«12. . .754755756757758759760. . .1,2661,267»
I think that we were kind of expecting that sort of news from you, given your job, Stevid. ;)
What makes you think they'll see it, any more than they already have?
The European powers have a long history of giving in when pressured - they might as well decide to cut their losses and get out of the Middle East. And keep taking in all these moderate refugees, only give them even more leeway, so as not to accidentally anger them poor souls into raising a hand against their hosts.
The Paris attacks should be a huge wake-up call for the Western world. Deploy our forces to Iraq, and destroy ISIS with overwhelming force. We took Baghdad in less than two weeks in 2003. We could take Mosul and Sinjar in the same amount of time.
Given Hollande's remarks, I won't be surprised if the French deploy ground forces. This is essentially their 9/11.
Post self-deleted by The Macabees.
Easy concept to dream of, very, very, very, very difficult to actually implement (especially the second part).
Most successful democracies/pluralistic governments/capitalistic economies develop organically and cannot be forced.
Iraq has a democracy, and though flimsy it has survived two transitions of power now. It's well on its way.
The Macabees capitalism can't work in the middle east due to their religious concepts. Low level free enterprise can work to a point, but not major industry. Not at this point anyway.
Wanderjar, it used to be that they were more capitalistic than Europe, and they were Islamic. It's not their religion that makes them non-capitalistic (remember, Catholicism also banned usury, etc), it's that the West has developed -- largely, organically (in England, for the most part) -- pluralistic institutions of governance. Blaming it on religion is far, far too simplistic, and just largely untrue. There are some connections, but it's not a root cause.
And it's too early to claim with any kind of confidence whether Iraq democracy is "well on its way." So far, the government has mostly been a failure. We could also say, for example, that democracy has been well on its way in South America, but apart from Chile, and to a much lesser extent in Argentina and Brazil, that wouldn't really mean much of substance.
Have to be more on Mac's side on this one. Sure, we took Baghdad in two weeks last time, but it was that same invasion and occupation of Iraq that sewed the seeds of the current crisis. It would be an easy gut reaction and give us lots of great 'hell yeah' moments to swing in and blitz through Syria, but its worthless in the long run if it means that we'd be clearing the road for another, potentially worse, group in the future. Hell, leading up to this attack, there was a lot of media from ISIS and other radical groups 'daring' the West to come attack because they knew that it was exactly what would happen; if we came in, it end up radicalizing a whole lot more people, waste obscene amounts of money, send lots of westerners back in bodybags, and not really end anything.
Its not as if I have the solutions but guns blazing is not the best one out there. Hell, to start with we could look in our own 'camp' and finally get around to cutting off Saudi Arabia which has been the single largest source of funding and support for radical islam in the last few decades, as well as the Erdogan Turkish regime which has, at least as far as a lot of evidence has shown, provided a fair bit of support for ISIS under the table in their never ending attempt to stomp out the Kurds (who, might I add, are not only Muslims themselves who have succeeded in building up very impressive democratic institutions in the regions they control, and have also been the single most successful group fighting ISIS on the ground). Turkey and Saudi Arabia are supposedly our 'allies', yet they sit at the root of this. You can't win a war like this by attacking the symptoms, groups like ISIS, because it just leads to more. You need to get at the root cause.
Lamoni and The Macabees
*Sigh*
We are SERIOUSLY overthinking this.
Deploy Trident en mass and rename the Middle East Lake ISIS.
I see your flag is colorful enough, but I don't see a hanky in your back pocket. You can't RP here without a hanky in your back pocket.
If everyone was committed to stepping on a few toes in stamping out Islamism, the Islamic State would never have risen in the first place.
The Paris attacks were not committed by monsters. They each had two arms, two legs, one head; it's the crap their heads were infested with that made them do the bombings.
No, the region tags we use are part of an elaborate piece of reverse psychology to keep out RP-ers.
When you talk about getting rid of 'Islam Sympathizers', it kind of flies in the face of the fact that the primary victims of ISIS up until this point have virtually all been Muslims. Yeah, 150 people is a horrendous tragedy, but we only hear about it when it happens in a Western country; that sort of bloodshed against other Muslims is routine for ISIS, as well as many other terror groups, but because they're not 'our' people it doesn't really make the news as anything more than abstract war. The reason there's a 'refugee crisis' in Europe is exactly because the sort of thing that just happened in Paris is happening on the daily in Syria right now, to an even larger and more organized extent, and for obvious reasons millions of people don't want to live like that. Not just that, but the most effective fighters against ISIS have far and away been Muslims; the Kurds and Iranians have been doing a stellar job combating the threat, hell, Iran even lost a general in the fight. The Kurds would probably be doing even better were it not for Turkey bombing them and their support network on the Turkish side of the border just because, well, Erdogan and his lackeys hate Kurds.
Lamoni, Mokastana, and Holy Marsh
Is it wrong for a people and/or state to prioritize the safety of their own over others who are not their own? Is that not the first duty of a state?
Lamoni and Holy Marsh
We've grown too much morals for others over time. p.much is the answer to this argument.
True. For my morals stop me from tearing into your flesh with my fangs. Bad for my diet you are.
It actually goes hand in hand with it - yes, of course the majority of the victims are Muslim.
I'd go further and say the primary victims of modern radical Islam are those who follow it. The secondary victims are those they kill en masse, primarily not-yet-radical Muslims, and only the tertiary victims are the civilized world they hit with interdiction strikes.
Remember the zombie event? The same way one could say the primary victims of the zombie plague are the infected, the secondary those killed but not turned by them, and the tertiary victims are those not hit directly, but cut off from the world.
And in any zombie scenario it's vitally important not only to take down walkers, but also to get rid of - by reeducation and removal from power - zombie sympathizers. You can't have people keeping infected loved ones around in hope of a cure, trying to provide the zombies with food and shelter, or outright opening the gates and letting them in.
So what is wrong with hosting non-radical ones? The zombie model of Islamism has that covered too: remember how at some point everyone who's been exposed for long is already infected, but in a latent stage, only turning once they die? That's your moderate refugees. Every once in a while, one of them will get turned by Islamist propaganda, infect a few others, and you never know who else will get hit. They're a recruitment pool for radical groups, a breeding ground. What you especially can't have is them setting down and starting Islamic districts in your own cities; give it half a generation and they'll be filled with wide-eyed kids dreaming of the life of an IS fighter.
«12. . .754755756757758759760. . .1,2661,267»
Advertisement
