Paris attacks

[waitforufo]

 

 

Hatred.

 

 

 

 

Self loathing.

That can't be right. You make this sound like a Muslim problem.

[tar]

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

Edited December 4, 2015 by tar

[Ten oz]

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.

Your response here has nothing to do with anything I posted.

 

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.

She radicalized him and sewed the hatred...how do you know this?

 

 

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.

They both may have been radicalized in Saudi Arabia and/or Pakistan? I thought you said the wife radicalized him?

So add Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to list with Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran for our war against ISIS?

 

 

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.

So drugs and gangs are domestic issues? None of the gangs and drugs on our streets have associations from beyond our borders?

 

If he has called a Jihad on me, I call an APB on him. WANTED. Dead or alive.

Right, because more violence is the answer. How many Jihadi John's have we killed since 9/11? What has it accomplished?

 

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 then gun control in the U.S. which has its own threads.Regards, TAR

Where is any post that I have made in this thread did I advocate for gun control?

 

The Farook's lived in the united states. No amount of killing people in Syria would have stopped the Farook's or people like them. Neither had even visited Syria either. Al Quada, ISIS, Hezbollah; there will alway be a group to label as the centeral figure for Islamic Terror. We will never invade enough shores to eradicate terrorism.

 

Rhetoric matters. How often have you left a forum discussion when it becomes obvious that those you were chatting with were immovable from there thinking? When we label, ignore, and demagogue people they abondon attempts at resolution. How often do protests turn into riots only after officials attempt to shut protest down? You don't think all things being equal terrorists would prefer a life? You think suicide is born into them? It is a desperate act. They clearly hold no hope for any resolution. Changing our response and our actions over time could change that desperation. Change that abondonment of hope for a resolution. Less you believe they are all just natural born killers who would prefer blowing themselves up? If that is the case than it appears you too have abandoned hope for a resolution.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Ten oz

[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

Edited December 4, 2015 by tar

[Willie71]

Well, with the apparent terrorist attack in Californa, it's time to bomb Cali. So what if we kill some civillians while we are at it?

 

We should bomb Paris too. Quite a few home grown terrorists there from what I have seen. First Charlie Hebdo, then the recent attack. We need to take them out before they radicalize anyone else.

[tar]

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

Edited December 5, 2015 by tar

[John Cuthber]

That can't be right. You make this sound like a Muslim problem.

No, it's straightforward criminality- but disguised as religious hatred.

That way it's more difficult for tolerant societies to argue against.

[tar]

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)

Edited December 5, 2015 by tar

[MigL]

Don't know about bombing Paris. Too much culture and history would be lost.

 

But I'm all for bombing California.

Especially that Hollywood area. No culture at all. Way too tacky and glitzy.

[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.

[Willie71]

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=spartanntpRegards, TARhttp://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

You have terrorists in California. Why not bomb them?

[Ten oz]

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.

Why must we go into Syria and fight? Which terrorist attack on U.S. was carried out by Syrian citizens? On 9/11 they were mostly all Saudi Arabian and according to your previous post Syed Farook was radicalized while visiting Saudi Arabia (by his wife) yet you believe the answer is boots on the ground in Syria?

 

Imagine what the country would be like today if Martin Luther King's message was an eye for an eye rather than nonviolence. If he implored people to strike back against brutality with armed strength. How bloody would things have become and wouldn't that have only manufactured more hatred and division. Instead King asked people to turn the other check. When men were lynched, volunteers registering folks to vote murdered, when the dogs were let loose of protestors, when the fire hoses came out, and etc, etc, etc, King asked everyone to stay calm. Even when King himself was killed the movement did not resort to violence. Do you believe Martin Luther King showed strength or weakness?

 

Rather than armed boots on the ground meant to kill people perhaps leaders like Obama should board their planes and actually fly to Syria and Iran and meant with leaders. I know there would be security concerns but would that show courage and a true desire for resolution. Imagine that, actually being in the same room with someone you how to resolve a dispute with. Obama actually taking to Assad face to face. If we were honest in an attempt to resolve this conflict maybe we'd be able to recognize that Saudi Arabia is a problem too. That Saudi Arabia, Oman, Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, and Qatar are not doing their part. They are all very wealthy nations yet they have oppressive foriegn worker camps, are terrible on women's rights, and bleed money into terrorist organizations. Why should we put boots on the ground in Syria killing people while ignoring Saudi Arabia? We can not kill our way to peace. This is bigger than Syria. we can not win hearts and mind or change the dialogue by continuing to ignore play favorites. If we are honestly going to confront everyone that harbor terrorist than Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and etc deserve a lot of attention. Instead we seem to focus on the poor nations with governments we never cared much for anyway.

 

Many of the ISIS member fighting in Syria previous fled our troops in Iraq. If we push into Syria what stops them from fleeing into Iran or Turkey and begin destabilizing those countries? Borders contain our troop movements but do not contain terrorists.

[tar]

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

Edited December 5, 2015 by tar

[Ten oz]

@ Tar, nothing in that response explains how boots on the ground in Syria will help defeat terrorism.

You advocated for boot on the boot in Syria surely you have a logical reason for it?

[dimreepr]

That can't be right. You make this sound like a Muslim problem.

 

 

Really clutching at straws now...

 

Hatred and self loathing have no boundaries they can appear in a “Muslim” just as easily they can appear in a white middle classed bigot.

 

You must realise that every time you ‘blame’ the Muslims you’re do exactly what the Terrorists want; if you don’t realise then it’s plain ignorance but if you do then you’re, willingly, helping to create a much bigger war and that’s despicable.

[waitforufo]

A true expression of the modern liberal mind.

 

[iNow]

How much simpler my world would feel were I so easily able to blame all of its manied and complex issues and problems on one single monolithic caricatured human scapegoat . More than 7,000,000,000 people on the planet, each with their own individual wants, desires, biases, and opinions, but clearly it's the black guy in office that is directly responsible for anything and everything that's bad in this world.

 

So childish,nye so common.

[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

Edited December 5, 2015 by tar

[dimreepr]

A true expression of the modern liberal mind.

 

 

 

Those straws are getting ever more sparse and brittle, aren’t they?

 

However I would like an answer (to my question without a?) to post #365

 

 

 

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.)

 

 

 

Soldiers still kill, and not always the guilty, the point is ‘tar’ forgiving the guilty isn’t the same as letting them off scot free; the point is forgiving breaks the cycle of violence/revenge/death and allows people to talk out their problems rather than shoot them out.

[Ten oz]

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

Why boots on the ground in Syria specifically? That isn't going to stop the terrorists who are radicalizing people in Saudi Arabia.

 

We put boot on the ground in Iraq and Afghanastan and what happen; the bad guys put their guns down and bled into the population. Our troops won't be able to " decide who is innocent and who is a combatant, and shoot only the combatant". ISIS is going to meet us face to face with a standing army on some battle field. We put boots on the ground in Syria and they will just bled back into the population and wait for a chance to move into Turkey and start back up again. We have already seen this play out elsewhere.

 

"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)".......do you think this is only happening in Syria?

[tar]

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

[dimreepr]

So, instead of forgiving one bad guy and bringing peace to all, you’d rather let the least bad guy cause an acceptable level of suffering to the fewest?

Edited December 5, 2015 by dimreepr

[tar]

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.

Edited December 5, 2015 by tar

[dimreepr]

wait, which one bad guy are you asking us to forgive?

 

 

All of them!!!!

[tar]

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