Tenny, you make valid points. It's a difficult situation no doubt. I would hope that there are more Muslims out there that believe that peaceful coexistence is achievable and should be sought with vigor. I do not know if that hope is reality or fantasy. Your stats, if accurate & I have no reason to doubt they aren't at a glance, seem to point that it is a dream. However, the fundamental issue, imo, is this: Do you (plural not singular) believe in the Constitution of the United States and the rights it guarantees for all citizens (and as supported by case law, even non-citizens in some instances like equal protection under the law) and the actions it expressly forbids our govt and the citizens from engaging in that would infringe upon the exercise of those expressed rights? Or...Do you (again, plural not singular) believe it is ok to champion the Constitution in instances that support your (pl) beliefs only to disregard the document when it goes against your (pl) views? It's not as easy to answer those questions as it may seem at first glance. Nothing about freedom is easy, and the commitment from us all to the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution is severely tested on a daily basis. There might be different reasons for the test based on individual beliefs, but it's there for all of us nonetheless.
Well said. All fair. And I don't know how to balance it, but I feel like the approach of simply being increasingly tolerant isn't working. I'd love for this not to turn into a political mess of a discussion, but were I being honest, I'd say that we have extremist groups on either side - each wrong - where one who wants to simply blame all Muslims and another which wants to sort of absolve all of Islam, who think that their anger / beliefs somehow exonerate them from these acts, or worse, that we somehow justifiably deserve or to have them committed against us. If I give in to the best / worst / most honest of myself, I think that they - by and large - have no desire to assimilate to western society, do seek to fundamentally alter and assume control of our societies, and have no intention of respecting, much less adhering to, our way of life. And I exactly and specifically blame our PC culture - which has and continues to run completely amok - for making it largely impossible to even discuss the issue. And, to be sure, it is a matter which absolutely and increasingly requires a broad and unflinchingly honest discussion, and a heavy dose of unyielding scrutiny.
I don't disagree. I do think the respect of religious freedoms (not the religion itself) AND expectations that those receiving that respect must also be as willing to extend the same to people of different, even opposing, faiths as well. It's definitely not a one way street.
As we become more and more non-religous as a society, I'm more than skiddish of doing anything to limit religous freedom. And if we don't think that either side of the aisle would figure out a way to use a Islam ban to push to ban Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. as it suits their wishes then they are crazy. No, tolerence is not the way. Peace, love, happiness and coexisting isn't the way. Personally, I think the Gospel is the only way to change even some, and even then I would not expect the problem to go away but increase. Domestically, being smart about what we are looking for is helpful. I do think an outright travel ban is fool-hardy and frankly inhumane to many, but whatever we can do to vet and not allow certain types of people (single men for example) in, I am fine with.
If you are going to fight it with the military, you must unleash the military and let them do their job and not worry about what happens.
If WW II were fought with today's ROE, it is likely D-Day would have never happened. America's greatest generals would have been condemned at home as war criminals. Fast forward to Iraq and Afghanistan where the Army is basically a glorified police force and the commanders on the ground worry about prosecution for fighting a war. They were sent to kill a bear with a spoon. It's impossible.
Well that's a bit hyperbolic to compare the two situations, imo. This "war" has been going on for almost 20 years and I don't know if the death toll would touch even a year of World War Two. EDIT: I am now wondering if it would even touch a months worth of death toll from WWII.
If we were to unleash pure hell on the middle east, how fast could we take down the main parts of ISIS?
Indiscriminately killing noncombatants is and was and will be wrong. I thought that's why we were fighting terrorism in the first place.
They'd be back as soon as you left. If you killed everyone, they'd be in Africa. You'd play wackamole and making more extremists all the while. If force alone were the solution, I think this would be over by now.
I understand both your assertions and I do not believe that any soldier, marine, airman, or sailor ever has an intention of killing an innocent person in the name of war. Counterinsurgency is a long and painful way to wage war, for sure, however, when troops are unable clear insurgents from a village/town against inevitable counterattacks we can never get to the "build" phase of this conflict where soldiers transition from combat to supporting local allies. I'm not a proponent of burning down the Law of Armed Conflict or ROE but there have to be compromises that benefit the men and women that this country has put in the middle. I also understand that I come at this from a slanted perspective.
Real quick, but the problem isn't the people, it's the ideals. We've been throwing gas on the fundamentalist fervor in the Middle East every time we hit with anything but surgical precision. You don't kill terrorism with blunt force, imo. Improve the socioeconomic value of the average citizen in the Middle East as to reverse the damage of almost a centuries worth of damage from imperalist driven sectarianism and war, or the most devastating and thorough episode of mass genocide in recorded history. Those are the options.
Reducing wealth inequality as well. Sleeping in mudhuts while your rulers live in palaces paid for by a mineral pumped from under your feet is going to make you squirelly.
Not sure that I agree that wealth inequality / standard of living is the cause of radicalization. [youtube]IchGuL501U[/youtube]
I'm not sure how we'd go about addressing the distribution of wealth in other countries. Intentionally doing that seems beyond what should be an acceptable level of influence.
Video isn't playing, but honestly I don't know how you could argue that the standard of living isn't a major influence on terrorism
