• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ISIL Beheads American Photojournalist in Iraq

SouthernDemocrat said:
Yeah nothing to lose other than when you blow up villages you only create more extremists. Death and destruction is like fertilizer for Islamic Extremism. For example, if you kill a baker's wife and kids while bombing some village over there, all you have done is turn that baker into a terrorist.
Click to expand...

And if you kill the baker, his wife, and his kids, there are no more terrorists.
 
Luftwaffe said:
And if you kill the baker, his wife, and his kids, there are no more terrorists.
Click to expand...

till a bunch of people hear about it also kind of evil
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
The Soviets would go out, kill them, then bury them in pig guts as an insult. In response, the Islamists would kidnap Soviet soldiers, mutilate them to look like pigs, and send them back. The Soviets killed as many as 90,000 Mujahedeen, and by some estimates 1.5 million Afghans, yet after 10 years they were no closer to winning the war against Islamists there than they were the day they went in.
Click to expand...
There is a wee bit of difference between going into a country and attempting to conquer the country vs attacking fundamentalist extremists. And hey...if all the accounts are true its REALLY just a small minority of Muslims that are fundamentalist extremists and SURELY the vast majority of Muslims will support an all out offensive against those that are killing Muslim, Jew, and gentile alike...right?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Fighting terrorism and extremism was their stated reason for being there.
Click to expand...

Never in the beginning and not until the end when things were going bad for them. Here even Basic Wiki has it.



Soviet war in Afghanistan.

Soviet–Afghan relations.

In 1978, after witnessing India's nuclear test, Smiling Buddha, President Daud Khan initiated a military buildup to counter Pakistan's armed forces and Iranian military influence in Afghan politics. A final pre-war treaty, signed in December 1978, allowed the PDPA to call upon the Soviet Union for military support.

SovietInvasionAfghanistanMap.png


Soviet war in Afghanistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Yeah nothing to lose other than when you blow up villages you only create more extremists. Death and destruction is like fertilizer for Islamic Extremism. For example, if you kill a baker's wife and kids while bombing some village over there, all you have done is turn that baker into a terrorist.
Click to expand...

Yet history is so repleat with examples where doing nothing ended up with a body count magnitudes greater than doing something at a particular point of time that arguing for the former cannot be said to actually advocate for peace.

Don't you think it would be more fruitful to offer some alternate suggestions here instead of just falling back on trite cliches? THis "we create terrorists" mantra gets pretty old after a while, since it shifts the reponsibility for behavior away from the perps and on to us, instead. We did not create the culture that produces all this terrorism. The best we can hope is to influence it and contain it.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Sure, just go back to Old Testament tactics. That is why there was so much peace in the world back then....:roll:

The problem is going in there in the first place. Had we left the dictator Saddam in power, he would still be contained and none of this would have ever happened.
Click to expand...

Unless you have a time machine you are going to have to come up with another plan.
 
americanwoman said:
That really makes us no better than them if we were to allow that to happen and it will only spark more anger against us, needing then to kill more families and innocent people. Call me a pacifist all you want but atleast I don't sink to their level.
Click to expand...

Survival is not a popularity contest. At this point they seem to have enough anger to bury women and children alive. Do you think pissing them off more will make any difference? Your perspective is from the safety of your home on the other side of the planet. WHEN, not if, it starts happening here you will change your mind. Either that or you will die and it won't matter anyway.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Sure, just go back to Old Testament tactics. That is why there was so much peace in the world back then....:roll:

The problem is going in there in the first place. Had we left the dictator Saddam in power, he would still be contained and none of this would have ever happened.
Click to expand...

This is an odd argument. We kept Saddam contained in the 90s by flying continual sorties and blowing his s*** up once in a while. All the while Saddam brutalized the civilian population of Iraq.

So bombing ISIS now is essentially a return to the way things were in the 1990s. ISIS is as "contained" as Saddam was...
 
Gardener said:
Yet history is so repleat with examples where doing nothing ended up with a body count magnitudes greater than doing something at a particular point of time that arguing for the former cannot be said to actually advocate for peace.

Don't you think it would be more fruitful to offer some alternate suggestions here instead of just falling back on trite cliches? THis "we create terrorists" mantra gets pretty old after a while, since it shifts the reponsibility for behavior away from the perps and on to us, instead. We did not create the culture that produces all this terrorism. The best we can hope is to influence it and contain it.
Click to expand...

We need to find another brutal dictator to prop up in Iraq. Any of Saddam's grand kids old enough?
 
tech30528 said:
Unless you have a time machine you are going to have to come up with another plan.
Click to expand...

We need to go back to the only thing that has ever worked for us in the Middle East. Prop up brutal dictators that are somewhat friendly to us, sell them arms, and keep them contained.
 
VanceMack said:
There is a wee bit of difference between going into a country and attempting to conquer the country vs attacking fundamentalist extremists. And hey...if all the accounts are true its REALLY just a small minority of Muslims that are fundamentalist extremists and SURELY the vast majority of Muslims will support an all out offensive against those that are killing Muslim, Jew, and gentile alike...right?
Click to expand...

That's why we are seeing all these peaceful demonstrations by the vast majority of Muslims who are against the extremists.
 
Last edited:
jmotivator said:
This is an odd argument. We kept Saddam contained in the 90s by flying continual sorties and blowing his s*** up once in a while. All the while Saddam brutalized the civilian population of Iraq.
Click to expand...

And us and the rest of the rest of the world were all the better off because of it...

So bombing ISIS now is essentially a return to the way things were in the 1990s. ISIS is as "contained" as Saddam was...
Click to expand...

With the exception that Saddam was a brutal dictator that didn't have any religious world domination motivations. He was just your typical mideast dictator. ISIS is what you get over there when you take down the brutal dictators.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
We need to find another brutal dictator to prop up in Iraq. Any of Saddam's grand kids old enough?
Click to expand...

There are really only these two possibilties considering the backwardness of the cultures involved, and so the lesser of two evils WOULD indicate a strong-armed leader is necessary. We cannot turn them into us. We cannot force them to advance their cultural values untold centuries forward in time. The best we can hope is that strong armed leaders can emerge more in the fashion of a Kemel Ataturk than a Saddam Hussein.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
We need to go back to the only thing that has ever worked for us in the Middle East. Prop up brutal dictators that are somewhat friendly to us, sell them arms, and keep them contained.
Click to expand...

That didn't prevent things like 9/11
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
We need to go back to the only thing that has ever worked for us in the Middle East. Prop up brutal dictators that are somewhat friendly to us, sell them arms, and keep them contained.
Click to expand...
Close. We need to prop up kingdoms. We need to prop up an Emir. We need to look to the successful models of government that actually work in the middle east and we need to better understand how their culture works. We also need to engage countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Oman, etc to work with an support a leader or regime if you will.
 
blarg said:
no I say we kill you before doing something like that
Click to expand...

It won't help. I've had someone threaten my life before. I've already made my decision, there will be no negotiations. It's easy to take moral high ground until it happens to you.
 
tech30528 said:
It won't help. I've had someone threaten my life before. I've already made my decision, there will be no negotiations. It's easy to take moral high ground until it happens to you.
Click to expand...

shame you want to murder people now over it
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
And us and the rest of the rest of the world were all the better off because of it...
Click to expand...

In the end it would have been far easier just to leave troops in Iraq.

With the exception that Saddam was a brutal dictator that didn't have any religious world domination motivations. He was just your typical mideast dictator. ISIS is what you get over there when you take down the brutal dictators.
Click to expand...

Can you name another middle East dictator that has invaded its neighbor in the last 30 years? Saddam did it twice.

Also, do you oppose ousting Gaddafi in Libya? Seems he was serving much the same purpose...
 
lizzie said:
I guess it's different when it's an American (most likely) liberal, rather than an American Christian missionary.
Click to expand...

He was doing the work of the Press, which should never be questioned.
 
blarg said:
shame you want to murder people now over it
Click to expand...

Ah, no. There is a difference between self defense and murder. The threat was recent, but he is in jail now. Not much of a concern any more. But before his trial when he was out I carried a bit larger caliber than normal. If he is to be released I will be informed.
 
Kobie said:
Huh?

In what earthly way is Obama "stoking the flames of a race war"?
Click to expand...

Watch the news.

But I see while Britons head has come off vacation to try to deal with this, our 'leader' gave a statement and headed back to the golf course.
 
tech30528 said:
Ah, no. There is a difference between self defense and murder. The threat was recent, but he is in jail now. Not much of a concern any more. But before his trial when he was out I carried a bit larger caliber than normal. If he is to be released I will be informed.
Click to expand...

this is murder your asking for

We need to start eliminating the villages they come from. Yes, entire populations
 
tech30528 said:
Ah, no. There is a difference between self defense and murder. The threat was recent, but he is in jail now. Not much of a concern any more. But before his trial when he was out I carried a bit larger caliber than normal. If he is to be released I will be informed.
Click to expand...

killing his family and comunity would also be murder for every member that's not trying to kill you
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
You can't out "brutal" Muslim extremists. The Soviets were extremely brutal in their responses to this kind of thing in Afghanistan back in the 1980s and it go them nowhere.
Click to expand...

No you probably cant, but you can match them and make them very unhappy, and more importantly make it pointedly clear you are more than willing to be as ugly to them and theirs as they are. It is especially effective if you can do it at will and at little cost to yourself. The other thing is this type of tactic is NOT aimed the extremist themselves but their enablers those who support them, ie their families and clans and tribes ect.
 
PirateMk1 said:
No you probably cant, but you can match them and make them very unhappy, and more importantly make it pointedly clear you are more than willing to be as ugly to them and theirs as they are. It is especially effective if you can do it at will and at little cost to yourself. The other thing is this type of tactic is NOT aimed the extremist themselves but their enablers those who support them, ie their families and clans and tribes ect.
Click to expand...

not going to happen its wrong you would deserve death if you were to try
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom