Solutions to Islamic terrorism? (1 Viewer)

[tommyboy]

I'm liking the new bigotry angle

 

[Gold Dragon]

I'll give it a go. My assumption being that it is not realistic to try to kill all islamic extremists as 5 more will replace the 1 you killed.

Overall goals to end Islamic terrorism

1. Remove incentives for joining

• aggressively disrupting their financial resources
  
• blocking their propoganda machine by organizing independent hacker groups (but make them think it is their idea)
  
• publicizing the failed promises of IS to its own members (with footage from ex-members or spies) and destroying its mystique with propoganda hopefully produced by muslims
  
• improving the socioeconomic environment in middle east (easier said than done)
  
• educating the next generation is vital so shutting down extremist schools and supporting quality education in the region
  
• decreasing the disparity between the few very rich and many very poor in the region
  
• people are less likely to join hopeless wars and put on suicide vests if they have a comfortably life, job and family to support (there are always exceptions to this)
  

2. Strong muslim leadership that is dedicated to fighting radical islam militarily and ideologically

• probably would be better if this was someone not friendly with the US but not dedicated to world destruction so that a broader base of muslims will agree
  
• Iran will probably need to play this role and may only do so if they get attacked by ISIL for being shiite
  
• Iran wants to be seen as a leader in the region, and to do so it needs to take action militarily against radical Islam
  
• respected religious leaders with authority and an ability rally Muslims against extremism need to be raised in prominence (where are the military and religious Saladins of this generation?)
  
• Muslims need to be more offended by the claims of IS and radical islam who are trying to corrupt their religion from within than westerners and outsiders who offend them from a position of ignorance
  

3. Containment with the ground war

• international community gives money to local regimes (Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabi, Syria) that will directly be used to hire large groups of military contractors
  
• this way western countries can indirectly fight the ground war with well trained troops without committing their military resources
  
• ISIL, Al Qaeda, etc need to be kept busy and on the run so that they cannot organize and produce their propoganda effectively
  
• the ground war is just for containment and will unlikely be the ultimate solution
  

 

[CowboysFromHell]

"Christians changed what their god said, why don't all religions just do that?"

Christianity (which I define as the word of Christ) has not changed what it says, religious and political leaders have just changed how the use it. Christianity has always offered free will and forgiveness of sin, it is just that people mutate it up with their thirst for money and power.

You are making the same mistake Bush made thinking that if you can just change the government, you can fix radical Islam. Islam inherently does not lend itself to Democracy and secularism. There is no free will or forgiveness in Islam. Mohamad's words are more harsh and evil. It is centered on condemnation. There is a reason Muslims nearly universely support the use of government to enforce religious rules. That what Mohamad words and actions tell you to do. You can't change that.

I missed this post. First.. you completely missed that the post was jabbing the previous post, but since you went serious with it:

My one question would be, when you eliminate all who have edited/rewritten/manipulated the Bible.... how do you know what the word of Christ is? If you can point me to Christ's words, this may be what I have been waiting for these last 25 years. That I am aware of, we have no words from Christ. In some cases, the best we have are words from guys who never met the guy.

These "my invisible god is better than your invisible god!" posts are always my favorite.

Don't forget it took 300 years before the church officially declared that Jesus was a real in the flesh human being. Once they got that out of the way, they were on solid ground to start quoting exactly what he said.

seriously? you've been better than this CFH

Yeah, seriously. I don't find the evidence of a historical Jesus all that convincing. I'm not able to say he DIDN'T exist, but it's a fair question given the lack of evidence outside of a single book that not even everyone from the time period agreed with.

 

[cstu]

Forget about God in the comparison. We are comparing the philosophy of a religion based on a pedophile/blood-thirsty dictator vs. Jesus Christ. We can debate about the accuracy of Christ's actual word as portrayed in the Bible. But assuming they are accurate, I stand by my assessment that Islamic philosophy is inherently horrible in the type of government it will lead too. Christianity has proven much better in eventually leading to much more tolerant society. Just because people themselves inherently are selfish and greedy and really not that wonderful, is not because of Christianity.

I agree with this. The inherent flaw in Islam is that the Koran is supposed to be the unerring word of God yet it was created by a warlord. I do believe Muhammad had the best intentions - Arab culture at the time was essentially anarchy - but by becoming a military leader he destroyed any hope of the religion being the one of peace that he tried to create. At least until Islam has their own Reformation, which will be difficult to do when the penalty for apostasy is death.

 

[The Commish]

"Christians changed what their god said, why don't all religions just do that?"

Christianity (which I define as the word of Christ) has not changed what it says, religious and political leaders have just changed how the use it. Christianity has always offered free will and forgiveness of sin, it is just that people mutate it up with their thirst for money and power.

You are making the same mistake Bush made thinking that if you can just change the government, you can fix radical Islam. Islam inherently does not lend itself to Democracy and secularism. There is no free will or forgiveness in Islam. Mohamad's words are more harsh and evil. It is centered on condemnation. There is a reason Muslims nearly universely support the use of government to enforce religious rules. That what Mohamad words and actions tell you to do. You can't change that.

I missed this post. First.. you completely missed that the post was jabbing the previous post, but since you went serious with it:

My one question would be, when you eliminate all who have edited/rewritten/manipulated the Bible.... how do you know what the word of Christ is? If you can point me to Christ's words, this may be what I have been waiting for these last 25 years. That I am aware of, we have no words from Christ. In some cases, the best we have are words from guys who never met the guy.

These "my invisible god is better than your invisible god!" posts are always my favorite.

Don't forget it took 300 years before the church officially declared that Jesus was a real in the flesh human being. Once they got that out of the way, they were on solid ground to start quoting exactly what he said.

seriously? you've been better than this CFH

Yeah, seriously. I don't find the evidence of a historical Jesus all that convincing. I'm not able to say he DIDN'T exist, but it's a fair question given the lack of evidence outside of a single book that not even everyone from the time period agreed with.

That's a different position/discussion than what you posted unless you don't really understand what that Council of Nicea was about (assuming that's what you're referring to)

On the different topic, I was unaware that "historical Jesus" was still a question...by historical standards we use for everything else (including many sources outside the Bible) it's a pretty safe assumption that the man indeed existed.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

"Christians changed what their god said, why don't all religions just do that?"

Christianity (which I define as the word of Christ) has not changed what it says, religious and political leaders have just changed how the use it. Christianity has always offered free will and forgiveness of sin, it is just that people mutate it up with their thirst for money and power.

You are making the same mistake Bush made thinking that if you can just change the government, you can fix radical Islam. Islam inherently does not lend itself to Democracy and secularism. There is no free will or forgiveness in Islam. Mohamad's words are more harsh and evil. It is centered on condemnation. There is a reason Muslims nearly universely support the use of government to enforce religious rules. That what Mohamad words and actions tell you to do. You can't change that.

I missed this post. First.. you completely missed that the post was jabbing the previous post, but since you went serious with it:

My one question would be, when you eliminate all who have edited/rewritten/manipulated the Bible.... how do you know what the word of Christ is? If you can point me to Christ's words, this may be what I have been waiting for these last 25 years. That I am aware of, we have no words from Christ. In some cases, the best we have are words from guys who never met the guy.

These "my invisible god is better than your invisible god!" posts are always my favorite.

Don't forget it took 300 years before the church officially declared that Jesus was a real in the flesh human being. Once they got that out of the way, they were on solid ground to start quoting exactly what he said.

seriously? you've been better than this CFH

Yeah, seriously. I don't find the evidence of a historical Jesus all that convincing. I'm not able to say he DIDN'T exist, but it's a fair question given the lack of evidence outside of a single book that not even everyone from the time period agreed with.

That's a different position/discussion than what you posted unless you don't really understand what that Council of Nicea was about (assuming that's what you're referring to)

On the different topic, I was unaware that "historical Jesus" was still a question...by historical standards we use for everything else (including many sources outside the Bible) it's a pretty safe assumption that the man indeed existed.

I read somewhere that Docetism was ruled as heretical at the Council of Nicea. I can't find the link now, but that aside, I find it intriguing that a majority of the people who lived at that time rejected the idea that Jesus was a god. Islam recognizes him as a prophet. Jews think he was just a good guy. So, I guess you have other religious evidence that he was an actual real person, but only a Christian minority bases its entire doctrine on his existence and supernatural connection. I've also read some stuff about Moses being a fabricated person, or amalgamation of multiple people. We're talking about religious texts here, which have been proven over time to be more like fairy tales than actual historical text books.

Outside of those religious texts, Jesus is barely mentioned at all, and the references are questionable.

 

[The Commish]

The council met to determine their stance on the Triune God and it was necessary because a lot of heresy was shouting down the beliefs of the church (some of which came from a few in the church). Most of it was from people seeking to confuse. They were granted that opportunity because people in the church disagreed with each other. They still do today. The question was never "Is Jesus a God?" It was "Is God, Jesus, and The Holy Spirit one or separate things?" They felt it necessary to make an official declaration/position. However, even today, it's still debated. Islam has no choice to make Jesus a prophet or their religion falls apart.

 

[matuski]

"Christians changed what their god said, why don't all religions just do that?"

Christianity (which I define as the word of Christ) has not changed what it says, religious and political leaders have just changed how the use it. Christianity has always offered free will and forgiveness of sin, it is just that people mutate it up with their thirst for money and power.You are making the same mistake Bush made thinking that if you can just change the government, you can fix radical Islam. Islam inherently does not lend itself to Democracy and secularism. There is no free will or forgiveness in Islam. Mohamad's words are more harsh and evil. It is centered on condemnation. There is a reason Muslims nearly universely support the use of government to enforce religious rules. That what Mohamad words and actions tell you to do. You can't change that.

I missed this post. First.. you completely missed that the post was jabbing the previous post, but since you went serious with it:

My one question would be, when you eliminate all who have edited/rewritten/manipulated the Bible.... how do you know what the word of Christ is? If you can point me to Christ's words, this may be what I have been waiting for these last 25 years. That I am aware of, we have no words from Christ. In some cases, the best we have are words from guys who never met the guy.

These "my invisible god is better than your invisible god!" posts are always my favorite.

Forget about God in the comparison. We are comparing the philosophy of a religion based on a pedophile/blood-thirsty dictator vs. Jesus Christ. We can debate about the accuracy of Christ's actual word as portrayed in the Bible. But assuming they are accurate, I stand by my assessment that Islamic philosophy is inherently horrible in the type of government it will lead too. Christianity has proven much better in eventually leading to much more tolerant society. Just because people themselves inherently are selfish and greedy and really not that wonderful, is not because of Christianity.

Now you are getting it.. now reread the post you started with from me.

 

[Galileo]

Here's an interesting read regarding the interrogation of Kahlid Sheik Mohammad

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-horrifying-look-into-the-mind-of-911s-mastermind-in-his-own-words/2016/11/28/bf5827a8-b575-11e6-b8df-600bd9d38a02_story.html?postshare=7931480429241953&tid=ss_fb-bottom&utm_term=.0d5ca8823565

Today, some on both the left and the right argue that al-Qaeda wanted to draw us into a quagmire in Afghanistan — and now the Islamic State wants to do the same in Iraq and Syria. KSM said this is dead wrong. Far from trying to draw us in, KSM said that al-Qaeda expected the United States to respond to 9/11 as we had the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut — when, KSM told Mitchell, the United States “turned tail and ran.” He also said he thought we would treat 9/11 as a law enforcement matter, just as we had the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and the USS Cole in Yemen — arresting some operatives and firing a few missiles into empty tents, but otherwise leaving him free to plan the next attack.

“Then he looked at me and said, ‘How was I supposed to know that cowboy George Bush would announce he wanted us ‘dead or alive’ and then invade Afghanistan to hunt us down?’” Mitchell writes. “KSM explained that if the United States had treated 9/11 like a law enforcement matter, he would have had time to launch a second wave of attacks.” He was not able to do so because al-Qaeda was stunned “by the ferocity and swiftness of George W. Bush’s response.”

But KSM said something else that was prophetic. In the end, he told Mitchell, “We will win because Americans don’t realize . . . we do not need to defeat you militarily; we only need to fight long enough for you to defeat yourself by quitting.

KSM explained that large-scale attacks such as 9/11 were “nice, but not necessary” and that a series of “low-tech attacks could bring down America the same way ‘enough disease-infected fleas can fell an elephant.’ ” KSM “said jihadi-minded brothers would immigrate into the United States” and “wrap themselves in America’s rights and laws” until they were strong enough to rise up and attack us. “He said the brothers would relentlessly continue their attacks and the American people would eventually become so tired, so frightened, and so weary of war that they would just want it to end.”

“Eventually,” KSM said, “America will expose her neck for us to slaughter.”

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

“KSM explained that if the United States had treated 9/11 like a law enforcement matter, he would have had time to launch a second wave of attacks.” He was not able to do so because al-Qaeda was stunned “by the ferocity and swiftness of George W. Bush’s response.”

Seems IMPORTANT.