Paris

[Bean Bag]

You can't imagine that invasion by a foreign country might lead someone to want to fight back? Strange, because it seems to me that you are saying we should fight back because of a foreign attack.

Absolutely, yes.  I would certainly imagine they'd want to fight back.  Unfortunately our leftist President thinks we can walk away -- and announce it.  I mean, yikes.

Hey! We have a tiny area of common ground!

   We all have A LOT of common ground.  It's what we disagree on, that is tiny.  Itty bitty difference.  Seriously.

That disagreement is only... who is better at getting rid of them.  I say it's my side.  Not even close.  I want annihilate them.  And anything, any person or any nation -- or TV Station that supports them.  Anything that even pretends to support them.  Annihilated.  But not before we waterboard them.  I'll have water shooting a thousand feet into the sky, with lights -- all sync'ed to the music of the 1812 overture.

[Emily]

That disagreement is only... who is better at getting rid of them.  I say it's my side.  Not even close.  I want annihilate them.  And anything, any person or any nation -- or TV Station that supports them.  Anything that even pretends to support them.  Annihilated.  But not before we waterboard them.  I'll have water shooting a thousand feet into the sky, with lights -- all sync'ed to the music of the 1812 overture.

To this...oy vey 

  We all have A LOT of common ground.  It's what we disagree on, that is tiny.  Itty bitty difference.  Seriously.

To this... Good. Let's leave it on a pleasant note. 

[Chocolate Shake Man]

It is an uncontroversial point that the aggressive actions throughout that part of the world have served to help establish, intensify, and bolster terrorist groups like ISIS. Does that give ISIS a free pass to create chaos and mayhem throughout the world? Of course not! What they did and who they are is despicable. But, again, if we are at all serious at trying to prevent these atrocities then we have to locate the cause of them. Calling it "victim blaming" is simply another tactic in the ongoing attempts to ensure instability. I was faced with the same kind of responses when I opposed the Iraq War on the grounds that I didn't want to see events like last Friday happening. But it's interesting how things go: In 2003, I was not supposed to say that the war would like to an increase in violence and instability because, well, I was wrong. But now that those predicted consequences have turned out to be true, I'm not supposed to mention it because it's inconsiderate. It's amazing how everything works out to ensure that this crucial point gets silenced no matter what has happened and what continues to happen.

You are talking about a bunch of guys who think that by blowing themselves up and taking as many innocent people with them as they can that they are going to enter an afterlife paradise with dozens of virgins to screw. How do you reason with the likes of that?
You can't.

I think you need to re-read my post because you have not engaged with my point in the slightest. I'm not entirely sure I agree with your point that you cannot reason with people like this. Otherwise, none of us would ever hold hope that we could, say, rescue people from cults. But putting that aside, let's assume what you say is true. Well, if it is true then my point still holds that we should stop radicalizing people. Like I said above, but I suppose it bears repeating, aggressive policies have led precisely to the increased radicalization of that part of the world, where radicalization had been on the decline for years. As the FBI director pointed out last year, "Support for Islamic State increased after U.S. airstrikes began in Iraq." So if the problem is that we are dealing with zealots who can't be reasoned with then you are only further supporting my point that we need to stop actively creating them.

Shut the borders to stop them creeping in. Round up any already living in the west that are known to support, have links, ties, sympathise or preach radical Islamic ideology and deport them if they are migrants or lock them up if they are second/third generation settlers under grounds of treason. And that includes those that would support any form of Sharia Law. They simply have no place in civilised Western society.

Of course I support bringing criminals to justice though it would be a real low and set a terrible precedence for prosecuting people on the basis of their beliefs or our belief that they may cause a crime based on spurious evidence. As far as shutting the borders, you are essentially talking about a death sentence for mostly innocent people or forcing large groups into being part the same kind of civil war that essentially brought about the current wave of fundamentalist terrorists. The consequences of these actions could very well serve to radicalize people who are at the moment just trying to survive.

Complaining about a war that shouldn't have happened over a decade ago is going to achieve squat.

Again, I think you need to re-read what I wrote. First, the war didn't happen over a decade ago. While the war may have started in 2003, US involvement continues to this day. And I brought it up not to complain about it but to explain the causes of contemporary events. But again for those who don't actually care about stopping these sorts of events, it is crucial to silence issues of causation.

So let me modify my point from the above quotation:

In 2003, I was not supposed to say that the war would like to an increase in violence and instability because, well, I was wrong. But now that those predicted consequences have turned out to be true, I'm not supposed to mention it because it's inconsiderate or it happened in the past (despite the fact that I'm talking about how we are currently continuing to support the policies that failed abysmally in the past on the pretense that it's correcting the mistakes of the past). It's amazing how everything works out to ensure that this crucial point gets silenced no matter what has happened and what continues to happen.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Why does Emily think she "knows so intimately the motives and impulses of these people"?

Just thought I'd quickly reply to this point too.

Probably because this issue has been exhaustively studied. It’s not Emily who believes it – it’s the consensus of just about all of U.S. (and those outside of the US) intelligence who believes it, and it turns out generally to be correct. So, in October of 2002, in the lead up to the Iraq war, the FBI observed “that a war with Iraq could trigger new domestic terrorism risks.” Meanwhile, Jean-Louis Bruguiere, “the leading French investigation magistrate in charge of counter-terrorism affairs,” observed that “Attacking Iraq would intensify Islamic terrorism, not reduce it.” (influenced, in part, from the book Hegemony of Survival, pg.122). See these websites for the quotations:

http://rense.com/general30/asor.htm
http://articles.latimes.com/2002/nov/04/news/fgnoqaeda4/2

These words are strikingly close to the more recent conclusions reached by the FBI, whose director noted that “support for Islamic State increased after U.S. airstrikes began in Iraq.”

See: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama-speech-islamic-state-20140917-story.html

That Western force leads to an increase in radicalism and an increased threat of violence from the Middle East is something that has been long understood by those in power. It may not concern some members of this board what the motives for violence are but it has always been a very large concern for central U.S. powers. As an example, Glenn Greenwald observes how in “2004, Donald Rumsfeld directed the Defense Science Board Task Force” – a committee appointed by the Pentagon – “to review the impact which the administration’s policies – specifically the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – were having on Terrorism and Islamic radicalism. They issued a report in September, 2004 and it vigorously condemned the Bush/Cheney approach as entirely counter-productive, i.e., as worsening the Terrorist threat those policies purportedly sought to reduce.”

Greenwald links to a PDF of the report here though I’m not sure if it is still active: http://www.salon.com/2009/10/20/terrorism_6/

Similar conclusions were reached much earlier in a 1958 National Security Council report (see page 16 of Hayim Gordon's collection Looking Back at the June 1967 War).

So, what we can do here is two things. We can accept the findings made by major intelligence agencies that have done exhaustive studies on the issue and generally have the same results and even accurately predict what would in fact come to happen later, some of which I have posted here. Or we can believe someone who cites no one, has studied nothing, and is not in any position to know anyone's motives and impulses in comparison to the FBI, counter-terrorism experts, the US Department of Defense, the National Security Council, and so on.

[Mike's Beard]

Of course I support bringing criminals to justice though it would be a real low and set a terrible precedence for prosecuting people on the basis of their beliefs or our belief that they may cause a crime based on spurious evidence. As far as shutting the borders, you are essentially talking about a death sentence for mostly innocent people or forcing large groups into being part the same kind of civil war that essentially brought about the current wave of fundamentalist terrorists. The consequences of these actions could very well serve to radicalize people who are at the moment just trying to survive.

If their beliefs tie in with those who think they are justified to kill civillians on religious grounds, then they havn't a leg to stand on as far as I'm concerned.
Declare Islam (by virtue of its political/legal/military aims) as an ideology far beyond that of a religion and therefore not a candidate for religious protection in the West.
Then outlaw it as a terror group, like Hamas or Hezbollah. Then crack down on their hideouts, the Wahabbi funded mosques which is where much of the radicalization is coming from.
Shutting boarders may lead to deaths for those caught in the middle but at the risk of sounding heartless - better them than you or I. Our collective governments ability to spot the 'peaceful' muslim from the terrorist before he straps on the suicide vest is not something I'm willing to stake my life on.
And as I've pointed out before, if so many are in such great peril, why do there seem to be so few women and children refugees? And zero old people? Just wave after wave of men in their prime, the exact type of person who could be fighting those they are supposedly fleeing. It's a Trojan horse if ever I've seen one.

[Mike's Beard]

Why does Emily think she "knows so intimately the motives and impulses of these people"?

Just thought I'd quickly reply to this point too.

Probably because this issue has been exhaustively studied. It’s not Emily who believes it – it’s the consensus of just about all of U.S. (and those outside of the US) intelligence who believes it, and it turns out generally to be correct. So, in October of 2002, in the lead up to the Iraq war, the FBI observed “that a war with Iraq could trigger new domestic terrorism risks.” Meanwhile, Jean-Louis Bruguiere, “the leading French investigation magistrate in charge of counter-terrorism affairs,” observed that “Attacking Iraq would intensify Islamic terrorism, not reduce it.” (influenced, in part, from the book Hegemony of Survival, pg.122). See these websites for the quotations:

http://rense.com/general30/asor.htm
http://articles.latimes.com/2002/nov/04/news/fgnoqaeda4/2

These words are strikingly close to the more recent conclusions reached by the FBI, whose director noted that “support for Islamic State increased after U.S. airstrikes began in Iraq.”

See: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama-speech-islamic-state-20140917-story.html

That Western force leads to an increase in radicalism and an increased threat of violence from the Middle East is something that has been long understood by those in power. It may not concern some members of this board what the motives for violence are but it has always been a very large concern for central U.S. powers. As an example, Glenn Greenwald observes how in “2004, Donald Rumsfeld directed the Defense Science Board Task Force” – a committee appointed by the Pentagon – “to review the impact which the administration’s policies – specifically the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – were having on Terrorism and Islamic radicalism. They issued a report in September, 2004 and it vigorously condemned the Bush/Cheney approach as entirely counter-productive, i.e., as worsening the Terrorist threat those policies purportedly sought to reduce.”

Greenwald links to a PDF of the report here though I’m not sure if it is still active: http://www.salon.com/2009/10/20/terrorism_6/

Similar conclusions were reached much earlier in a 1958 National Security Council report (see page 16 of Hayim Gordon's collection Looking Back at the June 1967 War).

So, what we can do here is two things. We can accept the findings made by major intelligence agencies that have done exhaustive studies on the issue and generally have the same results and even accurately predict what would in fact come to happen later, some of which I have posted here. Or we can believe someone who cites no one, has studied nothing, and is not in any position to know anyone's motives and impulses in comparison to the FBI, counter-terrorism experts, the US Department of Defense, the National Security Council, and so on.

Muslims are the ones who mistreat other muslims, eg beheadings, burnings, raping, chopping hands, stoning, female genital mutilation, child sexual assaults, slavery, etc. The issue is not the west's mistreatment of the poor muslims. They have been doing this to themselves for centuries, the west caused none of this. Granted the "War on Terror" has not solved any of these problems one bit.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

If their beliefs tie in with those who think they are justified to kill civillians on religious grounds, then they havn't a leg to stand on as far as I'm concerned.

Fortunately, they don't. If you read the article that The Captain posted above you will understand that the people carrying this out tend to have a very poor understanding of Islam and, for some, religion is not even the primary motivator.

Declare Islam (by virtue of its political/legal/military aims) as an ideology far beyond that of a religion and therefore not a candidate for religious protection in the West.

You might as well declare Jupiter an enemy planet while you're at it.

And as I've pointed out before, if so many are in such great peril, why do there seem to be so few women and children refugees? And zero old people? Just wave after wave of men in their prime, the exact type of person who could be fighting those they are supposedly fleeing. It's a Trojan horse if ever I've seen one.

Where are you getting your information from? Can you point me to any statistics? According to the UN Refugee Agency, there are 4,290,161 registered refugees, 50.3% are women while 49.7% are men and about 20% of the refugees are between the ages of zero and eleven. You can find those stats here:

http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php

Can you provide any evidence that suggests that this information you relay isn't just part of a propaganda campaign?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Why does Emily think she "knows so intimately the motives and impulses of these people"?

Just thought I'd quickly reply to this point too.

Probably because this issue has been exhaustively studied. It’s not Emily who believes it – it’s the consensus of just about all of U.S. (and those outside of the US) intelligence who believes it, and it turns out generally to be correct. So, in October of 2002, in the lead up to the Iraq war, the FBI observed “that a war with Iraq could trigger new domestic terrorism risks.” Meanwhile, Jean-Louis Bruguiere, “the leading French investigation magistrate in charge of counter-terrorism affairs,” observed that “Attacking Iraq would intensify Islamic terrorism, not reduce it.” (influenced, in part, from the book Hegemony of Survival, pg.122). See these websites for the quotations:

http://rense.com/general30/asor.htm
http://articles.latimes.com/2002/nov/04/news/fgnoqaeda4/2

These words are strikingly close to the more recent conclusions reached by the FBI, whose director noted that “support for Islamic State increased after U.S. airstrikes began in Iraq.”

See: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama-speech-islamic-state-20140917-story.html

That Western force leads to an increase in radicalism and an increased threat of violence from the Middle East is something that has been long understood by those in power. It may not concern some members of this board what the motives for violence are but it has always been a very large concern for central U.S. powers. As an example, Glenn Greenwald observes how in “2004, Donald Rumsfeld directed the Defense Science Board Task Force” – a committee appointed by the Pentagon – “to review the impact which the administration’s policies – specifically the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – were having on Terrorism and Islamic radicalism. They issued a report in September, 2004 and it vigorously condemned the Bush/Cheney approach as entirely counter-productive, i.e., as worsening the Terrorist threat those policies purportedly sought to reduce.”

Greenwald links to a PDF of the report here though I’m not sure if it is still active: http://www.salon.com/2009/10/20/terrorism_6/

Similar conclusions were reached much earlier in a 1958 National Security Council report (see page 16 of Hayim Gordon's collection Looking Back at the June 1967 War).

So, what we can do here is two things. We can accept the findings made by major intelligence agencies that have done exhaustive studies on the issue and generally have the same results and even accurately predict what would in fact come to happen later, some of which I have posted here. Or we can believe someone who cites no one, has studied nothing, and is not in any position to know anyone's motives and impulses in comparison to the FBI, counter-terrorism experts, the US Department of Defense, the National Security Council, and so on.

Muslims are the ones who mistreat other muslims, eg beheadings, burnings, raping, chopping hands, stoning, female genital mutilation, child sexual assaults, slavery, etc. The issue is not the west's mistreatment of the poor muslims. They have been doing this to themselves for centuries, the west caused none of this. Granted the "War on Terror" has not solved any of these problems one bit.

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with the uncontroversial point that our violence in that part of the world is inciting radicalism and increasing the threat of terror.

Also, to you point, you're forgetting that a good deal of the violence that you mention is overwhelmingly supported by the United States. A good of what you are talking about takes place within the favourite US client state of Saudi Arabia as well as the brutal military dictatorships that the US favour and prop up often with violent military support over democratic governments in Egypt, Yemen, Qatar, Oman, Jordan, Morocco, etc. And are we forgetting the fact that the United States toppled the Iranian democratic government in 1953 and replaced it (and continued to give it decisive support) with a tyrannical dictatorship responsible for some of the greatest human rights atrocities in the region? Or the decisive support of the military dictatorship in Pakistan from 1958 to 1969. Or the fact that that "from 1958 to 1965 the United States trained, funded, advised, and supplied the army" that led to Suharto's coup in Indonesia and slaughtered 700,000 people? Or the support of the radical Islamization of Pakistan from 1978-1988? Or funding and backing the massacres that occurred in Lebanon in 1982? Or propping up Saddam Hussein when he was committing his greatest atrocities? Or supporting the ousting of the democratic regime in Algeria and then giving aid to the military dictatorship that took its place and who murdered 200,000 Algerians? Or the ongoing drone war campaign against people who haven't committed crimes? And this is far from a complete list.

It's really nothing short of fantasy to pretend that the country that has dominated the region with military aid and has contributed overwhelmingly towards the instability of the region - in fact, prefers instability over democracy - is "not the issue."

[filledeplage]

Why does Emily think she "knows so intimately the motives and impulses of these people"?

Just thought I'd quickly reply to this point too.
Probably because this issue has been exhaustively studied. It’s not Emily who believes it – it’s the consensus of just about all of U.S. (and those outside of the US) intelligence who believes it, and it turns out generally to be correct. So, in October of 2002, in the lead up to the Iraq war, the FBI observed “that a war with Iraq could trigger new domestic terrorism risks.” Meanwhile, Jean-Louis Bruguiere, “the leading French investigation magistrate in charge of counter-terrorism affairs,” observed that “Attacking Iraq would intensify Islamic terrorism, not reduce it.” (influenced, in part, from the book Hegemony of Survival, pg.122). See these websites for the quotations:

http://rense.com/general30/asor.htm
http://articles.latimes.com/2002/nov/04/news/fgnoqaeda4/2

These words are strikingly close to the more recent conclusions reached by the FBI, whose director noted that “support for Islamic State increased after U.S. airstrikes began in Iraq.”

See: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama-speech-islamic-state-20140917-story.html

That Western force leads to an increase in radicalism and an increased threat of violence from the Middle East is something that has been long understood by those in power. It may not concern some members of this board what the motives for violence are but it has always been a very large concern for central U.S. powers. As an example, Glenn Greenwald observes how in “2004, Donald Rumsfeld directed the Defense Science Board Task Force” – a committee appointed by the Pentagon – “to review the impact which the administration’s policies – specifically the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – were having on Terrorism and Islamic radicalism. They issued a report in September, 2004 and it vigorously condemned the Bush/Cheney approach as entirely counter-productive, i.e., as worsening the Terrorist threat those policies purportedly sought to reduce.”

Greenwald links to a PDF of the report here though I’m not sure if it is still active: http://www.salon.com/2009/10/20/terrorism_6/

Similar conclusions were reached much earlier in a 1958 National Security Council report (see page 16 of Hayim Gordon's collection Looking Back at the June 1967 War).

So, what we can do here is two things. We can accept the findings made by major intelligence agencies that have done exhaustive studies on the issue and generally have the same results and even accurately predict what would in fact come to happen later, some of which I have posted here. Or we can believe someone who cites no one, has studied nothing, and is not in any position to know anyone's motives and impulses in comparison to the FBI, counter-terrorism experts, the US Department of Defense, the National Security Council, and so on.

Muslims are the ones who mistreat other muslims, eg beheadings, burnings, raping, chopping hands, stoning, female genital mutilation, child sexual assaults, slavery, etc. The issue is not the west's mistreatment of the poor muslims. They have been doing this to themselves for centuries, the west caused none of this. Granted the "War on Terror" has not solved any of these problems one bit.

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with the uncontroversial point that our violence in that part of the world is inciting radicalism and increasing the threat of terror.

Also, to you point, you're forgetting that a good deal of the violence that you mention is overwhelmingly supported by the United States. A good of what you are talking about takes place within the favourite US client state of Saudi Arabia as well as the brutal military dictatorships that the US favour and prop up often with violent military support over democratic governments in Egypt, Yemen, Qatar, Oman, Jordan, Morocco, etc. And are we forgetting the fact that the United States toppled the Iranian democratic government in 1953 and replaced it (and continued to give it decisive support) with a tyrannical dictatorship responsible for some of the greatest human rights atrocities in the region? Or the decisive support of the military dictatorship in Pakistan from 1958 to 1969. Or the fact that that "from 1958 to 1965 the United States trained, funded, advised, and supplied the army" that led to Suharto's coup in Indonesia and slaughtered 700,000 people? Or the support of the radical Islamization of Pakistan from 1978-1988? Or funding and backing the massacres that occurred in Lebanon in 1982? Or propping up Saddam Hussein when he was committing his greatest atrocities? Or supporting the ousting of the democratic regime in Algeria and then giving aid to the military dictatorship that took its place and who murdered 200,000 Algerians? Or the ongoing drone war campaign against people who haven't committed crimes? And this is far from a complete list.

It's really nothing short of fantasy to pretend that the country that has dominated the region with military aid and has contributed overwhelmingly towards the instability of the region - in fact, prefers instability over democracy - is "not the issue."

CSM - While you are tracing the history...that was then and this is now.  We have no power or control as civilians over what is going on. What we do know (if it is credible) is that Saudi Arabia and Qatar are funding the ISIS (Daesh) effort. Putin just put out a $50 million bounty leading to the arrest of those who are responsible for the plane bombing from last week.  

What I don't understand is what role the International Court of Justice is doing about "crimes against humanity." We had standing and every right, in 2003 to invade Iraq, just on those grounds.  Not WMD.  "Crimes against humanity" - just like the Nazi terror and Holocaust.  They didn't use those grounds.  WMD was the pretext.  

France should have entered with us then but didn't according to Bernard Kouchner (Medecins sans Frontières) whom I saw at at lecture several days prior to the invasion.  Kouchner  told the audience that they felt badly because of the fear of WMD but also the "crimes against humanity" because of the way in which the US liberated Europe during WWII, but were tied up with an oil deal with Total Fina-ELF and Russia. Their hands were tied.  Now, Russia is "all in" because this has bitten them.  France is "all in" because there two French presidents in that stadium and they wish to maintain a separation of church and state. America was a haven exactly for that reason.  

That said, there was support for invasion.  But it was conducted under the wrong pretext.  And our country should be bringing these dictators to justice in a court of law and not taking it upon themselves to just take out whoever they want.  Bring them to justice.  Take them alive.  

This movement is somewhat loosely based on the pretext of revenge for the Crusades? That was then, and this is now. If you look at the link I provided yesterday you'll see the Daesh training and propaganda manual. That is indefensible.

So, my question is where is the UN?  Where is NATO?  And, where is "the coalition?"  All those countries who send their kids to our US funded universities, for decades, take up seats of Americans, and many who have been coming here with a bag of cash...only recently have laws changed so that the money is supposed to be traced to a bona-fide bank and not a "mattress bank" as the money launderers use.  So, you might rethink the blame game.  It goes back to colonialism, and we can't fix that. It is a fait accompli. This is all about 'going forward." And going forward with some bona fide standard of transparency.

CSM - if you respond, please don't split up the post.  It is splitting hairs.  And, I hate "split ends."  
  

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Why does Emily think she "knows so intimately the motives and impulses of these people"?

Just thought I'd quickly reply to this point too.
Probably because this issue has been exhaustively studied. It’s not Emily who believes it – it’s the consensus of just about all of U.S. (and those outside of the US) intelligence who believes it, and it turns out generally to be correct. So, in October of 2002, in the lead up to the Iraq war, the FBI observed “that a war with Iraq could trigger new domestic terrorism risks.” Meanwhile, Jean-Louis Bruguiere, “the leading French investigation magistrate in charge of counter-terrorism affairs,” observed that “Attacking Iraq would intensify Islamic terrorism, not reduce it.” (influenced, in part, from the book Hegemony of Survival, pg.122). See these websites for the quotations:

http://rense.com/general30/asor.htm
http://articles.latimes.com/2002/nov/04/news/fgnoqaeda4/2

These words are strikingly close to the more recent conclusions reached by the FBI, whose director noted that “support for Islamic State increased after U.S. airstrikes began in Iraq.”

See: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama-speech-islamic-state-20140917-story.html

That Western force leads to an increase in radicalism and an increased threat of violence from the Middle East is something that has been long understood by those in power. It may not concern some members of this board what the motives for violence are but it has always been a very large concern for central U.S. powers. As an example, Glenn Greenwald observes how in “2004, Donald Rumsfeld directed the Defense Science Board Task Force” – a committee appointed by the Pentagon – “to review the impact which the administration’s policies – specifically the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – were having on Terrorism and Islamic radicalism. They issued a report in September, 2004 and it vigorously condemned the Bush/Cheney approach as entirely counter-productive, i.e., as worsening the Terrorist threat those policies purportedly sought to reduce.”

Greenwald links to a PDF of the report here though I’m not sure if it is still active: http://www.salon.com/2009/10/20/terrorism_6/

Similar conclusions were reached much earlier in a 1958 National Security Council report (see page 16 of Hayim Gordon's collection Looking Back at the June 1967 War).

So, what we can do here is two things. We can accept the findings made by major intelligence agencies that have done exhaustive studies on the issue and generally have the same results and even accurately predict what would in fact come to happen later, some of which I have posted here. Or we can believe someone who cites no one, has studied nothing, and is not in any position to know anyone's motives and impulses in comparison to the FBI, counter-terrorism experts, the US Department of Defense, the National Security Council, and so on.

Muslims are the ones who mistreat other muslims, eg beheadings, burnings, raping, chopping hands, stoning, female genital mutilation, child sexual assaults, slavery, etc. The issue is not the west's mistreatment of the poor muslims. They have been doing this to themselves for centuries, the west caused none of this. Granted the "War on Terror" has not solved any of these problems one bit.

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with the uncontroversial point that our violence in that part of the world is inciting radicalism and increasing the threat of terror.

Also, to you point, you're forgetting that a good deal of the violence that you mention is overwhelmingly supported by the United States. A good of what you are talking about takes place within the favourite US client state of Saudi Arabia as well as the brutal military dictatorships that the US favour and prop up often with violent military support over democratic governments in Egypt, Yemen, Qatar, Oman, Jordan, Morocco, etc. And are we forgetting the fact that the United States toppled the Iranian democratic government in 1953 and replaced it (and continued to give it decisive support) with a tyrannical dictatorship responsible for some of the greatest human rights atrocities in the region? Or the decisive support of the military dictatorship in Pakistan from 1958 to 1969. Or the fact that that "from 1958 to 1965 the United States trained, funded, advised, and supplied the army" that led to Suharto's coup in Indonesia and slaughtered 700,000 people? Or the support of the radical Islamization of Pakistan from 1978-1988? Or funding and backing the massacres that occurred in Lebanon in 1982? Or propping up Saddam Hussein when he was committing his greatest atrocities? Or supporting the ousting of the democratic regime in Algeria and then giving aid to the military dictatorship that took its place and who murdered 200,000 Algerians? Or the ongoing drone war campaign against people who haven't committed crimes? And this is far from a complete list.

It's really nothing short of fantasy to pretend that the country that has dominated the region with military aid and has contributed overwhelmingly towards the instability of the region - in fact, prefers instability over democracy - is "not the issue."

CSM - While you are tracing the history...that was then and this is now.

I suggest you look more closely at the examples that I gave. The drone war campaign against non-criminals is now. The support of authoritarian regimes in Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, and Jordan is happening right now. So would you care to revise that statement? Furthermore, regardless of when it took place, this discussion is about causation because understanding why tragic events happen is crucial to avoid them happening again.

We have no power or control as civilians over what is going on.

Yes we do. We are paying taxes and electing leaders who are ardently supporting dictatorships and instability. We aren't living in a dictatorship - we have some power to control these things.

What we do know (if it is credible) is that Saudi Arabia and Qatar are funding the ISIS (Daesh) effort.

We also know that we are committed to policies that are bolstering and increasing ISIS's power and we know that we have been doing that nearly ten years.

What I don't understand is what role the International Court of Justice is doing about "crimes against humanity." We had standing and every right, in 2003 to invade Iraq, just on those grounds.  Not WMD.  "Crimes against humanity" - just like the Nazi terror and Holocaust.  

By that logic, Washington could be invaded. Is that something you think other countries have standing and every right to do? If not, what's the difference?

Incidentally, the primary reason why the US did not invade on those grounds was precisely because they supported those crimes and, at the time, were overtly supporting the exact same style of leadership and torture in Equatorial Guinea and Uzbekistan. It would have been far too glaringly hypocritical for them to oppose Iraq on those grounds and it may have forced the Bush Administration into severing ties with brutal dictatorships that it had a vested interest in continuing to prop up.

That said, there was support for invasion.  But it was conducted under the wrong pretext.  And our country should be bringing these dictators to justice in a court of law and not taking it upon themselves to just take out whoever they want.  Bring them to justice.  Take them alive. 

I agree with that.

CSM - if you respond, please don't split up the post.  It is splitting hairs.  And, I hate "split ends."  
  

I will do that when you keep your responses to two to three sentences and present only one thought. Or we can agree to not dictate the terms to which the other responds?

[filledeplage]

CSM - we don't agree. 



 

[Chocolate Shake Man]

CSM - we don't agree. 

What don't we agree on exactly?

[Mike's Beard]

Fortunately, they don't. If you read the article that The Captain posted above you will understand that the people carrying this out tend to have a very poor understanding of Islam and, for some, religion is not even the primary motivator.

Splitting hairs. Whether they understand their faith fully or not, they are being led to believe that their prophet wants them to kill all non believers.

You might as well declare Jupiter an enemy planet while you're at it.

Rather daft answer.

Where are you getting your information from? Can you point me to any statistics? According to the UN Refugee Agency, there are 4,290,161 registered refugees, 50.3% are women while 49.7% are men and about 20% of the refugees are between the ages of zero and eleven. You can find those stats here:

http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php

Exactly - those that we know of. God knows how many more that we don't. Seen enough footage and photos to know that what I said is correct, unless for some reason they're telling all the women and children to hide out of shot.
PS. You can use statistics to prove anything, 74% of people know that. 

[filledeplage]

CSM - we don't agree.  

What don't we agree on exactly?

First, the distractors introduced in your response.  Most here are not Far or Middle Eastern scholars; certainly not I. Or possess working information those nation-states which arose after the dissolution of the USSR.  The US cannot control (nor should it) every political subdivision on the planet.  Yes, we are paying taxes.  Right now, we have a sitting president who is ruling by Executive Orders instead of the Legislative branch of government. That has the indicia of a dictatorship.  Now, the tail is wagging the dog. And a slow burning backlash is coming from the governors and the Congress.

Second, Washington had standing to invade Iraq.  Your post failed to mention the crimes against humanity context.  The US military did plenty of good for many of those civilians, that their own government didn't provide.  And, for example, I don't agree with the policy of "rendering" or widespread "wiretapping without a warrant" but right now it is immaterial to the "clear and present danger" we face.  The French found a rocket launcher yesterday among their 160+ raids.  Discussion of the past policies is of no consequence except for the "art of the debate." Time for intellectual debate is waning.  We need to save our own, and our families' lives.  And, fast.  That is where we are today.  Not on the debate team.

Third, we aren't dealing with logic or reason.  We are dealing with idelogical lunacy.  Marginalized individuals who have been brainwashed (and in many cases drugged) to carry out these kamikaze raids, with the promise of the virgin orgy post-death.  

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Fortunately, they don't. If you read the article that The Captain posted above you will understand that the people carrying this out tend to have a very poor understanding of Islam and, for some, religion is not even the primary motivator.

Splitting hairs. Whether they understand their faith fully or not, they are being led to believe that their prophet wants them to kill all non believers.

It's not splitting hairs because you have been claiming that Islam is at fault as you do when you suggest that we should cease protection of anyone who claims to be Islamic "by virtue of [Islam's]political/legal/military aims." Are you shifting the goal posts now in order to narrow that down to people who mislead others and people with a distorted understanding of religion? And you have neglected to address the central point that for many of these people religion is not even a primary motivator at all.

Exactly - those that we know of. God knows how many more that we don't.

In other words, we can accept the numbers given to us or we can accept the numbers that "God knows."

Seen enough footage and photos to know that what I said is correct, unless for some reason they're telling all the women and children to hide out of shot.

Good - just so we are clear, you are basing this off of propaganda (ie. selected photographs) and not facts.

PS. You can use statistics to prove anything, 74% of people know that. 

Then show me your statistics. I'd be happy to look them over and then we can debate the issue, rather than base our knowledge about who the millions of refugees are based on a few photos that have been circulated by people with an agenda.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

First, the distractors introduced in your response.  Most here are not Far or Middle Eastern scholars; certainly not I. Or possess working information those nation-states which arose after the dissolution of the USSR.

I'm really uncertain what this means.

The US cannot control (nor should it) every political subdivision on the planet.

This is all well and good to say but it doesn't alter the fact that the central US foreign policy since 1945 has been to do just that.

Yes, we are paying taxes.  Right now, we have a sitting president who is ruling by Executive Orders instead of the Legislative branch of government. That has the indicia of a dictatorship.

When you have mentioned this before, I demonstrated how Obama has used the Executive Order less per day than any President since 1900. So, is it your contention that the US has been a dictatorship for 115 years and that while Obama might be somewhat dictatorial he is far less so than most of the previous dictators? And then can you explain to me how this is not insulting to people who actually have lived under a dictatorship?

And a slow burning backlash is coming from the governors and the Congress.

Who apparently only care about use of executive orders when someone they don't like is using them.

Second, Washington had standing to invade Iraq.  Your post failed to mention the crimes against humanity context.

It cannot go unmentioned though that the US supported most of the crimes against humanity and then went on to support a sanctions policy that most agencies agree led directly to the deaths of 500,000 children.

The US military did plenty of good for many of those civilians, that their own government didn't provide.

Iraq was no paradise before 2003 to be sure but we also can't forget the decisive role that the U.S. played in its policy in the country leading up to 2003, which I have already described. And while it was no paradise before, it wasn't an unstable mess with its citizens becoming victims of an intense civil war as the country plunged into ruin and became a training ground for fundamentalist terrorism after years of the country being fairly secular. This mostly secular country then became radicalized with the US "divide-and-rule policy" which meant "promoting Iraqi organisations founded on religion, ethnicity, nationality or sect rather than politics" (The Guardian).

Again, I ask, if you believe US had standing to invade Iraq, do others have standing to invade Washington (I don't believe they do). If not, why not and what is the difference?

 And, for example, I don't agree with the policy of "rendering" or widespread "wiretapping without a warrant" but right now it is immaterial to the "clear and present danger" we face.  The French found a rocket launcher yesterday among their 160+ raids.  Discussion of the past policies is of no consequence except for the "art of the debate."

They are not past policies - I'm not sure why you persist in repeating this falsehood. It is the ongoing policy of the United States and it has been for decades.

Third, we aren't dealing with logic or reason.  We are dealing with idelogical lunacy.  Marginalized individuals who have been brainwashed (and in many cases drugged) to carry out these kamikaze raids, with the promise of the virgin orgy post-death.  

Again, a great deal of research disproves that that is the general make-up of these criminals, though I would agree with the brainwashed part.

[Mike's Beard]

It's not splitting hairs because you have been claiming that Islam is at fault as you do when you suggest that we should cease protection of anyone who claims to be Islamic "by virtue of [Islam's]political/legal/military aims." Are you shifting the goal posts now in order to narrow that down to people who mislead others and people with a distorted understanding of religion? And you have neglected to address the central point that for many of these people religion is not even a primary motivator at all.

Parts of the Koran make the Old Testament look tame by compairson. It's teachings have no part in a modern civilised society. Just to point out, I'm leary of any religion but am especially wary of one that is being held up as a reason to try kill me. What radicals are doing now is the modern day equivalent of Christians burning people at the stake.

In other words, we can accept the numbers given to us or we can accept the numbers that "God knows."

You must have missed that I bolded the word registered. Countless people that have slipped through into Europe unchecked. So I choose not to accept the UN's figures as an accurate figure of how many Muslims are floating about over here.

Good - just so we are clear, you are basing this off of propaganda (ie. selected photographs) and not facts.

Nice try but I'm from England, we don't have a 'Fox News problem' over here. Our tabloids may be sh*t but our tv broadcasting is subject to very strict regulations. Even reports that are very sympathetic towards the migrant crisis cannot mask the fact that their cameras are mainly capturing men, men and more men.

On a lighter note, I'm guessing that you are not a Simpsons fan?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Parts of the Koran make the Old Testament look tame by compairson.

That is incorrect. As religion historian Philip Jenkins points out, "By the standards of the time, which is the 7th century A.D., the laws of war that are laid down by the Quran are actually reasonably humane, ... Then we turn to the Bible, and we actually find something that is for many people a real surprise. There is a specific kind of warfare laid down in the Bible which we can only call genocide." Examples of this are God's wiping out of all on Earth before the flood, his call on King Saul to annihilate the Amalekites.

What radicals are doing now is the modern day equivalent of Christians burning people at the stake.

Okay, but does this not bolster my point that the West should be committed to stopping policies that are increasing radicalization?

You must have missed that I bolded the word registered. Countless people that have slipped through into Europe unchecked. So I choose not to accept the UN's figures as an accurate figure of how many Muslims are floating about over here.

What are the actual numbers then? Can you cite a figure that supports your claim that "Countless people ... have slipped through into Europe unchecked"?

Nice try but I'm from England, we don't have a 'Fox News problem' over here. Our tabloids may be sh*t but our tv broadcasting is subject to very strict regulations.

Are you honestly suggesting that there is no propaganda in England? And propaganda in the United States is not merely restricted to Fox News.

On a lighter note, I'm guessing that you are not a Simpsons fan?

I am very much so. Is there a reference that I didn't spot? I'm mostly a seasons 3 to 8 kind of guy.
EDIT: Oh yes, the 74% line. I see it now!  

[Mike's Beard]

Okay, but does this not bolster my point that the West should be committed to stopping policies that are increasing radicalization?

The west should be committed to leaving well alone what they cannot fix and have no place really trying to.

What are the actual numbers then? Can you cite a figure that supports your claim that "Countless people ... have slipped through into Europe unchecked"?

I can't and that's the scary thing, our Home Office has admitted more than once that they have lost track of how many illegals are here.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

The west should be committed to leaving well alone what they cannot fix and have no place really trying to.

They have no place trying to? It's been demonstrated that our actions have led to the rise of radicalism and the increase risk in terror. Doesn't that mean we have a responsibility in fixing it?

[Emily]

Mike's beard develops his own ersatz stats, history and political philosophy based on images flashing by on TV and hysterical writings on the Internet. You're beating your head against a wall CSM. This whole time, he hasn't once engaged thoughtfully with your central point. And he's not going to.
But, a truly valiant effort; I have learned much from your posts; and you are much more ordered, articulate and calm than I, traits that I admire.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Mike's beard develops his own ersatz stats, history and political philosophy based on images flashing by on TV and hysterical writings on the Internet. You're beating your head against a wall CSM. This whole time, he hasn't once engaged thoughtfully with your central point. And he's not going to.
But, a truly valiant effort; I have learned much from your posts; and you are much more ordered, articulate and calm than I, traits that I admire.

Ha - well I should definitely bow out now before I reach my breaking point which has been known to happen on this board! Thank you though. I've taken a great deal from your posts as well, a good example is where you correctly pointed out my error on the other thread which I was happy to correct. It's been nice to have several voices on this thread.

[Emily]

One nice thing about debating in print, which I've never done before, is you can go back and critique yourself.
I've learned that if someone throws in a tangent, I follow the tangent; if someone tries to frustrate me, I get frustrated. I don't keep my eye on the ball. It's good information.

[Mike's Beard]

The west should be committed to leaving well alone what they cannot fix and have no place really trying to.

They have no place trying to? It's been demonstrated that our actions have led to the rise of radicalism and the increase risk in terror. Doesn't that mean we have a responsibility in fixing it?

No, nobody is forcing them to put a gun in their hands. If I was to stab someone in the neck that would be on me, not the fault of someone else. Same applies here albeit on a vast scale.

Mike's beard develops his own ersatz stats, history and political philosophy based on images flashing by on TV and hysterical writings on the Internet.

And where do you get yours from, pray tell? The moon? I get my information from a variety of sources from both sides of the argument.

You're beating your head against a wall CSM. This whole time, he hasn't once engaged thoughtfully with your central point. And he's not going to.

I have but as it isn't the response you or CSM want to hear you ignore it.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

No, nobody is forcing them to put a gun in their hands. If I was to stab someone in the neck that would be on me, not the fault of someone else. Same applies here albeit on a vast scale.

As anyone who is aware of human behaviour knows, some actions have predictable consequences. And when it is made abundantly clear that your actions have this predictable consequence and it is not a good consequence, then, yes, you are under an obligation to stop those actions. That's a cornerstone of basic ethics. Your example is baffling since it bears no relation whatsoever to what we are talking about. Do you believe Charles Manson should not have been charged with any crime in the Tate-Labianca murders?

You're beating your head against a wall CSM. This whole time, he hasn't once engaged thoughtfully with your central point. And he's not going to.

I have but as it isn't the response you or CSM want to hear you ignore it.[/quote]

No, that's not quite true. First of all, you have never once addressed the point that I have made several times that for many religion is not a motivating factor. You've ignored that outright. Further, you have wavered back and forth between Islam being responsible, to people distorting Islam based on whatever I said last until you finally stopped responding when I challenged your final point that "the Koran make the Old Testament look tame by compairson."

Also, looking back on the thread, you have yet to respond in any way whatsoever to my response to your point that "The issue is not the west's mistreatment of the poor muslims."