you think?"

if only they had some distinquishing mark on them, eh? the problem, of course, is that "the extremists" is a constantly evolving group of folks who happen to look like all the other folks...and the guy who isn't an extremist today and becomes one tomorrow won't look any differently. It is sort of like that Dr. Suess book about Sneetches on Beaches...

So "removing the extremists" is a very very inefficient way to solve the problem unless you are, as I said earlier, willing to remove any and all folks who might be extremists now or in the future. Dealing with the socioeconomic issues that drive people to become extremists is, in fact, much more efficient AND effective, don't you think?
Click to expand...


This is why I suggested we bomb their infrastructure. The Mosques and Schools, where this extremism is preached and taught. The buildings don't look the same, they are easy to pinpoint. Everyone gasps at the idea, but honestly, what's the problem? THEY have BEEN doing such things for years! From their perspective, they don't have as much of a problem with holy sites and historic places being bombed as we do, and actually see this as a "weakness" on our part. They exploit this weakness by hiding weapons in Mosques, and Jihadists among the innocent in schools and hospitals.

Dealing with the socioeconomic issues starts with understanding, dictatorships like Saddam Hussein, are never going to "share the wealth" of the region's enormous oil fortunes. The governmental structure of kingdoms, regimes, and empires, are not conducive with solving socioeconomic problems, only in a democracy, where people have some legitimate say in the socioeconomic issues, can they ever be resolved.
 
This is why I suggested we bomb their infrastructure. The Mosques and Schools, where this extremism is preached and taught.

Why do you think this will work?

If another country started bombing American churches and religious schools, do you think that would stop Christians becoming radicalised.

Would it make the average Christian think.... 'Mmmmnnn, that country is bombing our churches and schools, I'd better surrender...'

Or would it make them fight harder....

You really are a slow chap, Dixie.
 
they don't have as much of a problem with holy sites and historic places being bombed as we do,

What? Are you taking the mickey, acting daft for a laugh?

You really have no idea...
 
Both target civilians in an effort to gain political momentum or change. If you don't like me refering to the IDF as terrorists, campaign for them to stop being terrorists.

I disagree with this. The IDF is nothing like the PLO. Israel has repeatedly been willing to come to the table, make concessions, give up land, and declare cease-fire, in the name of peace. The Palestinians have repeatedly reneged on their end of the bargain, balked at more than reasonable concessions, and continued to inflict barbaric and evil terrorism on the innocent people of Israel.

Israelis are not calling for the Palestinians to not exist, to be ran into the Mediterranean Sea, and they never have or will. To compare the two as equal in any respect, is just ignorance or blindness, or anti-Semitic.
 
AnyOldIron said:
This is why I suggested we bomb their infrastructure. The Mosques and Schools, where this extremism is preached and taught.

Why do you think this will work?

If another country started bombing American churches and religious schools, do you think that would stop Christians becoming radicalised.

Would it make the average Christian think.... 'Mmmmnnn, that country is bombing our churches and schools, I'd better surrender...'

Or would it make them fight harder....
Click to expand...

If Christians were divided into two decisive groups, the majority of which, was not radical, and a minority comprised of an extreme and perverted radical element, which was using the religion to promote their warped ideology (like the Klan), and there were churches and schools across America that were preaching and teaching hate and promoting this warped ideology, I would hope that someone would stand with the majority of my religion and defeat this evil, and if it took bombing those churches and schools, I would completely understand.
 
This is why I suggested we bomb their infrastructure. The Mosques and Schools, where this extremism is preached and taught. The buildings don't look the same, they are easy to pinpoint. Everyone gasps at the idea, but honestly, what's the problem? THEY have BEEN doing such things for years! From their perspective, they don't have as much of a problem with holy sites and historic places being bombed as we do, and actually see this as a "weakness" on our part. They exploit this weakness by hiding weapons in Mosques, and Jihadists among the innocent in schools and hospitals.
briefly: bombing mosques and schools in the muslim world will create a backlash of hatred for the United States that will radicalize the entire arab street

Dealing with the socioeconomic issues starts with understanding, dictatorships like Saddam Hussein, are never going to "share the wealth" of the region's enormous oil fortunes. The governmental structure of kingdoms, regimes, and empires, are not conducive with solving socioeconomic problems, only in a democracy, where people have some legitimate say in the socioeconomic issues, can they ever be resolved.
that is where you chose to "start" now that there aren't any WMD's or AQ links.... if sharing the wealth of the oil fortunes were the driving factor, there are MANY other muslim nations that should have been higher on our hitlist than Iraq. If getting at the source of support for wahabbism is the driving factor, then there are MANY other muslim nations that should have been higher on our hitlist than Iraq. In fact, Iraq should have been at the very bottom of that list beneath Pakistan.
 
Dixie said:
Both target civilians in an effort to gain political momentum or change. If you don't like me refering to the IDF as terrorists, campaign for them to stop being terrorists.

I disagree with this. The IDF is nothing like the PLO. Israel has repeatedly been willing to come to the table, make concessions, give up land, and declare cease-fire, in the name of peace. The Palestinians have repeatedly reneged on their end of the bargain, balked at more than reasonable concessions, and continued to inflict barbaric and evil terrorism on the innocent people of Israel.

Israelis are not calling for the Palestinians to not exist, to be ran into the Mediterranean Sea, and they never have or will. To compare the two as equal in any respect, is just ignorance or blindness, or anti-Semitic.
Click to expand...

one could hardly look at the carnage in Sabra and Chatilla in 1982 and say that the IDF was NOTHING like the PLO.

The fact remains, and you refuse to address it: the Golan Heights, West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip are all inhabited by folks who do not have basic human rights, and those rights are denied to them by their conquerers and occupiers.
 
The fact remains, and you refuse to address it: the Golan Heights, West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip are all inhabited by folks who do not have basic human rights, and those rights are denied to them by their conquerers and occupiers.

And why were they conquered and occupied?
 
and why does the reason the territory was conquered and occupied have ANYTHING to do with whether the civilian residents of those territories deserve basic human rights?

Quit obfuscating....either answer the question or just run away from it.
 
maineman said:
and why does the reason the territory was conquered and occupied have ANYTHING to do with whether the civilian residents of those territories deserve basic human rights?

Quit obfuscating....either answer the question or just run away from it.
Click to expand...


Because the territory was conquered and occupied after the residents decieded to wage war on Israel. When you pick up a rock an throw it at someone, they have every right to kick your ass and you have no right to complain when they do.
 
you really think that the RESIDENTS of the Golan Heights decided to wage war against Israel? I would suggest that Hafez Assad made that decision all by himself. Ditto for little Huessie in Jordan and Nasser in Egypt. Don't you agree?
 
so Dixie is saying, I take it, that any civilian residents of lands conquered or occupied by any foreign power have no inherent human rights.....even though the Geneva Convention is quite clear to the contrary.
 
maineman said:
you really think that the RESIDENTS of the Golan Heights decided to wage war against Israel? I would suggest that Hafez Assad made that decision all by himself. Ditto for little Huessie in Jordan and Nasser in Egypt. Don't you agree?
Click to expand...

Well, this is subject to debate, the residents of the Golan Heights were clearly not on the side of Israel, were they? Just as Hammas will hide behind the skirt of the Lebanese people, the enemies of Israel have always been cowards. Israel had to occupy and conquer these residents homeland, in order to secure their own protection and safety as a nation. The Israeli's have no problem with Palestinian people governing themselves and having a state or homeland, they never have. Their problem is, being blown up by radical anti-Jewish intolerants, who want them eradicated from existence.
 
so Dixie is saying, I take it, that any civilian residents of lands conquered or occupied by any foreign power have no inherent human rights.....even though the Geneva Convention is quite clear to the contrary.

What the fuck are you talking about? The GC is a treaty signed by nations, to respectfully honor certain treatment conditions for prisoners of war. It has absolutely nothing to do with a debate over the Israel/Palestine problem, the War on Terror, or anything we've been discussing in this thread.
 
Dixie said:
Well, this is subject to debate, the residents of the Golan Heights were clearly not on the side of Israel, were they? Just as Hammas will hide behind the skirt of the Lebanese people, the enemies of Israel have always been cowards. Israel had to occupy and conquer these residents homeland, in order to secure their own protection and safety as a nation. The Israeli's have no problem with Palestinian people governing themselves and having a state or homeland, they never have. Their problem is, being blown up by radical anti-Jewish intolerants, who want them eradicated from existence.
Click to expand...


no...it is not subject to debate. Neither Syria, nor Jordan, nor Egypt were participatory democracies under Assad, King Hussein, and Nasser. The residents of the territories in question may not have been on Israel's SIDE, but there is certainly NOTHING to suggest that they encouraged or supported their autocratic governments' war making against Israel...and they certainly did not CHOSE to be overrun by Israeli troops and have their lands confiscated. Do you really suggest that the civilian residents of the Golan, Gaza and the West Bank have no human rights??????
 
Dixie said:
so Dixie is saying, I take it, that any civilian residents of lands conquered or occupied by any foreign power have no inherent human rights.....even though the Geneva Convention is quite clear to the contrary.

What the fuck are you talking about? The GC is a treaty signed by nations, to respectfully honor certain treatment conditions for prisoners of war. It has absolutely nothing to do with a debate over the Israel/Palestine problem, the War on Terror, or anything we've been discussing in this thread.
Click to expand...

I suggest that perhaps you familiarize yourself with;

Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War Adopted on 12 August 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, held in Geneva from 21 April to 12 August, 1949 entry into force 21 October 1950

the civilians in the occupied territories are not prisoners of war. You have suggested that they have no claim to any human rights because Israel took their homes in time of war. I say you are full of shit...and that you know as little about the GC now as you did when I wiped your ass all over the playground with the GC three years ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top