Serious Thread Topic: Can Terrorism Really Be Stopped?

[candycorn]

Yes, I’m waiting on the difference…

So it is your contention the afro american on white violence is also at the same level is Islamic Terrorism? Don't make the Black kids angry!

If they are using small arms and homemade bombs, it seems to be the same type of attack. If you want to call it “terrorism”, I’m not going to stop you.

 

[Weatherman2020]

comparing "radical Islam" to "radical Christianity" is fallacious

seriously - Christians are not chopping off heads or perpetuating suicide attacks with mass support from an organized group

does not happen

If I believe that homosexual activity is a sin & express that view, or vote for people that would make it illegal =/= Islamic jihad

it's not in the same universe; yet, many on the left seek to draw moral equivalency - makes you look foolish and it makes it hard to take you seriously

I made an effort to answer OP without being argumentative; however, there IS one more thing.

We need to find a way to come together & agree on a solution.

Rhetoric like you are spewing in this quoted post serves to make that more difficult

we need to identify the actual problem & unite in an effort to slow it down & make it more difficult

talking about the Crusades or Timothy McVeigh or the Westboro Baptist Church (which is a hateful group, but still nowhere NEAR as bad as Jihadists) is counterproductive

So what would you call the OKC attack if it wasn’t terrorism?

McVie was not a Christian - his own words.

You don’t need to tell me. his actions proved it.
The same way a true muslim wants no part of beheading people, blowing people up, etc…

How would you define "true" Muslims? I find that interpretation rather interesting as true MuslIm culture treats women as property to stone under shariah law, if the men feel they have (in any way) been dishonored. Perhaps you are in fact referring to the "refined" Muslims, adapted to the customs and living among a nation that believes in women's rights and individual liberty without religious persecution? The two in fact are hardly the same.

“true” was probably a bad choice of words. “Average” would be better.

The “true” Chrisian would kill someone for working on the Sabbath if they follow the Bible.
The “average” Christian would probably be working on Sunday if their job required it.

So the definition is a Muslim who accepts that the Koran is no more to be taken literally than the Bible.

The “true” Chrisian would kill someone for working on the Sabbath if they follow the Bible.
The “average” Christian would probably be working on Sunday if their job required it.

So in order for the average to be taken, what are the data points?

Oh yeah, no one gets killed for working on the Sabbath. Last person in recorded history was what, 3,500 years ago?

Amazing the contortions the left go into in order to justify Islamofascism.

 

[dcbl]

Eric Rudolph ring a bell?

As for modern day terrorism, they most often resemble Columbine than OKC; light arms and home made bombs. Or did someone special at ISIS make the pressure cookers in Boston????

The only reason there seems to be this difference you guys want to draw is the professed religion of the perpetrators—right?

Do you think that there are actually 1.5 Billion Muslims who are just waiting to be activated and will do whatever they are told based on their religion? I hope not.

see, I never said that all Muslims are terrorists - so there’s that

Yes but a ban on Muslims until “we can figure out what the hell is going on” indicates that some are painting with a broad brush.

and again, Eric Rudolph was a much different situation - part of the problem is that we are trying to lump the Rudolphs & McVeighs in with Jihadist terrorism - they are 2 different animals

Yes, I’m waiting on the difference…

I don't necessarily disagree with your suggestions (unquoted here) - but part of the solution is to identify the problem
treating a possible situation like we saw with McVeigh the same as we treat a situation like Manchester is foolish
claiming that "homegrown terrorists are just as bad, if not worse" is not helpful

Mcveigh’s victims are just as dead as those in Manchester. Not sure why you think one is better than the other.

You want to continue with a series discussion?

Quit being disingenuous

I never said one was better, I said they were different

The difference is that level of support and backing for one

And the agenda

These types of acts are horrible no matter who committs them, no one is arguing that

The biggest difference is in how we should deal with them

Homegrown terrorism should be handled in the legal system with trials

The Jihadists should not be afforded constitutional rights - no lawyers, no trials. Either execute them (my preference) or detain them for the rest of their lives

And we should absolutely act proactively in combating them, kill them before they attack us if possible

 

[ptbw forever]

Yes, I’m waiting on the difference…

So it is your contention the afro american on white violence is also at the same level is Islamic Terrorism? Don't make the Black kids angry!

^THAT is the real reason why the contemporary left is so afraid to allow right wingers to use YouTube links as sources on political forums.

Intellectual thought is DOMINATED by the right on YouTube. Leftists are getting their asses kicked even on their own channels.

I remember when I first started using YouTube in 2008 and all political thought on the site was dominated by the Young Turks. What a dramatic change just 9 years later.

 

[whitehall]

Lately it's obvious that terrorists would rather attack soft targets like kids at a concert or people on a religious pilgrimage than people who could shoot back. That's why we call them terrorists. Should we try to defeat terrorism or should we surrender to Sharia law? Since Barry Hussein's partner and political mentor, Bill Ayers, was a domestic terrorist it's not hard to imagine where lefties stand.

 

[JoeB131]

You have a true gift for ignoring all salient points that don't fit your narrative.

Describes Pompous Mac perfectly!!! He has a narrative, and he isn't going to listen to any contrary opinions.

 

[JoeB131]

Should we try to defeat terrorism or should we surrender to Sharia law?

Why do you treat it as a binary choice.

Here's a simple solution- stop doing things that create terrorists. Stop getting involved in other people's civil wars, stop propping up people that make other people hate us.

Since Barry Hussein's partner and political mentor, Bill Ayers, was a domestic terrorist it's not hard to imagine where lefties stand.

So let's look at that. Bill Ayers was a "terrorist" because he opposed the Vietnam War.

Today, nobody thinks the Vietnam War was a good idea.

Nobody.

So you might not have liked Ayers tactics, but at the end of the day, he kind of had a point. Our leaders blundered us into a war that was both unwinnable and unnecessary, but politically, neither party was willing to end it and be called "weak".

Until Ayers and his ilk threatened a civil war if we didn't get the fuck out of someone else's.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'd like to get some thoughts from the liberals on this, because as a liberal, I really don't hear a whole lot of solutions to stopping terrorism. Probably because it can't be stopped. But I'd still like to hear if there have been any solutions proposed by the left.

Also would like to hear thoughts from the right about a real solution. Do you guys really think that bombing people into oblivion is going to end terrorism? We're talking about religious extremism here -- violence against them only adds fuel to the fire. Does the right actually have a real, actionable solution to ending terrorism?

My personal point of view is that you can't really stop it. I don't see how it's possible as long as people still cling to these poisonous ME religions. The only real way we'd ever end global terrorism is through a sort of collective spiritual and psychological evolution to the next level, where as a society we've moved past the violent idiocy of archaic organized religion. The change must come from within. But that just isn't in the cards for the foreseeable future. In other words, we're screwed and terrorism will become more and more of a "normal" part of life.

Discuss...

The question is why terrorism exists.

Generally the answer is because govt's treat people like shit.

ETA exists because of the way the Spanish govt committed genocide against non-Spanish speaking parts of Spain, in this case the Basque Country with Catalonia supporting them, and other parts also feeling the desire for independence.

The IRA existed because of the way the British govt treated Catholics in Ireland and Northern Ireland.

Islamic terrorism exists because of US and Western Europe foreign policy over the last 200-300 years.

So, if you want to stop terrorism you have to stop treating people badly.

In Northern Ireland things have changed massively in the last 50 years, Catholics are becoming equal partners in the region, rather than being underlings.

In Spain the Basque Country has seen a lot more autonomy, the language is everywhere, in schools, on the streets etc, it's not restricted. So ETA lost its ability to gain support among the people. Though there are still issues.

 

[candycorn]

Eric Rudolph ring a bell?

As for modern day terrorism, they most often resemble Columbine than OKC; light arms and home made bombs. Or did someone special at ISIS make the pressure cookers in Boston????

The only reason there seems to be this difference you guys want to draw is the professed religion of the perpetrators—right?

Do you think that there are actually 1.5 Billion Muslims who are just waiting to be activated and will do whatever they are told based on their religion? I hope not.

see, I never said that all Muslims are terrorists - so there’s that

Yes but a ban on Muslims until “we can figure out what the hell is going on” indicates that some are painting with a broad brush.

and again, Eric Rudolph was a much different situation - part of the problem is that we are trying to lump the Rudolphs & McVeighs in with Jihadist terrorism - they are 2 different animals

Yes, I’m waiting on the difference…

I don't necessarily disagree with your suggestions (unquoted here) - but part of the solution is to identify the problem
treating a possible situation like we saw with McVeigh the same as we treat a situation like Manchester is foolish
claiming that "homegrown terrorists are just as bad, if not worse" is not helpful

Mcveigh’s victims are just as dead as those in Manchester. Not sure why you think one is better than the other.

You want to continue with a series discussion?

Quit being disingenuous

I never said one was better, I said they were different

The difference is that level of support and backing for one

And the agenda

Well okay. Eric Rudolph was aided by people all around the Applachian (sp) mountains. When he was found, he was clean shaven. Doubtful he pulled all of his facial hair out himself.

I forget the name of the militia but McVeigh and Nicholls had support as well.
[/quote]

These types of acts are horrible no matter who committs them, no one is arguing that

There seems to be a whole lot of conservatives that think liberals don’t mind at all.

The biggest difference is in how we should deal with them
Homegrown terrorism should be handled in the legal system with trials
The Jihadists should not be afforded constitutional rights - no lawyers, no trials. Either execute them (my preference) or detain them for the rest of their lives

Do we have to prove the jihadist is guilty before executing them or detaining them?
And isn’t that the two remedies for homegrown terrorists?

What if the jihadist is a US citizen? Does he/she forego their rights because they are Muslim?

And we should absolutely act proactively in combating them, kill them before they attack us if possible

I’m the one wondering why we haven’t acted yet.

 

[candycorn]

So what would you call the OKC attack if it wasn’t terrorism?

McVie was not a Christian - his own words.

You don’t need to tell me. his actions proved it.
The same way a true muslim wants no part of beheading people, blowing people up, etc…

How would you define "true" Muslims? I find that interpretation rather interesting as true MuslIm culture treats women as property to stone under shariah law, if the men feel they have (in any way) been dishonored. Perhaps you are in fact referring to the "refined" Muslims, adapted to the customs and living among a nation that believes in women's rights and individual liberty without religious persecution? The two in fact are hardly the same.

“true” was probably a bad choice of words. “Average” would be better.

The “true” Chrisian would kill someone for working on the Sabbath if they follow the Bible.
The “average” Christian would probably be working on Sunday if their job required it.

So the definition is a Muslim who accepts that the Koran is no more to be taken literally than the Bible.

The “true” Chrisian would kill someone for working on the Sabbath if they follow the Bible.
The “average” Christian would probably be working on Sunday if their job required it.

So in order for the average to be taken, what are the data points?

Oh yeah, no one gets killed for working on the Sabbath. Last person in recorded history was what, 3,500 years ago?

Amazing the contortions the left go into in order to justify Islamofascism.

Up yours. You knew what I was talking about.

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

Yes, by telling Muslims we will nuke Mecca if there is another muslim terrorist attack.

 

[IM2]

More crazy talk.

 

[Clementine]

I'd like to get some thoughts from the liberals on this, because as a liberal, I really don't hear a whole lot of solutions to stopping terrorism. Probably because it can't be stopped. But I'd still like to hear if there have been any solutions proposed by the left.

Also would like to hear thoughts from the right about a real solution. Do you guys really think that bombing people into oblivion is going to end terrorism? We're talking about religious extremism here -- violence against them only adds fuel to the fire. Does the right actually have a real, actionable solution to ending terrorism?

My personal point of view is that you can't really stop it. I don't see how it's possible as long as people still cling to these poisonous ME religions. The only real way we'd ever end global terrorism is through a sort of collective spiritual and psychological evolution to the next level, where as a society we've moved past the violent idiocy of archaic organized religion. The change must come from within. But that just isn't in the cards for the foreseeable future. In other words, we're screwed and terrorism will become more and more of a "normal" part of life.

Discuss...

Then you need to start convincing the radical Muslims that they need to stop clinging to their archaic beliefs.

We won't stop terrorism or mass killings as long as evil people walk the earth.

 

[Weatherman2020]

McVie was not a Christian - his own words.

You don’t need to tell me. his actions proved it.
The same way a true muslim wants no part of beheading people, blowing people up, etc…

How would you define "true" Muslims? I find that interpretation rather interesting as true MuslIm culture treats women as property to stone under shariah law, if the men feel they have (in any way) been dishonored. Perhaps you are in fact referring to the "refined" Muslims, adapted to the customs and living among a nation that believes in women's rights and individual liberty without religious persecution? The two in fact are hardly the same.

“true” was probably a bad choice of words. “Average” would be better.

The “true” Chrisian would kill someone for working on the Sabbath if they follow the Bible.
The “average” Christian would probably be working on Sunday if their job required it.

So the definition is a Muslim who accepts that the Koran is no more to be taken literally than the Bible.

The “true” Chrisian would kill someone for working on the Sabbath if they follow the Bible.
The “average” Christian would probably be working on Sunday if their job required it.

So in order for the average to be taken, what are the data points?

Oh yeah, no one gets killed for working on the Sabbath. Last person in recorded history was what, 3,500 years ago?

Amazing the contortions the left go into in order to justify Islamofascism.

Up yours. You knew what I was talking about.

Yeah, I do know what you were talking about. Typical leftist BS of attempting to paint the actions of Christians as being similar to Muslims in your pathetic attempt to whitewash the actions of what is occurring inside the Islam community.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I'd like to get some thoughts from the liberals on this, because as a liberal, I really don't hear a whole lot of solutions to stopping terrorism. Probably because it can't be stopped. But I'd still like to hear if there have been any solutions proposed by the left.

Also would like to hear thoughts from the right about a real solution. Do you guys really think that bombing people into oblivion is going to end terrorism? We're talking about religious extremism here -- violence against them only adds fuel to the fire. Does the right actually have a real, actionable solution to ending terrorism?

My personal point of view is that you can't really stop it. I don't see how it's possible as long as people still cling to these poisonous ME religions. The only real way we'd ever end global terrorism is through a sort of collective spiritual and psychological evolution to the next level, where as a society we've moved past the violent idiocy of archaic organized religion. The change must come from within. But that just isn't in the cards for the foreseeable future. In other words, we're screwed and terrorism will become more and more of a "normal" part of life.

Discuss...

Finally, a thoughtful and thought provoking thread. Thank you.

I don't have an answer. But some random thoughts on the question of terrorism and terrorists:

• Life in the US changed on Sept 11, 2001. It has been over a decade and a half since that terrible day when the lives of thousands of innocent persons from many nations, and of all faiths, colors, shapes, sizes and creeds, were snuffed out.
• Life in the US changed on November 8, 2016. We have allowed fear and hate to dominate our thinking and by electing a demagogue to occupy the Oval Office, a man who has divided an already divided populace, and one who has exacerbated the damage done by OBL to our way of life
• Congress must void Trump's promise of arms to Saudi Arabia. We must redefine the war on terror and call it what it is, a criminal enterprise engaged in mass murder and rape
• We must cut off the money which funds ISIS, and jail for life or execute** those who aid and abet this form of criminal gang(s).
• Terrorism cannot be defeated as long as parents and leaders promote hate and fear, from one generation to the next.

**Any USA citizen who engages in an act of terrorism, either successful or aborted, and any USA Citizen who aid or abets such an act, should be tried for treason, and if convicted be sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole, or executed.

 

[DonaldReagan]

And the left cheers because Trump's travel ban has been thwarted again! My gawd!

It's worthless POS ban. It's also unconstitutional.

How so?

 

[RightyTighty]

And the left cheers because Trump's travel ban has been thwarted again! My gawd!

It's worthless POS ban. It's also unconstitutional.

How so?

Because it bans people with a right to be, that we granted them, from entering based on their religion.

 

[DonaldReagan]

And the left cheers because Trump's travel ban has been thwarted again! My gawd!

It's worthless POS ban. It's also unconstitutional.

How so?

Because it bans people with a right to be, that we granted them, from entering based on their religion.

Correction: based on the area from which they live, which happens to be a mostly-Muslim area.
In other words, it's not discrimination, but rather finding a possible source of future terrorists, and trying to seal it off.

 

[RightyTighty]

And the left cheers because Trump's travel ban has been thwarted again! My gawd!

It's worthless POS ban. It's also unconstitutional.

How so?

Because it bans people with a right to be, that we granted them, from entering based on their religion.

Correction: based on the area from which they live, which happens to be a mostly-Muslim area.
In other words, it's not discrimination, but rather finding a possible source of future terrorists, and trying to seal it off.

The have ruled - I can't help you. Maybe you can read one of the three multi-judge decisions instead?

Trump's ban cannot be defended here or in court. It's dead, Jim.

And I hope you didn't plan on being Donald Regan? He didn't spell his name the way you did.

 

[LaDexter]

Life in the US changed on Sept 11, 2001.

It didn't change at all for you.

You were a treasonous bigoted sub human liar before 911, and you still are today.