DescentBB

The problem is not (just) ISIS...

And now you know why we will lose the war on terror.

woodchip wrote:And now you know why we will lose the war on terror.

As long as the west willfully blinds itself to the truth- to its real enemy- it will continue to shrink and die.

Secular democracy, the Enlightenment, human progress in general; can and will be wiped out- all too easily.

woodchip wrote:And now you know why we will lose the war on terror.

Actually, from what I can tell the opposite is true, if you define "terror" as "current Islamic extremism." That was a very interesting video and it shows a serious divide in how persons in Muslim nations view the ISIS. The good news is, the ISIS and their supporters, while seemingly large because of the both media representation and current impact, is actually quite small statistically speaking. If the speaker is correct nations are being divided by between ISIS and the West, it's clear "the West" will win handily. But it won't actually be the West who won. It will be over a billion Muslims choosing a peaceful path and pushing back against the violence and subjugation of the ISIS. This video is quite good news for the future!

Lol, "statistically speaking" since they are having a significant impact, and they are, how large/small they are statistically, relative to what ever past bogeyman you are alluding to, is not relevant.
Primarily because the size of their opposition is much larger and yet they are winning. And that is big.

Will Robinson wrote:Primarily because the size of their opposition is much larger and yet they are winning. And that is big.

They aren't winning anything. Can't you see how this is going to turn out? The writing is on the wall and it spells fantastic news for Muslims, Jews, and Christians. The mindless ignorance of the ISIS is the best gift the civilized world could ask for. Yes, it looks like there will be a holy war in the 21st Century, but it's not the one everyone expected.

I imagine there must have been a few people in the late seventies, early eighties, that thought the same thing about the radicals who took Iran. They were saying it wouldn't last...nothing to worry about...

Now, 30 years later they are not only still there but about to become the first nuclear power with a stated purpose that calls for a completion of the holocaust.

So pardon me if I wonder about this Islamic State becoming real...well becoming entrenched since they are already 'real'. They dig in, own a big chunk of Iraq and Syria, draw thousands and thousands more to their ranks and become the rival islamofacsist nuclear power that shares the goal of annihilation of the Jews.

No, nothing to see here, move along, vision said its all good

Wouldn't surprise me if the war on terror was lost.

After all, the war on poverty was lost, war on crime was lost, the war on communism was lost, the war on drugs was lost. Maybe the only war that was won was the war on common sense.

WARNING: RANT

Still hung up on Iran, huh?

Here, let me spell it out for you. The ISIS has a seriously low upper size limit. In fact, they will probably reach their ceiling soon. This is because of the lack of homogeneity in the Muslim world, something the average ignorant American doesn't understand. Most of the discord in the Middle East is not because of Islam vs the West, or even Muslims against Jews. No, most of the problems in the Middle East are between Muslim countries. It is because they all have their own, very different cultures and beliefs. So what does this mean?

I means that the ISIS does not, and cannot speak for a majority of Muslims. It is apparent in the video. There is a serious divide between the hosts and the guest who is ranting about how he perceives the media unfairly portraying the ISIS. At one point, the female host is visibly uncomfortable and looks as though she is seeing a crazy person. Al-Tamimi clearly doesn't speak for Jordan since Jordan hammered the ISIS with air strikes in Syria a month ago.

The ISIS taking over the Middle East would be the equivalent of everyone in American suddenly getting "Canada Fever" and becoming Canadian. Sure lots of people in the US love Canada, but they are pretty attached to being American. Likewise, so are Egyptians, Lebanese, Yemeni, Turks, etc. The ISIS are opportunists who do not have the infrastructure to sustain themselves once real pressure is put on them. And oh yes, that pressure is coming soon.

Now if what the speaker in the video says is true, and the Muslim world is being divided between the West and ISIS, well, the ISIS has no chance in hell of victory. There is already a considerable amount of resistance from a variety of Muslim nations against it and these countries have the military support of the West. Even if they don't like us they at least know enough to be on the winning side.

The birth and eventual, bloody death of the ISIS is horrible thing. However, their existence might actually be a blessing for the future. As the Muslim world becomes more polarized by the ISIS, association with them and their particular ideology will become stigmatized. Culturally, people sharing those beliefs will start to be ridiculed and marginalized. It will become "politically correct" to distance yourself as far as possible from the violent fringe. Apparently this is already happening.

I know some of you will say I am too optimistic, but time will show I am correct.

Ferno wrote:Wouldn't surprise me if the war on terror was lost.

There was never any chance of that victory. Terrorism is a concept. However, the ISIS is not "terrorism," it is group of people who, at this rate, won't be around too much longer.

Except vision, we now see in Africa, Boko Haram pledging allegiance to ISIS. Looks to me like is spreading and not being contained.

I'd say the jury is still out. I'm not as optimistic as Vision, but see the reasoning he uses as sound. The panicked response some here advocate for, and the knee jerk 'hate the Muslims' thing plays right into the hands of those who WOULD grow the movement. Sort of the point made in a large anti-Netanyahu rally yesterday in Israel......sometimes, the path to long-term safety is to work with your adversaries to make it happen, rather than just antagonize and marginalize them.

vision wrote: There was never any chance of that victory. Terrorism is a concept. However, the ISIS is not "terrorism," it is group of people who, at this rate, won't be around too much longer.

yeah I know. Wars on ideas never work out. I was also speaking metaphorically.

vision wrote:Terrorism is a concept.

So are countries.

vision your rant does nothing to refute the possibility I laid out. And by the way, it was not that ISIS would take over the WHOLE middle East. I think if you had intelligently read my comments you would see I suggested they become 'an equally armed rival to Iran' which is completely in concert with your pointing to the factions that keep the region in peril.

In addition to fighting amongst them selves for the role of supreme-nutbag-in-charge-of-all-things-Islam (and by extension all things under 'Allah's authority' (read:the whole universe)) they are also setting out to kill outsiders in the region which include Israel and westerners. They even find the time out from that fighting their rival nutbags over 'how to be a proper muslim' to extend the attack on outsiders to places around the globe. see:NY NY and Washington DC, etc. on Sept. 11, 2001

So your little rant about what they aren't in your mind does nothing to change the reality of what they are and what they seem to be heading toward.

boy o boy!! Wasn't it peaceful, back in the day when Saddam Hussein was in power in Iraq to keep this crap in check. What bunch of morons got rid of him, again?

There is no way to prove that was going to last forever.

Fuckin Saddam was gassing his own people, yea...nice and peaceful, when you are dead.

vision wrote:WARNING: RANT

Still hung up on Iran, huh?

Here, let me spell it out for you. The ISIS has a seriously low upper size limit. In fact, they will probably reach their ceiling soon. This is because of the lack of homogeneity in the Muslim world, something the average ignorant American doesn't understand. Most of the discord in the Middle East is not because of Islam vs the West, or even Muslims against Jews. No, most of the problems in the Middle East are between Muslim countries. It is because they all have their own, very different cultures and beliefs. So what does this mean?

I means that the ISIS does not, and cannot speak for a majority of Muslims. It is apparent in the video. There is a serious divide between the hosts and the guest who is ranting about how he perceives the media unfairly portraying the ISIS. At one point, the female host is visibly uncomfortable and looks as though she is seeing a crazy person. Al-Tamimi clearly doesn't speak for Jordan since Jordan hammered the ISIS with air strikes in Syria a month ago.

The ISIS taking over the Middle East would be the equivalent of everyone in American suddenly getting "Canada Fever" and becoming Canadian. Sure lots of people in the US love Canada, but they are pretty attached to being American. Likewise, so are Egyptians, Lebanese, Yemeni, Turks, etc. The ISIS are opportunists who do not have the infrastructure to sustain themselves once real pressure is put on them. And oh yes, that pressure is coming soon.

Now if what the speaker in the video says is true, and the Muslim world is being divided between the West and ISIS, well, the ISIS has no chance in hell of victory. There is already a considerable amount of resistance from a variety of Muslim nations against it and these countries have the military support of the West. Even if they don't like us they at least know enough to be on the winning side.

The birth and eventual, bloody death of the ISIS is horrible thing. However, their existence might actually be a blessing for the future. As the Muslim world becomes more polarized by the ISIS, association with them and their particular ideology will become stigmatized. Culturally, people sharing those beliefs will start to be ridiculed and marginalized. It will become "politically correct" to distance yourself as far as possible from the violent fringe. Apparently this is already happening.

I know some of you will say I am too optimistic, but time will show I am correct.

Ferno wrote:Wouldn't surprise me if the war on terror was lost.

There was never any chance of that victory. Terrorism is a concept. However, the ISIS is not "terrorism," it is group of people who, at this rate, won't be around too much longer.

Vision again misses the point-

The point is the nature of islam itself. Vision failed to hear where Al-Tamimi said 'it is ISLAM not ISIS.' Islam demands all that ISIS is doing- and that ISIS embraces islam as it was meant to be!

ISIS is merely part of a great muslim renovatio- and this period will be a very very dark age akin to the dark ages themselves. Secular democracy is anathema to islam and the "islamic world." Darkness and death will envelope the middle east and its tendrils will infect and kill many in the west before this movement is done.

I strongly doubt- as Vision does- that the west will not prevail; at least within its own bastions...but that does not mean we're invulnerable.

It is the height of arrogance to believe our way of life can't be toppled by something so medieval as islam. Without a true reformation into a modern religion and ideology that renounces violent jihad- islam CANNOT coexist with democracy ANYWHERE on the planet.

"Moderate" muslims can and will remain "agents" of an ideology that sees our system of human rights and government as something to resist and overcome. NOT all will push for its demise- but they will condone and wish for the actions of the violent jihadists to succeed in the greater struggle (literal 'jihad') for the 'souls' of the entire human race.

ThunderBunny wrote:...
"Moderate" muslims can and will remain "agents" of an ideology that sees our system of human rights and government as something to resist and overcome. NOT all will push for its demise- but they will condone and wish for the actions of the violent jihadists to succeed in the greater struggle (literal 'jihad') for the 'souls' of the entire human race.

You have a far different definition of 'moderate' than I do. I think of moderate muslims as the ones who see their ability to coexist with people of other religions and they do not silently hope for domination of the planet.
I think the majority of muslims would meet my definition and although their culture/s are slow to shake off the chains of fundamentalism they seem to do so quite well as long as the nutbags don't run the government where the moderates live.

Will Robinson wrote:

ThunderBunny wrote:...
"Moderate" muslims can and will remain "agents" of an ideology that sees our system of human rights and government as something to resist and overcome. NOT all will push for its demise- but they will condone and wish for the actions of the violent jihadists to succeed in the greater struggle (literal 'jihad') for the 'souls' of the entire human race.

You have a far different definition of 'moderate' than I do. I think of moderate muslims as the ones who see their ability to coexist with people of other religions and they do not silently hope for domination of the planet.
I think the majority of muslims would meet my definition and although their culture/s are slow to shake off the chains of fundamentalism they seem to do so quite well as long as the nutbags don't run the government where the moderates live.

What I mean by this, Will, is that the definition you put forward are of "moderate muslims" are muslims that are technically not 'devout' or 'good muslims' by definition within islam itself. I do hope that a reformation movement takes hold and succeeds to bring islam out of the dark ages as advocated by Al-Sisi of Egypt and Dr. Zuhdi Jasser:



Al-Sisi:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles ... erway.html

Spidey wrote:There is no way to prove that was going to last forever.

**** Saddam was gassing his own people, yea...nice and peaceful, when you are dead.

realpolitik is a ★■◆●, at times.

Will Robinson wrote:vision your rant does nothing to refute the possibility I laid out...I suggested they become 'an equally armed rival to Iran' which is completely in concert with your pointing to the factions that keep the region in peril.

Possible, but not likely. As I said earlier, the ISIS are opportunists. The don't have the resources, infrastructure, or recognition to become a regional power, not that anyone would let them in the first place. They certainly will never be as powerful as Iran and the possibility of the ISIS having a nuke is close to zero, which is great news for everyone.

Will Robinson wrote:So your little rant about what they aren't in your mind does nothing to change the reality of what they are and what they seem to be heading toward.

What they are heading for is an early grave. They pose no threat to the United States. Israelis and Westerners have always been in danger in those regions, though this time these are actual war zones, so I'm not sure what your point is.

The ISIS will fall when everyone is tired of their ★■◆●.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/isl ... ar-AA9xeOK

sort of reinforces vision's views.

The problem is...islam.

no, the problem is the use of religion for ill.

ThunderBunny wrote:The problem is...islam.

callmeslick wrote:no, the problem is the use of religion for ill.

This is one of those situations where both of you are right. Some religions don't lend themselves to ill. For example, there is nothing in Taoist writing that can be used to justify violence of any kind. Likewise, the Buddhists who kill Muslims in South Asia do not do so in the name of Buddha. But as we all know, there are plenty of passages in the monotheistic religions that justify mistreatment of others. Islam has a peculiar set of ideas that make it especially dangerous. However, most Muslims practice peacefully and use the Quran against violence, though it would be ignorant not to admit a disturbingly large number of Muslims don't. Still, I think it is hard to untangle violence in the Muslim world and determine which is caused by religion, which is by economic/political/etc factors, and which is a product of both.