tar

I think we should forgive people. I think we should give them a second chance. I think we should give people the benefit of the doubt. I think we should use our own judgment and hold ourselves accountable. But I think we have to submit to authority as well, and with that comes a choice of whose authority you are going to submit to. Whose team you are going to be on. Whose rules you are going to follow. And once you are on the team you have to play by the rules. When nations come up against nations, with eyes on the same resources, the same territory, the same world, then we have to establish rules that nations should follow and align ourselves with nations that are going to back us up in our endeavors. Daesh is not playing according to the rules. We don't need to forgive them. We need to get them to play by the rules. Ten Oz, So what is the intelligent approach? What should we be doing? Regards, TAR

dimreeper, Fear is a powerful ally of hate, why else call yourself a terrorist? We already covered that. ISIS uses fear and hatred to establish the "we" "they". Dichotomy. As does the KKK, as does Black Lives Matter, as does Fox News, as does Trump, as does Overtone, as does Hilary. Hate the enemy, fear the NRA, be on "our team". Defeat "them". Regards, TAR

rebuild every building that Assad and the rebels, and the Russians and the NATO allies and the money of Iran and Saudi Arabia have destroyed. repair every irrigation system fix whatever broken hearts and bodies and minds that we can ask for an election of representatives to Assad's government make Syria a safe place with the eyes and hearts of the world on her have everybody rebuild the place, together invite all the refugees back to their homes have an international barn raising, as the community might do in Amish country

instead of sending young innocents to their death dimreeper, So here is the plan. Capture them and release them to their families. Regards, TAR the Baathist generals as well

The Caliph is inspiring terror. The Caliph is in hiding. Most likely in or around or beneath Raqqa, since that is currently the capitol of his Caliphate. What makes the most sense is not to bomb the Neo-nazis in southern California, nor the Saudis nor the Muslim communities in any city around the world, or Sunnis in Iraq or Shia in Palestine or anybody even in Syria. What makes sense is to go in and get the Baathist leadership behind the Caliph and the Caliph. At that point, if anybody objects to the removal of those instigators, we can fight them as well. the koran forbids mischief makers and ISIS recruiters are making mischief they should perhaps blow themselves up and see how Allah will judge them

ten oz, Why just Syria? Cause you have to pick your battles. Cause Raqqa is the capitol of ISIS. So you can use it as an example of how a place might look, NOT being the capitol of a morally bankrupt Caliphate. Then perhaps Assad will take heed, and Putin, and the royal family in Saudi Arabia. Not just Syria. Just Syria first. Syria now, because Raqqa is the most obvious enemy, the most obvious target, the embodiment of evil at the moment. We can't just stand around and accept the stink. We can't not take a shower when we are stinky because we don't want to waste water. And we cannot neglect to shower on the principle that showers are useless because you just have to do it again tomorrow morning. Regards, TAR wait, which one bad guy are you asking us to forgive? Assad? I already suggested we help him get his country back, and then take it from there.

dimreeper, But we have already encouraged the Arab spring in Syria against Assad. Our president, and hence his populace, including me, are hence not in a perfect position to go talk with him. What do we say, "sorry about standing up for human rights and asking you to step down and asking you to stop killing yoraur citizens?" And what are we going to forgive the Caliph for doing? Why would we want to forgive the Baathists for inspiring California, and Paris, and Bali and Egypt and destroying sending so many young lives to martyrdom, and causing so much terror and pain in the world? Which part of what ISIS is doing are you in favor of allowing? Make a concession, give an inch, a mile is taken, and that is not enough. There is still death, there is still violence there is still Jihad I am thinking it would be better to help Assad get his country back from ISIL, than to let ISIL take over the area. I would rather Assad ran the place, or Russia, or the Saudis or Iran than to have ISIS run the place. The way they operate is counter human convention, is not sustainable, and sucks to boot. They are my sworn enemy and I can not forgive them, should not forgive them and would like to prevent any further victories on their behalf. I would like to see them lose. Regards, TAR

ten oz, Boots on the ground because bombs destroy too much and make terrorists out of the people you bomb. Boots on the ground because men are involved and we have a code about face to face combat rather than shooting somebody in the back. (we have no honor in the eyes of an ISIS recruit, if we kill them by pushing a button while sitting in our living room. Better to stand in front of him and do it, and give him a chance to fight and die with dignity or surrender and live if that makes more sense.) Boots on the ground so we can decide who is innocent and who is a combatant, and shoot only the combatant. Boots on the ground, because if we are not there, somebody is going to be somebody else's sex slave, get tossed off the roof of a building, get whipped for wearing makeup, and stoned for infidelity or perhaps get their head cut off for speaking against the prophet(pbuh). Boots on the ground because a cop on the beat is the best way to make a neighborhood safe. Regards, TAR iNow, I completely agree with your sentiment in 367 and would ask both waitforufo and overtone to take heed. Regards, TAR boots on the ground because bombs can't reach the tunnels where our enemy is hiding

Ten Oz, 'cause you can't get what you want, unless you choose sides and play until there is a winner Look, there are some major issues in the world. None will go away easily. For instance, let's say testosterone is a major factor in controlling behavior. We don't suggest that killing all males will solve all our problems, unless we are amazons, and have the male population under control. So let's look at some main words, some main needs, some main motivating factors in human life and see where we all are in the same boat. For you, for instance it would be better to go after the Saudis and that patriarchal group that think the best way to be is to have 50 wives and only allow men around that have had their balls cut off. Rich and oil are the main reasons you might be against Trump and Bush in this regard, because you don't want to be subject to the power of the Sultan, and be either a sex slave, or a eunuch. So let's look at some words, like control, lost, disaffected, we, they, purpose, dignity, honor, justice, and frame them against ISIS recruitment. I pick these words because I wrote them down, listening to a man, who was Muslim, and black and an official whose job it was to understand and work against, ISIS recruitment. He was describing the young, mostly men, that were disaffected and lost, looking for purpose and dignity, honor and justice, and finding it in ISIS's call. By fostering a feeling of "WE" "THEY" the ISIS leadership brings recruits into the fold. I pick the schoolyard because of a study I read years ago, where in the schoolyard boys tended to play games where teams were picked and there were winners and losers, while girls tended to play cooperative games. And I am looking at the idea of control, and the roles of dominant and recessive, because they are very important to the way we structure our personal lives, our businesses, our organizations, our nations, and the organizations, like the world court and the U.N. and powerful armies and governments that make our world the way it is. And because I have a theory that one reason, one main reason why people commit suicide, is because they have lost control of their lives. So under these realizations, we should look at all our arguments and see where we are being exactly like the things we are arguing against. We are all "justified" in seeking justice, and we all have a clear idea of who is the problem. It certainly isn't "me". It is obviously "them". If atheists could just talk the other 3 quarters of the world into being sensible, everything would go smoothly. Regards, TAR

To the point of the opposition vote in Germany, I heard today that the U.S. is hitting so many targets they are running out of ordinance. We are dropping bombs faster than we can resupply. That is way too many bombs. We have to be doing significant damage to something. Something that belongs to somebody, who is going to be pissed. Better we go in and fight so we only hurt the people that hate us already, and we don't have to fight people who are just protecting their homes and property.

namely the Caliph and the Baathist generals behind him (sorry John Cuthber, this is meant to be a postscript to my previous post, not a response to yours)

Willie71, I think everybody is agreed that you should attack ISIS in Syria and Iraq to fight this thing, and take a second look at your own citizens that have traveled to fight for ISIS in Syria and come back. Nobody is arguing you should kill Muslims, much less bomb any country other than any country exactly on the spot where a known terrorist is sitting. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/paris-militant-group-had-links-to-britain-wsj/ar-AAg2jhz?ocid=spartanntp Regards, TAR http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/germany-oks-military-mission-against-islamic-state-group/ar-AAg13VR?ocid=spartanntp "The party that will win is not the party that will have the most powerful, the most modern or the most expensive weaponry or even the bravest fighters," Henin said. "The side that will win ... is the party that will have the Syrian people on its side. By bombing Syria, we are pushing the Syrians into the hands of IS." This said by the opposition to a vote by German law makers to support bombing of ISIS in Syria in a non-combat role, following a call for help from France. Supports the boots on the ground plan. Don't bomb them and make enemies. Go in and defeat the enemies we already have. Regards, TAR

Ten Oz, I am all for hope for a resolution. I don't like hearing people saying we are heading for World War Three. I am trying to argue otherwise. Find the culprits and neutralize them. Find the disagreements and try to work them out. I have little power over how other people, in other countries, raise their kids. I have little power to find productive, satisfying work for everybody in the world (I have been out of work for almost a year now). For instance, if there is plague or famine or earthquake or storm, I am not the cause of such, I can however assist in the solution, to the extent that a few dollars and my thoughts and lobbying might assist the sufferers. However if somebody is dissatisfied with their life, unless its a friend, or some dissatisfaction I can remove, I have little power in the situation. In the case of Jihad, we have an interesting problem. The cause of dissatisfaction is me. Not because of any rational thought, but because such hatred has been engendered by the Caliph, to swell his ranks. If the thing is irrational, rational thought and argument are not going to be persuasive. If I deserve to die because I am American, or White, or because I served in the Military or voted for Bush, or supported Israel , then that person is either irrational and hating me for irrational reasons, or they are justified in hating me by some subjective standards they go by, in which case I am their enemy by virtue of me having different rules upon which I go, that are not compatible with their rules. If such a thing should happen as 9/11 where it becomes obvious that my way of life is demonized, and I become the nexus of somebody's anger, to the point where my children and countrymen and innocent folk of all sort are in danger, I find your argument a little weak, to blame the situation on MY anger. That I should be caring and rational, in the face of indiscriminant carnage and irrationality. Regards, TAR that I should be terrorized and submit to the Caliph and pay him an extorted fee , or convert, or die I reject the notion. Call it whatever you want, I will protect my way of life, from those who would be jealous of it, hate it, covet it or otherwise strive to take it from me. If they don't want to have anything to do with me, I will just retrieve my own tennis ball. But then, if they are in need, they make it difficult for me to help them. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/maliks-journey-from-pakistan-to-mass-murder/ar-AAg2h4l?ocid=spartanntp

Ten Oz, This isn't only about the ease of getting a hold of an assault weapon. That is obvious to figure, that less assault weapons on the street would, reduce mass killings. You don't need weapons of war on the street in peacetime. That has nothing to do with the Paris attacks however. The wife radicalized the husband. She sewed the hatred. Not some former gang member neo Nazi in southern California. She pledged allegiance to the Caliph on facebook during the shooting. the major news outlets are reporting that he had traveled to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan with her and one or the other or both may have been radicalized there. So internally if we have a problem with gangs and drugs and guns in the city we fight that crime in the city, if we have problems with gangs and drugs and neo Nazis in the suburbs, we fight that in the suburbs, if we have problems with a caliph urging people to kill infidels, we fight the Caliph, where ever he is. If he has called a Jihad on me, I call an APB on him. WANTED. Dead or alive. What does wanting to see criminals behind bars have to do with hate. It is the desire to take the hate off the street that causes me to want to kill or capture the leadership of ISIS. If the recruiters are dead, the recruits would have nobody to please. Besides mass murders in this country are carried out by unstable people with grudges. Stable people with guns usually stop such threats or the person takes their own life. Measures to keep assault weapons out of the hands of unstable people are 100% indicated. Measures to take guns in general out of our hands runs into other nuanced issues that have only tangential relationship to the Paris Attacks. The problem that everyone agrees on is ISIS. How to fight them is my question. And such I think is a better thing to concentrate on, in a thread about the terrorist attacks in Paris than gun control in the U.S. which has its own threads. Regards, TAR

CharonY, I completely agree. You can't slice it up and say this is this and that is that. That is what the British did in the first place, and the U.N. did with Israel. Causing winners and losers. No, what I meant was not to divide Iraq into three states, but foster an environment where each town could have their leaders and representatives to the next larger political unit. If the feeling of self rule was fostered, it would be up to the various "states" to form a union. Not because somebody else told them how to do it, but because they wanted to do it. But I was mainly thinking about how to go after Raqqa, without dropping bombs and killing people and acting like a invasion force. Without the people of the town, you couldn't hold anything anyway. But just concentrating on Raqqa, and removing the Caliph, would let Raqqa decide its own fate. With world eyes and pressure on the situation and humanitarian aid a plenty, and coalition partners ready to keep it a safe zone, any way the people of Raqqa wanted to see it go at that point, it could go. The people that wanted to live by old rules could, if everybody wanted to live that way. If not they could make concessions to each other and find a reasonable balance, without the balance someone else is happy with, being imposed. Then if the approach worked, on to the next town. Until Assad had his country back from ISIS. Then the same approach, town by town in Iraq, until Baghdad had her cities back. Nobody displaced, nobody pushed out, nobody winning, nobody loosing. Each town run by the townspeople, by the townspeople's rules. Even if the West is not pleased with the human rights status. As long as the citizens are pleased and not in fear of reprisal. As long as we make them safe. Safe from us. Safe from each other. But where and how they want to be. Regards, TAR In a way, we could consider the expense of such a military and humanitarian effort the reparation due two nations we helped tear apart. I would imagine, if we were prepared to accept it not going our way, it could even decide to be a Caliphate and we could sign a peace treaty with it. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/are-paris-attacks-a-signal-the-islamic-state-is-stagnating/ar-AAfZDX0?ocid=spartandhp Just thought of an additional tactic to employ in the plan, looking at these very young or female fighters. If our coalition ground troops should encircle such a band with overwhelming forces, don't kill them until you give them this chance (loud speakers in several languages saying)" lay down your weapons and approach us, you will not be hurt, we will check you for explosives, feed you and return you to your town of birth where we will release you to your family." with 100 dollars and a smart phone having been in basic training myself, I would have liked the opportunity to take a Mulligan

Thread, I don't think that bombs are the answer. Nor do I think it best to provide the answer. I am pretty much against creating a dependency. People and nations should stand on their own two feet. With representative governments and rule of law. I prefer secular laws voted on by the population or established in some founding constitution. To that end, I would think it prudent not to assist in picking the winners and the losers, but support all parties in establishing self rule. Sunnis should rule Sunnis, Shia Shia, Kurds Kurds, Turkmen Turkmen, Syrians Syrians. We actually don't have the right to bomb in Syria at all. We have some agreements in Iraq to help the government of Iraq, but Assad does not want us bombing his country except perhaps to have us kill his citizens that would have him removed. Russia is assisting Assad directly and is now at odds with a NATO ally, Turkey, who would rather not Russia bomb the Turkmen near their border. So first, I would suggest we not try to be Assad's daddy and tell him what to do. Either consider Raqqa part of Sovereign Syria, and ask Assad how we can help him regain control of his country, and reestablish the rule of law, with representative government happening in all corners of the place, or consider the area under control of ISIS no longer part of Syria, but part of ISIS and declare war on ISIS directly, in the same way that we declared war on Saddam. Then with the support of everybody who would like to shed the yoke of ISIS we go after the leadership. We will need bullets, carefully aimed at ISIS fighters, but not bombs, but to support the ground troops. Search out the tunnels and headquarters and capture the leadership. Put them in jail. Bring along the press and the U.N. and food and medicine and bulldozers and builders to put the infrastructure back together. Make Raqqa a safe zone. Bring the world in to keep people from getting thrown off the tops of buildings. Free the sex slaves, remove the yoke. Bring voting booths and have Raqqa vote for their representatives to Assad's government. Stay around until everybody is playing nicely together. Then when the world thinks it is time to go. Go. Regards, TAR

by not letting ISIS establish a huge state with many cities where that would be the law I have a family member who is gay. Everybody knows somebody. Do you want to live under a Caliph that not only allows such behavior but demands it? We cannot save those already thrown. But we can be on the side of those who have not yet been thrown.

Overtone, Thank you for your suggestion. Probably not a bad idea. Reduce our dependence on oil from other continents and our "interests" in the middle east shrink and we will not have so much a need to influence the governments in the area to exercise some amount of control over who gets the oil and at what price. But someone already thought of that, and we have already reduced the percentage of our energy needs we satisfy from Gulf oil. That has not reduced the amount of terrorist attacks. I am thinking the industrial and banking and energy industries are connected, and the connections reach across the sea and include players on all continents. I don't think the U.S. is the only player. We may be the stooge for the Saudis or be complicit in grand schemes on world level to affect politics through control of energy and resources...but I am not privy to all those meetings, and the power structures in the world, are not solely national governments, there are other associations and organizations and banks and corporations, both public and private. The U.N., the World Bank, the E.U., Doctors without Borders, and any number of organizations that we would support and thus still have reason to have interest in the area. Regards, TAR And Overtone, You have not convinced me yet of the evidence you have that Iran is our natural ally. The Iranian's have burned my flag, held our embassy hostage, financed the mortal enemies of Israel, perhaps aided in mixing it up in Iraq during the civil war there during the anti U.S. occupation years, and are among the people on Hilary's list of the enemies she is most proud of making. At first glance, at the international chess board, I would not naturally put them on my side of the board. Regards, TAR And yes. Paris came as a surprise to me. If the Iranians hate the Sunni that does not make them natural allies. Moderate, secular Sunni are our natural ally. And we withdrew from Iraq and pulled our strong support from the Syrian moderate secular rebels because they were losing to ISIS and ISIS was winding up with our weapons. We "let the paint dry" for a couple of years...and now seeing the color is Daesh, we should probably repaint.

Overtone, Well given the lessons you have learned from history, what if anything should we do in response to the existence of ISIL? Does Paris change the plan you had in mind before Paris? Completely forgetting I said anything about it, and assuming I don't know what I am talking about, and my desires on the issue are to be completely ignored. What is the right thing to do, according to you? What course should we lobby our government to take, on behalf of peace, prosperity and understanding on this planet? Regards, TAR

Overtone, So going forward. Without any weapons. What would be a good plan? Regards, TAR do we let homosexuals get thrown off buildings? do we ask people nicely to convert to a more tolerant set of beliefs?

Overtone, I was minding my own business (personally) when the towers came down, and that required my attention. As a country we have been engaged with the world for a long time, fought wars, cured diseases, ended plagues, fed the hungry, brought water to the thirsty and fought against communism and tyranny, and engaged in commerce and travel, just about everywhere. "Our" interests are several and the situations we get into are not of our own making. There are other actors. It is not the Allies fault that Hitler tried to conquer the place. It is not the Allies fault for Imperial Japan to try and conquer the place. It is not NATOs fault for the Soviet Union trying to conquer the place. It is not the coalitions fault for Saddam trying to conquer the place. It is not the free world's fault for ISIS's trying to conquer the place. It has been and is in our best interest to stand against those eventualities. And usually bombs and bullets are required to get the job done. Regards, TAR

You keep saying that if we stopped being dis-believers then we would be not killed. Not an option. I respect the fact that 1/3 of you go to Mecca at some point in your life and walk around the stone. I respect the fact that you live as Muhammed (pbuh) lived. It is wonderful to strive 'til all the world is for Allah. It must be quite a feeling to be with hundreds of thousands of others, all reciting the same verses. But in my world there is no throwing people off of buildings because they are gay. There is no cutting off of my daughter's clitoris. Smoking and sex and looking at naked pictures is OK. Worshipping idols is OK. Believing in Christ as the son of God is OK. Believing in forgiveness is OK. Not just OK, really OK. Chopping people's heads off, stoning and whipping, not OK. Worshipping Buddah and the holy Mother OK. Governments should be representatives of their citizens. Mullahs that keep their populations subjugated, stupid and poor...not OK. Dictators...not OK. My way of life, good. Anyone who would kill me because of it, or take it away from me bad.

Dimreeper, I understand. I know the Zionists massacred Palestinians, I know that Iranians died with munitions we gave Saddam, I know we crusaded against the Muslims, I know we occupied Iraq and caused a civil war that killed hundreds of thousands, I know that arabs would help us fin Syria against Assad, if we would not get the Israelis involved. I read the Koran twice, I understand where I am in error according to Muhammed (pbuh). Problem is I AM a disbeliever. I AM Satan in the eyes of the NOI. I DID break faith with Bin Laden and Saddam. I am guilty already. I can take none of it back. But if I would rather innocents not be killed because of me I have two or three choices. Commit suicide, wait to die at Daesh hands, or kill my sworn enemies that have publically pledged to kill innocents, no matter what. Those that will NEVER not hate me. Regards. TAR

When a country is on a war footing the way they act toward the country they are at war with changes. They are enemies. Here we have not only an ideology but strongholds and towns and installations that house the enemy. Whether the house is in San Denis or Raqqa, if the holders of the ideology are inside you go in and get them. If they fight, you shoot back until they give up, or are dead. That is war. There is plenty of room to treat muslims and Syrians and Iraqis who do not have that idealogy, with respect and still kill those who have promised, publically that they intend to kill you.

dimreeper, Wait, you are confusing things here. I am saying it is bad to kill jews in gas chambers, but effective in having people hide their Jewishness. But it is OK to bomb Berlin to stop the practice. You don't stop bombing because you are afraid more Nazis will get mad at you. Regards, TAR