Ways to Reduce, or End Terrorism?

[Merkava]

Exactly!

Merkava: We didn't intend kill your family.

Muslim kid with dead family: You do know rather you intended to or not my whole family is still dead right?

Merkava: But we didn't intend to bro.

Muslim kid with dead family: I didn't intend to join ISIS and commit terrorist acts against you. It just happened bro.



Really Merkava really?

Yes really. I can make up theoretical conversations too. The difference between you and me, is I don't pretend that would advance my position.

- - - Updated - - -

You told me pirates were bad.... PIRATES ARE ALWAYS BAD

Also

dont ignore my other point

why give people who are like these pirates, money, training, and resources? I mean its not like its been shown to be a horrible idea or anything.

You're dismissing my point because

A. Islamist forces didn't cite Koranic justification for enslaving and murdering non believers

B. Those same Islamist forces didn't carry out their actions unprovoked

or

C. They happened to use boats.

Which is it, A B or C?

[GennGreymane]

Yes really. I can make up theoretical conversations too. The difference between you and me, is I don't pretend that would advance my position.

- - - Updated - - -



You're dismissing my point because

A. Islamist forces didn't cite Koranic justification for enslaving and murdering non believers

B. Those same Islamist forces didn't carry out their actions unprovoked

or

C. They happened to use boats.

Which is it, A B or C?

No I am dismissing your point because its not the best argument and makes no sense

PIRATES ARE NOT GOOD PEOPLE NO MATTER WHAT!

and WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO GIVE MONEY TO PEOPLE WITH SUCH AN ANTI WEST WAY OF THINKING? AKA one of the points I put in the Op.

[Merkava]

No I am dismissing your point because its not the best argument and makes no sense

PIRATES ARE NOT GOOD PEOPLE NO MATTER WHAT!

and WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO GIVE MONEY TO PEOPLE WITH SUCH AN ANTI WEST WAY OF THINKING? AKA one of the points I put in the Op.

People who hijack airplanes aren't good people either. People who behead homosexuals for their nature aren't good people either.

The point you're refusing to admit (probably because you see that you're entire argument crumbles when you do) is that, while pirates are usually bad when they engage in piracy for financial gain, these pirates in question murdered and enslaved with religious justification. The very same religious justification that their ancestors use today. That makes them Islamist terrorists. And they acted without the provocation that we give them today. They acted without provocation because the were following a doctrine. That same doctrine exists and inspires like minded people today.

Again, it makes no difference whether they used boats, airplanes, cars, or planes to carry out their attacks. You're repeated insistence, that well all pirates are bad, completely ignores that fact that they gave us the justification for their actions.

What's next, "oh sorry for the Achille Lauro, we're just pirates and all pirates are bad?" What you're doing would be pathetic if it wasn't so laughable.

[GennGreymane]

People who hijack airplanes aren't good people either. People who behead homosexuals for their nature aren't good people either.

The point you're refusing to admit (probably because you see that you're entire argument crumbles when you do) is that, while pirates are usually bad when they engage in piracy for financial gain, these pirates in question murdered and enslaved with religious justification. The very same religious justification that their ancestors use today. That makes them Islamist terrorists. And they acted without the provocation that we give them today. They acted without provocation because the were following a doctrine. That same doctrine exists and inspires like minded people today.

Again, it makes no difference whether they used boats, airplanes, cars, or planes to carry out their attacks. You're repeated insistence, that well all pirates are bad, completely ignores that fact that they gave us the justification for their actions.

What's next, "oh sorry for the Achille Lauro, we're just pirates and all pirates are bad?" What you're doing would be pathetic if it wasn't so laughable.

You;re right

people who hi jack planes are not great either they are horrible, and they were members of a terrorist organization. Terrorists are not good people

Meanwhile the example of pirates is stupid as hell for this reason... pirates suck. All pirates suck, they were linked to their crews.

Achille Lauro?

Also seriously. We actually agree, except you keep insisting Muslim pirates are bad ignoring the part that well... pirates are bad. We agree on the point you seem to ignore the most

Why fund a group that hates you? Why give them training, resources, everything they need?

[Kallisto]

Terrorism is not going to end even if you do deport all Muslims from the US because Timothy Mcveigh says hello.

Or the fact that well over 90% of all terrorist incidents in Europe and North America have no Islamist or even religious cause.

[Merkava]

You;re right

people who hi jack planes are not great either they are horrible, and they were members of a terrorist organization. Terrorists are not good people

Meanwhile the example of pirates is stupid as hell for this reason... pirates suck. All pirates suck, they were linked to their crews.

Achille Lauro?

Also seriously. We actually agree, except you keep insisting Muslim pirates are bad ignoring the part that well... pirates are bad. We agree on the point you seem to ignore the most

Why fund a group that hates you? Why give them training, resources, everything they need?

In reverse order, yes we've funded the wrong people. Big deal.

All pirates are bad, but that fact is irrelevant to our debate. Our debate is that I believe fundamentalist Islamic doctrine motivates their aggression, and you say our actions towards them does. I pointed out an example of Islamist aggression that cited Koranic justification as their motivation independent from any actions that we took towards them, and you say it doesn't count because it happened on water. That's irrelevant.

The Achille Lauro was hijacked by Muslim terrorists. Or, just pirates being pirates, as you would say.

Another example of Islamist aggression not being tied to any poor treatment towards them would be the Bali nightclub bombings that killed 88 Australians. Research their justification for that.

[GennGreymane]

In reverse order, yes we've funded the wrong people. Big deal.

All pirates are bad, but that fact is irrelevant to our debate. Our debate is that I believe fundamentalist Islamic doctrine motivates their aggression, and you say our actions towards them does. I pointed out an example of Islamist aggression that cited Koranic justification as their motivation independent from any actions that we took towards them, and you say it doesn't count because it happened on water. That's irrelevant.

The Achille Lauro was hijacked by Muslim terrorists. Or, just pirates being pirates, as you would say.

Another example of Islamist aggression not being tied to any poor treatment towards them would be the Bali nightclub bombings that killed 88 Australians. Research their justification for that.

No its not a scoff off "oh, big deal..." kinda problem

We funded people who committed attacks on US soil, killed thousands of Americans, and kill hundreds of thousands in the M.E

I would say pirates

if a criminal group on a ship, attacks other ships for profit, then they are a pirate.... by the literal definition.

[Merkava]

All too easy (Darth Vader).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHSUMZlWCQ0

Not only was this song very popular during the after math of 9/11, but its verses clearly talking about getting revenge. If you want more proof than that simply look at the comments section. And there are hundreds of thousands of videos just like this one with just as vicious and vengeful as this one.

To deny the massive undertone of revenge that the average American wanted shortly after 9/11 is to be really delusional.

Show me that it's directed at the Iraqi citizens. Remember when I said that? You even quoted me on it...

No. Americans did not want revenge against Iraqi civilians. If that's what you're saying then prove it.

- - - Updated - - -

No its not a scoff off "oh, big deal..." kinda problem

We funded people who committed attacks on US soil, killed thousands of Americans, and kill hundreds of thousands in the M.E

I would say pirates

if a criminal group on a ship, attacks other ships for profit, then they are a pirate.... by the literal definition.

How many years existed between the support for the Mujahadeen and 9/11? And even so, that's not my point of contention with your idiotic opening statement.

You label them as pirates in an attempt to negate their religious justification for their actions and the fact that they acted without provocation. Just pirates being pirates. As if it's just a profession. A job title, like suicide bomber, or airplane hijacker. It's like saying that the 9/11 hijacking had no religious justification.

[GennGreymane]

Show me that it's directed at the Iraqi citizens

- - - Updated - - -



How many years existed between the support for the Mujahadeen and 9/11? And even so, that's not my point of contention with your idiotic opening statement.

You label them as pirates in an attempt to negate their religious justification for their actions and the fact that they acted without provocation. Just pirates being pirates. As if it's just a profession. A job title, like suicide bomber, or airplane hijacker. It's like saying that the 9/11 hijacking had no religious justification.

A lot of years.
It kinda is a job title, the pirates worked form themselves and did things for profit

a suicide bomber, an airplane hijacker, these are people who work within a terrorist organization, which has its own ageda for a use of violence to make their political and societal bullshit known.

But no, go ahead, keep talking about pirates.... who are criminals.... but these are worse... because reasons... despite doing the same exact things pirates do.

Also keep ignoring how the Us kept funding the Taliban, AQ, Saddam, Assad, Ghadaffi, etc etc etc. Until they started funding those against them... leading to well... what we see now.

[Merkava]

A lot of years.
It kinda is a job title, the pirates worked form themselves and did things for profit

a suicide bomber, an airplane hijacker, these are people who work within a terrorist organization, which has its own ageda for a use of violence to make their political and societal bullshit known.

But no, go ahead, keep talking about pirates.... who are criminals.... but these are worse... because reasons... despite doing the same exact things pirates do.

Also keep ignoring how the Us kept funding the Taliban, AQ, Saddam, Assad, Ghadaffi, etc etc etc. Until they started funding those against them... leading to well... what we see now.

Again, I'm not ignoring anything. Sure the US funded bad people. I'm not saying they didn't, but any discussion of that has to occur within the context of the world that existed at that time.

Your main point is that Islamic terrorists are trying to kill us because we're mean to them. You say that they want to kill us because we fuck around in their world. I'm pointing out that they want to kill us because their doctrine tells them to. The two examples that I've given are the Barbary Wars and the Bali nightclub bombings. There's plenty more.

Again, you're simply trying to say that acts of Islamic aggression that occur on water are somehow not eligible to be attributed to religious justification, even when the attackers themselves cite religious warrants for their behavior, simply by calling them pirates. It's like saying the attack in Nice wasn't terrorism because people get hit by cars all the time and all people who intentionally hit others with their cars are bad. It's missing the point. And again, I'm guessing you're doing it intentionally.

[Independent voter]

Your main point is that Islamic terrorists are trying to kill us because we're mean to them. You say that they want to kill us because we fuck around in their world. I'm pointing out that they want to kill us because their doctrine tells them to. The two examples that I've given are the Barbary Wars and the Bali nightclub bombings. There's plenty more.

Islamic terrorists are trying to kill us because they really really hate Israel and we're Israel's #1 ally.

[GennGreymane]

Again, I'm not ignoring anything. Sure the US funded bad people. I'm not saying they didn't, but any discussion of that has to occur within the context of the world that existed at that time.

Your main point is that Islamic terrorists are trying to kill us because we're mean to them. You say that they want to kill us because we fuck around in their world. I'm pointing out that they want to kill us because their doctrine tells them to. The two examples that I've given are the Barbary Wars and the Bali nightclub bombings. There's plenty more.

Again, you're simply trying to say that acts of Islamic aggression that occur on water are somehow not eligible to be attributed to religious justification, even when the attackers themselves cite religious warrants for their behavior, simply by calling them pirates. It's like saying the attack in Nice wasn't terrorism because people get hit by cars all the time and all people who intentionally hit others with their cars are bad. It's missing the point. And again, I'm guessing you're doing it intentionally.

You give people who want to kill you the ability to hurt you... that is creating terrorism. That is giving someone a gun and teaching them to use it.... while they hate you.

[Hey There Guys its Metro]

The only way to reduce terrorism is ban religion. I'm sad to admit this, but so much of the world's violence comes from hate, and religion is a big part of it.

If there was never a Muslim v everyone else mentality a majority of the terror we see in the world would end.

[NineSpine]

Again, I'm not ignoring anything. Sure the US funded bad people. I'm not saying they didn't, but any discussion of that has to occur within the context of the world that existed at that time.

Your main point is that Islamic terrorists are trying to kill us because we're mean to them. You say that they want to kill us because we fuck around in their world. I'm pointing out that they want to kill us because their doctrine tells them to. The two examples that I've given are the Barbary Wars and the Bali nightclub bombings. There's plenty more.

Again, you're simply trying to say that acts of Islamic aggression that occur on water are somehow not eligible to be attributed to religious justification, even when the attackers themselves cite religious warrants for their behavior, simply by calling them pirates. It's like saying the attack in Nice wasn't terrorism because people get hit by cars all the time and all people who intentionally hit others with their cars are bad. It's missing the point. And again, I'm guessing you're doing it intentionally.

The US did not simply fund "bad people". You are missing the whole point. The US intentionally went out and actively took a part in promoting hard line Islam, as right wing foreign policy thinkers in America thought it was a smart way to combat godless communism. They thought if they could get Wahhabism spread throughout the Muslim world, it would inculcate them against communism.

The problem here is that you have an ethnocentric bias. You are willing to see all the complexity and nuance of the world you are familiar with, but not the rest of the world. For example, if tomorrow Iran invaded a country, and they said that Allah was on their side, and they called it a Jihad, and it was led by a leader who constantly cites Islam was his main directive, you would certainly declare that a religious war caused by Islam. However, would you call the Iraq war a Christian war? I seriously doubt it. Why not though? It was enacted on by a president who was an avowed Christian, who said God guided him, who said God is on America's side, and that this was a crusade. Surely you are willing to see the nuance and complexity there, and you can see that using religious language and religious tropes that are common in your society do not amount to make your actions wholesale consequences of that religion.

The problem is that you are holding one society to one set of standards and other societies to a different set of standards.

[XeroD]

Deport all Muslims to the middle east. Problem solved.

[Merkava]

You give people who want to kill you the ability to hurt you... that is creating terrorism. That is giving someone a gun and teaching them to use it.... while they hate you.

Again, that's not what I'm debating. I'm merely pointing out, that they want to kill you because their doctrine tells them to, not because we're mean to them. If you don't see that, then you don't. That's all.

[GennGreymane]

Again, that's not what I'm debating. I'm merely pointing out, that they want to kill you because their doctrine tells them to, not because we're mean to them. If you don't see that, then you don't. That's all.

And why give them money, funding, etc?

thats not being mean to them... thats being nice to them. Yet they dont care because of their mentality.... so many times we give funding and training and resources to dictators, who then fund terrorists, and then we fund terrorists directly thinking... "this time it will be ok"

[Merkava]

The US did not simply fund "bad people". You are missing the whole point. The US intentionally went out and actively took a part in promoting hard line Islam, as right wing foreign policy thinkers in America thought it was a smart way to combat godless communism. They thought if they could get Wahhabism spread throughout the Muslim world, it would inculcate them against communism.

The problem here is that you have an ethnocentric bias. You are willing to see all the complexity and nuance of the world you are familiar with, but not the rest of the world. For example, if tomorrow Iran invaded a country, and they said that Allah was on their side, and they called it a Jihad, and it was led by a leader who constantly cites Islam was his main directive, you would certainly declare that a religious war caused by Islam. However, would you call the Iraq war a Christian war? I seriously doubt it. Why not though? It was enacted on by a president who was an avowed Christian, who said God guided him, who said God is on America's side, and that this was a crusade. Surely you are willing to see the nuance and complexity there, and you can see that using religious language and religious tropes that are common in your society do not amount to make your actions wholesale consequences of that religion.

The problem is that you are holding one society to one set of standards and other societies to a different set of standards.

I have no bias. I understand the differences between actors and nations that respect the rule of law and freedom of the individual, and liberal values, even if it doesn't always live up to them, and actors and nations who actively try to oppose all of those things. George Bush may have indeed, wrongly, used the word "crusade," but that doesn't make it so. If anything, his respect of Islam and Muslims and deference to them and their religion should prove that.

- - - Updated - - -

And why give them money, funding, etc?

thats not being mean to them... thats being nice to them. Yet they dont care because of their mentality.... so many times we give funding and training and resources to dictators, who then fund terrorists, and then we fund terrorists directly thinking... "this time it will be ok"

Obviously we thought supporting them would serve our interests.

You're not supporting your position. They have a doctrine that exists. That doctrine instructs them to carry out acts of aggression. That doctrine both predates provocation from us and is often cited as justification in the absence of provocation. Those are facts.

[GennGreymane]

I have no bias. I understand the differences between actors and nations that respect the rule of law and freedom of the individual, and liberal values, even if it doesn't always live up to them, and actors and nations who actively try to oppose all of those things. George Bush may have indeed, wrongly, used the word "crusade," but that doesn't make it so. If anything, his respect of Islam and Muslims and deference to them and their religion should prove that.

- - - Updated - - -



Obviously we thought supporting them would serve our interests.

You're not supporting your position. They have a doctrine that exists. That doctrine instructs them to carry out acts of aggression. That doctrine both predates provocation from us and is often cited as justification in the absence of provocation. Those are facts.

I am supporting my position, we keep finding these groups that hate us to "serve our interests" despite the large list of times this has been a bad idea.

[Merkava]

I am supporting my position, we keep finding these groups that hate us to "serve our interests" despite the large list of times this has been a bad idea.

I'm saying that they would be trying to kill us anyway, because their doctrine tells them to, and I don't remember any CIA groups giving UBL Boeing 757's.