DocM Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 Video on TV of the des Halles shopping mall attack. A mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malenfant Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 It's my sincere hope that the perpetrators are fed to the pigs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
protocol7 Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 Possibly some form of extreme containment. Move all the Moslems back into their lands, and if they attempt to cross borders into civilization, they would be met with instant death. The Moslems will eventually kill each other or run out of resources due to their insane spawning rate, at which point the oil will be available for the taking. There might be some merit to mass deportation. Obviously many innocent Muslims will be affected but you simply place the blame at the feet of IS and their actions. Make them take some responsibility for the burden they're placing on their people. See how their support holds up. If nothing else, it's a non-violent approach to the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ctebah Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 There is no space to put religious affiliations on the immigration forms for Japan. Japan has never restricted people based on religion, and one of the largest influx of immigrants into Japan is from Indonesia. China on the other hand I agree with. I also agree that we need to rid this world of ALL religions. However, we cannot label an entire religion just because a very small minority commits the crimes. It makes us no different than the extremists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 (edited) Paris SKY is reporting ~140 dead so far. Update: confirmed by Paris city govt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Red King Subscriber² Posted November 14, 2015 Author Subscriber² Share Posted November 14, 2015 Where do you draw the line? It's very true that most Christian fundamentalists are not committing mass terrorist attacks, but they still seem very committed to taking away human rights from those that they simply don't like. And judging by some of the laws that have been passed in the states, it seems they are slowly but surely starting to succeed. This is why I believe you don't tolerate religious fundamentalism at any level, no matter how minor it may seem. I would argue that Christian fundamentalism and Islamic fundamentalism are the same: they are fundamentalists. They want a world consisting of them and only them. Anyone who doesn't share in their beliefs is not allowed. It's the danger of fundamentalism itself. Succeed at what? Legalizing gay marriage? Each generation of Christians in western nations are less and less religious. Nonetheless, anyone would feel safer with a Christian than a Muslim fundamentalist. You don't hear Christians killing hundreds of people or blowing themselves up in the name of Jesus. That is a major difference. Devout Christians remain virgin until marriage, love rape babies, and believe that the world is 6000 years old - whereas devout Muslims rape and murder. You can point to examples on Christians being violent as a counter example - but that can't match AQ and ISIS in scale, destruction, and perseverance. "Christians are bad too" argument is a loosing one. "X is bad therefore Y, being as bad or worse, should also be allowed". No. trag3dy, Atlantico and Ralph3100 3 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillz Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 Possibly some form of extreme containment. Move all the Moslems back into their lands, and if they attempt to cross borders into civilization, they would be met with instant death. The Moslems will eventually kill each other or run out of resources due to their insane spawning rate, at which point the oil will be available for the taking. I was referring more to the period of time when the United States was allegedly neutral. I understand today we live in a globalized world, and for better or worse, it's something I wouldn't ever want to change. And yet at the same time, I feel there needs to be a point in time where you try a solution, it doesn't work, you try another solution, that doesn't work, you have to leave the region and let them sort out their own problems. But, as I alluded to, this just won't happen in the Middle East because they have something that the West wants, in addition to a political alliance with Israel. It's sad, really... I don't think anyone truly wants a completely closed, homogeneous world, and yet at the same time, it might be the only way to have peace. But it makes me sick to think like that... It wasn't that long ago that many Americans believed the only way to end slavery and racism was to victim blame by moving all African-Americans to Africa and never letting them back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yusuf M. Veteran Posted November 14, 2015 Veteran Share Posted November 14, 2015 Paris SKY is reporting ~140 dead so far. My goodness. I feel sick to my stomach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATLien_0 Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 I am sure both the U.S and the French will respond to this, but the response has to be different, this has to change, we can't keep fueling them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillz Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 Succeed at what? Legalizing gay marriage? Each generation of Christians in western nations are less and less religious. Nonetheless, anyone would feel safer with a Christian than a Muslim fundamentalist. You don't hear Christians killing hundreds of people or blowing themselves up in the name of Jesus. That is a major difference. Devout Christians remain virgin until marriage, love rape babies, and believe that the world is 6000 years old - whereas devout Muslims rape and murder. You can point to examples on Christians being violent as a counter example - but that can't match AQ and ISIS in scale, destruction, and perseverance. "Christians are bad too" argument is a loosing one. "X is bad therefore Y, being as bad or worse, should also be allowed". No. The people of Northern Ireland who lived through decades of IRA car bombing might feel differently. I wouldn't feel safer with a Christian fundamentalist calling the shots than a Muslim fundamentalist. Because, again, I feel the problem is fundamentalism itself. It's the root cause of the problem. The flavor of it doesn't matter. It's similar to how I feel about politics in general... It's a broken system, leaning left or right doesn't change that. Humanity in general needs to find new solutions to their problems, and I just don't believe that that can ever happen. People are too comfortable with things the way they are. We've been indoctrinated to believe that if you blow up enough people, eventually you'll solve the problem. Yusuf M. and theyarecomingforyou 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Red King Subscriber² Posted November 14, 2015 Author Subscriber² Share Posted November 14, 2015 I am sure both the U.S and the French will respond to this, but the response has to be different, this has to change, we can't keep fueling them I don't support a military response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veiva Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 Succeed at what? Legalizing gay marriage? Each generation of Christians in western nations are less and less religious. Nonetheless, anyone would feel safer with a Christian than a Muslim fundamentalist. You don't hear Christians killing hundreds of people or blowing themselves up in the name of Jesus. That is a major difference. Devout Christians remain virgin until marriage, love rape babies, and believe that the world is 6000 years old - whereas devout Muslims rape and murder. You can point to examples on Christians being violent as a counter example - but that can't match AQ and ISIS in scale, destruction, and perseverance. "Christians are bad too" argument is a loosing one. "X is bad therefore Y, being as bad or worse, should also be allowed". No. I would be safer with someone convicted for grand theft auto than I would be with someone convicted for mass murder. Should we justify any of these behaviors, simply because one is worse? Should we ignore vehicle theft because there's mass murderers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tompkin Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 I am sure both the U.S and the French will respond to this, but the response has to be different, this has to change, we can't keep fueling them Any suggestions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATLien_0 Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 (edited) I don't support a military response. I don't either and everytime this happens, certain politicians here seem to think thats what we need to do, boots on the ground. Any suggestions? I am not an expert nor claim to be one, but boots on the ground or strikes at them seem to just make this a whole lot worse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yusuf M. Veteran Posted November 14, 2015 Veteran Share Posted November 14, 2015 The people of Northern Ireland who lived through decades of IRA car bombing might feel differently. I wouldn't feel safer with a Christian fundamentalist calling the shots than a Muslim fundamentalist. Because, again, I feel the problem is fundamentalism itself. It's the root cause of the problem. The flavor of it doesn't matter. It's similar to how I feel about politics in general... It's a broken system, leaning left or right doesn't change that. Humanity in general needs to find new solutions to their problems, and I just don't believe that that can ever happen. People are too comfortable with things the way they are. We've been indoctrinated to believe that if you blow up enough people, eventually you'll solve the problem. Well said. It's unfortunate that it's part of human nature to hate a group if one member hurt you in some way. EDIT: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rippleman Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 (edited) There is no space to put religious affiliations on the immigration forms for Japan. Japan has never restricted people based on religion, and one of the largest influx of immigrants into Japan is from Indonesia. China on the other hand I agree with. I also agree that we need to rid this world of ALL religions. However, we cannot label an entire religion just because a very small minority commits the crimes. It makes us no different than the extremists. I said Japan has had the same result, NOT the same method. I don't mind being an extremist if it saves the world from islam (even though I have to actually do nothing, it will die out on its own with time and education) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tompkin Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 I don't either and everytime this happens, certain politicians here seem to think thats what we need to do, boots on the ground. I am not an expert nor claim to be one, but boots on the ground or strikes at them seem to just make this a whole lot worse The problem is that you don't bomb innocent civilian populations. When you start doing that, then it's a whole different ball game. (As far as I know, the IS hasn't been officially blamed for the latest bombings).Russia and the U.S. have been adversaries for a very long tiime. But over time, there was a "gentlemans agreement" that there were lines that you didn't cross. "Mutual verification" was the result of this and has worked very well. The Russian people are great as far as I'm concerned (I live in the U.S.).Bombing civilian populations is crossing the line. If it's determined that the IS is behind the Paris civilian bombings then heavy airstrikes are justified. I wouldn't put "boots on the ground" until we determine what our own goals are in putting them there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlantico Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 The people of Northern Ireland who lived through decades of IRA car bombing might feel differently. I wouldn't feel safer with a Christian fundamentalist calling the shots than a Muslim fundamentalist. Because, again, I feel the problem is fundamentalism itself. It's the root cause of the problem. The flavor of it doesn't matter. It's similar to how I feel about politics in general... It's a broken system, leaning left or right doesn't change that. Humanity in general needs to find new solutions to their problems, and I just don't believe that that can ever happen. People are too comfortable with things the way they are. We've been indoctrinated to believe that if you blow up enough people, eventually you'll solve the problem. No, that's just too ignorant. Plenty of atheists planting bombs for the IRA, it was a nationalistic movement. Still is. Religion was used as a divider, to make an "us vs them", but only a very very ignorant person would ever think religion was a reason of existence for the IRA. Deserves to be called out. You're clearly an islamophobe and a christianophobe. DConnell 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xendrome Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 I don't support a military response. I suggest we have cuddle parties with them then. DConnell 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
protocol7 Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 I don't either and everytime this happens, certain politicians here seem to think thats what we need to do, boots on the ground. It's difficult to take military action against a guerilla force. The British, French and US all found this out. Conventional armies can't fight a force that's indistinguishable from the civilians around them. All their actions do is stoke up anger and resentment towards them until they inevitably withdraw and hope it all stays away. Although, unlike the cases above which were motivated by pushing out invading armies, IS is driven purely by hatred. They don't just want to free their lands, they want to destroy anyone who opposes them, Muslims included. If you're going to take military action you have to go all the way. Look at it this way: You're in a bar and some guy starts a fight with you. Are you going to throw one punch and turn your back on him and walk away? Or are you going to make sure he's on the ground and no longer a threat? Because all these strikes against IS are just doing the former. Now if you go all the way, how do you avoid racking up civilian casualties? It's catch-22. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malenfant Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 Historically how do these things play out? Expulsion and containment. Genocide. Is there a third option? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Red King Subscriber² Posted November 14, 2015 Author Subscriber² Share Posted November 14, 2015 I suggest we have cuddle parties with them then. I understand where you are coming from, but I am with others that that will never work. Retrospective evaluation and better border policies are better - as others pointed out a terrorist can form inside your nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theyarecomingforyou Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 Succeed at what? Legalizing gay marriage? Each generation of Christians in western nations are less and less religious. The less people practice their religious beliefs the less of a threat they pose. You still have Christian extremists in the US calling for homosexuals to be executed but they are a minority, much like extremist Muslims in the west. You don't see many Muslim extremists in Indonesia or Albania - the situation couldn't be more different in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. It's not the religion that's the problem, it's the culture. People warp religion to fit their own agenda. Fundamentalists, regardless of religion, are dangerous - there intolerance of other beliefs and opinions makes them a threat. I suggest we have cuddle parties with them then. It can't be worse than pursuing airstrikes, which we know won't work. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Veiva and DeusProto 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 I am sure both the U.S and the French will respond to this, but the response has to be different, this has to change, we can't keep fueling them Anything you do to resist these slimes "fuels them," so.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veiva Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 Historically how do these things play out? Expulsion and containment. Genocide. Is there a third option? Fundamentalism is only strong in areas of poverty and poor education. It feeds off desperation. Western gangs work much the same. Provide the means for the poor to succeed without them having to resort to violence. This "third option" requires compassion and investment, while the others don't. This makes it costlier in the short-term. But let's keep using the military option. Although it hasn't worked in decades, maybe this time is different :)! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts