• 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!

Can Muslims ever condemn ISIS enough?

Can Muslims ever condemn ISIS enough?


  • Total voters
    25
Who do you think is fighting against ISIS?

A couple of governments in the ME and The United States are toying with ISIS, but no one is really fighting them.
 
Condemnation alone isn't enough. Destroying ISIS isn't enough. Now 'they' have to actively engage in killing every Islamic extremist on the planet. In other words, you've set the bar so high that no Muslim can ever reach it.

I don't think that goal is unreachable at all.
 
Condemnation alone isn't enough. Destroying ISIS isn't enough. Now 'they' have to actively engage in killing every Islamic extremist on the planet. In other words, you've set the bar so high that no Muslim can ever reach it.

I can't in all honesty believe that any woman who wears a hijab by choice is condemning extremism when she is openly practicing it herself.
 
Well at least they're sorry.

no, they're not sorry.... they were manipulated and lied to in order to make some sort of idiot emotional plea.... those adults involved in that video need to be punched in the ****ing mouth.

child exploitation is so very cool :roll:
 
A couple of governments in the ME and The United States are toying with ISIS, but no one is really fighting them.

Fighting ISIS is how the Kurds are earning their own country.
 
ISIS members ARE Muslims and the MUSLIMS in the territory controlled by ISIS could have stopped the rise if ISIS, but didn't. Muslims in the surrounding region could have prevented the rise if ISIS, but didn't. They could eliminate ISIS now, but don't.

Of themselves to the press, words are NOTHING. They have NO value. It does not matter what condemning words people say. Evil never declares itself evil. No one ever says they are supporting evil. They say whatever sounds best to say.

Words to the press condemning ISIS is no more opposing ISIS than posting words on this forum condemning ISIS. NOR is President Obama's condemning words his opposing ISIS either. Words are nothing.

Other than Jordan and the Kurds, Muslims are doing little to nothing to actually "condemn" ISIS.
 
Fighting ISIS is how the Kurds are earning their own country.

The reason the Kurds have been refused everything but light arms is keep them from having their own country and to prevent their defeating ISIS. The USA using them in a limited capacity to then betray them has their been so far? All the way back to the first Gulf War.

There is NO intentions of allowing Kurds to have their own country. Not now. Not ever.
 
Why didn't they do something about it when it wasn't rolling across the Middle East in tanks, beheading people and flying airplanes into buildings?

Are you honestly saying that there's been nothing but peace and quiet in the ME until the emergence of ISIS? That there's never been civil war or internal strife in any Muslim country? No-one, anywhere, has raised arms at all?
 
I can't in all honesty believe that any woman who wears a hijab by choice is condemning extremism when she is openly practicing it herself.

Definitely disagree.

Malala-Yousafzai_Antonio-Olmos.jpg
 
While I think that Muslims can absolutely condemn the radicals enough, I don't think that simple condemnation is enough, they need to back up their words with action and be willing to clean up their own house. Most of them have spent decades looking the other way while the radicals have ruled the roost and it's only relatively recently that they've started to realize how out of control things are. Most of us have known that radical Islam was becoming an increasing problem for more than 30 years. Why didn't they do something about it when it wasn't rolling across the Middle East in tanks, beheading people and flying airplanes into buildings?


Jordan has been bombing ISIS. I think that's a pretty good action.
 
I think it's just time to accept that no matter what, some westerners will simply never trust, accept or tolerate Muslims.

The line between legitimate suspicion and rampant paranoia is very much thinner than we think.

But that's their problem, not mine.

I stand against radical Islamism and those that would seek to subvert our fundamental freedoms because of their own paranoid bigotry.
It doesn't help that whenever something news worthy happens it's easy to find video of otherwise non-involved Muslims cheering their approval. Is that a far barometer? I don't know, but I think it does indicate some level of approval within the overall community. How widespread could be debatable. Taking a group like IS, there is clearly disapproval as well.

On the flip side I have a friend that, whenever this type of subject is brought up, will bring up the Westboro Baptist Church as a counter-argument, and how they are just as bad, yet we don't condemn them with the same veracity. (I dispute her conclusion, but that's not my point here) Unless I'm missing it, and I don't think I am, whenever the WBC does something pretty much nobody anywhere rallies and cheers "Yay WBC!"
 
Are you honestly saying that there's been nothing but peace and quiet in the ME until the emergence of ISIS? That there's never been civil war or internal strife in any Muslim country? No-one, anywhere, has raised arms at all?

There certainly hasn't been a public uprising about these things when they were small and manageable, has there? If the moderate Muslims indeed make up 70-80% of the entire population, then why have those people allowed a small militant radical percentage to take control?
 
Jordan has been bombing ISIS. I think that's a pretty good action.

Jordan has been bombing ISIS now. Where were they 6 months ago?
 
There certainly hasn't been a public uprising about these things when they were small and manageable, has there? If the moderate Muslims indeed make up 70-80% of the entire population, then why have those people allowed a small militant radical percentage to take control?

Because that's human nature. Whenever there's a rebellion or uprising, at any point in history, in any culture, the majority of the population sits it out while the authorities fight the rebels. You're basically asking people to abandon their families and lives to fight people they don't know over a cause they don't care about, for a dictator they may not like.
 
Because that's human nature. Whenever there's a rebellion or uprising, at any point in history, in any culture, the majority of the population sits it out while the authorities fight the rebels. You're basically asking people to abandon their families and lives to fight people they don't know over a cause they don't care about, for a dictator they may not like.

Yet throughout history, there have been groups who have been willing to rebel and rise up against potential dangers. The United States is one example. If we had been made up of modern people, we'd still be under British rule.
 
Jordan has been bombing ISIS. I think that's a pretty good action.

I agree that it's a good thing that Jordan is getting in on the action, though I'm disappointed that it took a horrific killing of one of their citizens to get them going.

However, as much as their current bombing can be considered a good thing, there is also reason to believe it's really not all that good and that it could be much better...or, at least, the US could do much better if Jordan is incapable.

Consider:

Beyond the messages written on bombs and the noses of Jordan's second-hand F-16 fleet, most making declarations against ISIS's ideology as well as proclamations of vengeance, what was most noticeable in the video was all the dumb bombs (Mk82, Mk83, Mk84) loaded onto the aircraft. In other words, few jets appeared to have precision guided munitions loaded onto their weapons stations, and those that did were equipped only with a pair of relatively small and older, but still effective, GBU-12 laser guided bombs, which are more suited for taking out small buildings and vehicles than large fixed structures.

Even when deployed from an advanced fighter jet with digital avionics, dumb bombs are much more accurate the lower they are released. As the altitude of their release increases so does their Circular Error Probability (CEP), in quite a drastic manner. Using this method of weapons delivery from over 15k feet, above most man portable air defense systems (MANPADS) and anti-aircraft fire, makes hitting individual structures very problematic. One way to overcome this issue is to throw more sorties at each target, but for each attack made the risk to aircrew making follow-on attacks increases. In fact, every extra minute over enemy territory increases the risk to aircrews. Additionally, and even more importantly, these bombs end up exploding somewhere regardless of if that somewhere is playground or an ammunition dump full of enemy fighters and their use greatly increases the chances of unintended causalities.

On the other hand, if Jordanian F-16s are flying at low altitude, right into the heart of the MANPADS, anti-aircraft and even small arms fire envelope, in order to more accurately deliver their unguided weaponry, then that is a very poor and dangerous decision, both for Jordan and the coalition. Bravery aside, doing so could puts many more coalition warfighters at risk as the chances of an aircraft being brought down are quite high. This means a combat search and rescue (CSAR) mission would most likely be launched, which is another low altitude and even riskier affair that could result in an Osprey or Black Hawk full of pararescuemen being downed as well. The startling possibility that Jordan may be putting aircrew at high risk due to the possible lack of adequate guided munitions also comes as US CSAR assets are now confirmed to be operating out of northern Iraq, a move that seems extremely overdue.

What the widespread use of dumb bombs by Jordan equates to is a set of puzzlingly simple tactics being used, ones that are highly ineffective or highly risky, while trying to obtain a very complex outcome. If Jordan hit all high-priority targets on a targeting list, they are either doing so at great peril to any innocent people nearby, or to themselves and the coalition, or they are creating a target list based on their limited weapons stores and capabilities.

This would mean that they could be selecting a few high-priority urban targets for precision guided munitions and the rest of the targets would be those in rural areas with little potential for unintended casualties when dumb weapons are applied. Either way, dictating what targets you hit, especially on the first day of a highly invigorated air campaign, based on the limited munitions you have at hand is a poor way to fight a modern air war in 2015 and it could usher in either a large loss of innocent life, which could dangerously erode support for the operation as whole in the region, or Jordanian forces are mainly hitting very low priority targets that are located literally in the middle of nowhere.

What This Video Of Jordanian F-16s Striking ISIS Tells Us Is Alarming 

As I said, I think it's a good thing that Jordan is now active against ISIS, but I also think their activity is much like the US's activity...too little to be of much use.
 
Yet throughout history, there have been groups who have been willing to rebel and rise up against potential dangers. The United States is one example. If we had been made up of modern people, we'd still be under British rule.

Yet in the American War of Independence, only around 2% of the population actually fought the British.
 
Yet in the American War of Independence, only around 2% of the population actually fought the British.

But it had widespread public support. The same with WWII. Only a small percentage of people went to fight the war, but the entire nation scrimped and saved to help the war effort. Let's see that happen today.
 
But it had widespread public support. The same with WWII. Only a small percentage of people went to fight the war, but the entire nation scrimped and saved to help the war effort. Let's see that happen today.

/facepalm.

I guess you could say the population that didn't fight condemned the British?

Why does the preferred reaction of the ME population keep shifting? First it was condemnation, and then it was fighting, now we've discovered how unrealistic it is for an entire population to take up arms, so they have to support the people fighting.
 
Muslims have been condemning ISIS since its inception, yet whenever they do, it's suddenly a new event. Many greet the news of Muslim condemnation of ISIS with a critical yawn, or accuse them of being too late. Can Muslims ever condemn ISIS enough to please you?

The crazy part is they don't even need to condemn them but they do. It's very weird and hypocritical what people expect out of others but might not do themselves.
It's great that many muslims condemn 9/11 and ISIS but it isn't needed
 
Muslims have condemned terrorism committed by other Muslims enough for me. In all honesty, I've never needed them to condemn it because, having actually known Muslims, it never crossed my mind that they would feel the same about such terrorism as I, a non-Muslim, feels. Asking them to condemn terrorism would be as peculiar as asking any of the non-Muslim people I know to condemn terrorism.

The people who ask Muslims to condemn terrorism view Muslims as "other" - as "them." Those people are never going to be satisfied with Muslim condemnation because they are committed to their xenophobia. First, they say Muslims need to condemn terrorism. Then, when they are shown such condemnations, they say that Muslims need to act not just speak. Then, when they are shown Muslims' anti-terrorist actions, they say that their actions mean nothing until all terrorism committed by Muslims stops.

It reminds me of people who as why don't Black people talk about "black-on-black crime" in spite of the fact that Black people speak frequently about intra-community crime. Such people live under the self-centered assumption that the things they don't see, don't exist. If they don't see Black people or Muslims condemning certain types of violence or working to end it, then it must not happen. These people are, of course, fools. Unfortunately, many of these fools have power.

This is a very excellent point and post and you are right.
It would be very pompous and ignorant to ask that of a muslim just like it would be to ask of a man, christian, black person, gay person to condemn rape, abortion bombings, drug dealing, spreading AIDS etc (all stereotypical bigoted thoughts of a group).

Those things DO NOT represent the group.

It's just like you said, I know some muslims and I don't even think of asking them to condemn terrorism because . . . . . . . . they aren't terrorist hahaha
 
/facepalm.

I guess you could say the population that didn't fight condemned the British?

Why does the preferred reaction of the ME population keep shifting? First it was condemnation, and then it was fighting, now we've discovered how unrealistic it is for an entire population to take up arms, so they have to support the people fighting.

Maybe it shifts for some people, but for me I said early on in this thread that there has to be action...by the citizens of the ME countries as well as the governments. Especially when those very citizens are being executed, slaughtered, caught in cross-fire and just plain blown up.

Case in point: Our efforts in Iraq were going nowhere...suicide bombers, IED's, etc., were killing people left and right. It wasn't till the people started helping...started locating the terrorists for us...that we were able to make things a whole lot better there.

There are people...ordinary citizens...who know where ISIS is. Condemning ISIS and then cowering in their huts won't get it done. They need to take action.

On the other hand, any action they take will be useless unless they have the support of the US, as well as the other ME country's governments.


The job isn't going to get done unless everyone does their part...not just talk.
 
Back
Top Bottom