It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
I tend not to come to the non-ski gabber forums too often on NS, but I am interested in where some of you stand on the topic. After the attacks in Paris, France officially declared war on ISIS. The United States has received countless threats with a promise to terrorize innocent civilians and take lives within our own borders. President Obama's G20 summit speech after meeting with Russia can be simply summarized by two things he said: our strategy against ISIS will remain the same and there are evils in these places, it is a reality in which the world we live. President Obama has accepted the evils of ISIS as a reality that instead of challenging and minimizing we are accepting as an inherent part of our world? Evil will always exist, but the mindless killing and terrorism being conducted by ISIS can be stopped. The threat to our nation is very real, ISIS does not have a code of ethics or morals that keep them in check, they do not abide by the laws of war. Something needs to be done to combat these inconceivably sick human beings. Additionally, Obama is criticizing the Governors who are not accepting Syrian refugees as a way of protecting the citizens of their states. Obama says this in regards to the refugee situation: "slamming the door to Syrian refugees would be a betrayal of our values". The people of Syria that do not support ISIS are under very unfortunate circumstances, but, unfortunately, the safety of American citizens comes first in my opinion. It is not the duty of the United States to make sure the world is fair. President Obama went on to say that we are shutting our doors to three-year-old orphans and poor helpless women, and while this is true, the majority of refugees are young men who also happen to be the identical demographic to the people who run and support ISIS. There is no way for Americans to screen these refugees to 100% ensure our safety and there's. Even if we were to take Obama's emphatic rhetoric and pretend refugees were just poor children and women, we must all understand that ISIS has no boundaries, these people have the ability to manipulate the weak and could easily have a child or women cause terror. I am not saying that Syrians are bad people, as a matter of fact, I would say the strong majority are good, innocent people trapped in a very bad place. The United States number one priority should be the safety of our own citizens, which means taking ISIS's threats seriously and taking action against them, especially after they have attacked one of our strongest allies. We must also find a way to shut down the mass storm of social media that ISIS has used to recruit Americans, and any "American" found to be cooperating with ISIS should be held accountable to the highest legal standard. The United States needs to stand up for itself one more time, while ISIS may claim this is a war of religion and they identify with a religious group, it is much more than that; ISIS is not fighting for a legitimate reason, they are fighting to cause terror, kill mindlessly. These are not people to bargained with, these are people who do not deserve to walk this earth freely. I sincerely hope that the United States government sees the legitimacy of this issue as an encroachment upon the rights of our citizens. At no point should a US citizen feel endangered by a terrorist organization because of threats or the possibility that they could have mass executions at any time in our country. President Obama needs to do something, not once we are attacked, because it will inevitably happen if we sit back and take their threats so lightly. Obama claimed that ISIS was JV, but if the attacks in Paris have done anything for ISIS, it has certainly convinced a lot of the world that they are willing to wage war. This is a group of people who are not afraid to die in an effort to bring down western philosophies. I beg of our government to take action before people lose friends or family in our country. I do not want to wait until we are physically terrorized and my future children end up asking me about the Christmas attacks of 2015 or whatever ISIS has planned. Would love to hear others thoughts on the topic.
What the fuck do you call dropping bombs on them every single day? Is that target practice?
By the president not saying the words we are at war with ISIS or "declaring war" on ISIS it downplays the threat. In my opinion people dont take this seriously because of two things, it hasnt hit home for us in awhile, since 9/11. And by not declaring war, we are just dropping bombs to control a threat. ISIS is at war with the west. The US is part of that and if they are at war with us we should make it clear we are at war as well.
These terrorists arent just fighting a physical war, its a psychological war of fear and terror. Some people dont think the threat is real and I believe it is. To me, those people won't come around untill war is declared.
THEDIRTYBUBBLEISIS needs to be destroyed, but after that happens the US should never set foot in the middle east ever again.
can't express this enough. i'm hoping our next president will be able to come up with a better game plan than Obama has. I understand that it's a tricky battle to fight but these random attacks on the public is just not going to stop until the little shits are taken care of. again, there hasn't been an attack on the US public for a long time, since 9/11, and as grim as it sounds it may have to happen in order for our fucking government to screw their heads on straight.
AlexFogo85The people of Syria that do not support ISIS are under very unfortunate circumstances, but, unfortunately, the safety of American citizens comes first in my opinion. It is not the duty of the United States to make sure the world is fair. President Obama went on to say that we are shutting our doors to three-year-old orphans and poor helpless women, and while this is true, the majority of refugees are young men who also happen to be the identical demographic to the people who run and support ISIS. There is no way for Americans to screen these refugees to 100% ensure our safety and there's. Even if we were to take Obama's emphatic rhetoric and pretend refugees were just poor children and women, we must all understand that ISIS has no boundaries, these people have the ability to manipulate the weak and could easily have a child or women cause terror. I am not saying that Syrians are bad people, as a matter of fact, I would say the strong majority are good, innocent people trapped in a very bad place. The United States number one priority should be the safety of our own citizens, which means taking ISIS's threats seriously and taking action against them, especially after they have attacked one of our strongest allies. We must also find a way to shut down the mass storm of social media that ISIS has used to recruit Americans, and any "American" found to be cooperating with ISIS should be held accountable to the highest legal standard. The United States needs to stand up for itself one more time, while ISIS may claim this is a war of religion and they identify with a religious group, it is much more than that; ISIS is not fighting for a legitimate reason, they are fighting to cause terror, kill mindlessly. These are not people to bargained with, these are people who do not deserve to walk this earth freely. I sincerely hope that the United States government sees the legitimacy of this issue as an encroachment upon the rights of our citizens. At no point should a US citizen feel endangered by a terrorist organization because of threats or the possibility that they could have mass executions at any time in our country.
One of the mistakes people make about ISIS is they think they behave and act like al-Qaeda when that is far from what actually happens. ISIS is all about bringing jihadists to the Islamic State, fighting within the Islamic State, and then expanding from the Islamic State. Any believer/jihadist that is in the Islamic State is under direct order from the caliph to stay and fight. Those who leave the state to fight are disobeying the caliph and need to "review their religion". So, the idea that ISIS wants to sneak jihadists into the USA disguised as refugees is something that goes against their very sacred ideology. This is one of the main ways in which they are very different from al-Qaeda.
A declaration of war can only be done by congress. And they wont. Because no one wants to go back to Iraq because the second we left all this shit happened, and that will always be the case.
theBearJewBy the president not saying the words we are at war with ISIS or "declaring war" on ISIS it downplays the threat. In my opinion people dont take this seriously because of two things, it hasnt hit home for us in awhile, since 9/11. And by not declaring war, we are just dropping bombs to control a threat. ISIS is at war with the west. The US is part of that and if they are at war with us we should make it clear we are at war as well.
These terrorists arent just fighting a physical war, its a psychological war of fear and terror. Some people dont think the threat is real and I believe it is. To me, those people won't come around untill war is declared.
If it isn't clear that what I just described is war then you need to fucking reevaluate your view on the world. How much political bullshit do you seriously need in your life? Get real. Who the fuck do we need to convince of anything? We are dropping so many bombs Boeing can't keep up. You are talking about step 2 and the US is on step 10, read a book.
CaseyA declaration of war can only be done by congress. And they wont. Because no one wants to go back to Iraq because the second we left all this shit happened, and that will always be the case.
What difference does it make. What daily body count do you use to satisfy your personal definition of war?
This refugee issue is frustrating. By refusing refugee's not only are we feeding into and supporting the message ISIS uses to recruit people (that the rest of the world is against Islam), but we are being absolute hypocrites to what our country was founded on. Also, did we learn nothing from WWII and suspecting spys within Jewish refugees and putting thousands of Japanese-Americans into those horrible internment camps? Both of which, to this day, have little to no evidence of preventing ANYTHING.
And again, in regards to the refugee situation, do you understand the process of being vetted for refugee status? Especially as a Syrian? It takes from 18-24 months, requires multiple in person interviews (in their home country), safety checks by numerous different security agencies etc etc
Let me ask you this, why would ISIS try to come into the US as a refugee, when a tourist visa is MUCH easier, like a million times easier, to get and come into the US?
Also, we have only accepted a little over 2k refugees vs the MILLIONS that have been displaced. It's not like they are flooding into the country...
As for what actions must be made, obviously something needs to be done to address ISIS and bring them to an end...but this Islamophobia is sickening.
Gherbscan't express this enough. i'm hoping our next president will be able to come up with a better game plan than Obama has. I understand that it's a tricky battle to fight but these random attacks on the public is just not going to stop until the little shits are taken care of. again, there hasn't been an attack on the US public for a long time, since 9/11, and as grim as it sounds it may have to happen in order for our fucking government to screw their heads on straight.
What would you do that President Obama isn't doing?
Like Dustin said, were dropping a fuck ton of bombs on them. Do you want us to commit a large ground force there? That's exactly what ISIS wants anyway.
The countries around Iraq/Syria need to do a lot more. Nobody wants another Iraq or Afghanistan and that's what this would turn into with large amounts of boots on the ground.
THEDIRTYBUBBLEISIS needs to be destroyed, but after that happens the US should never set foot in the middle east ever again.
What do you suggest we do beyond what we are? We are supplying and traning our allies so they can fight ISIS. The only other option is do an Iraq invasion 3.0. No one wants that and to those we do, you're retarded.
If we invade Iraq, yes we'll kick them out of Iraq, but they'll be safe in Syria. So I guess we'll just invade there too and put ourselves in the middle of another civil war with about 7483837 factions fighting each other. Even if we defeat ISIS conventionally, they will just slip back into the population and fight us unconventionally. That has been happening for the past 15 years in Iraq and Afghanistan. As soon as we withdrew from parts of Helmand in southern Afghanistan, the ANA got it's ass handed to them and the Taliban now rule most of the province...again. We accomplished nothing. It's an unwinable war unless we stay there permanently or the people want to fight for themselves. The later is key or we'll just be running in circles indefinitely.
Another thing, yea ISIS claims they are going to terrorize the world blah blah blah, but who knows if they are actually behind all these acts. They just claim they are and we eat it up. "Oh it must be ISIS!" Even though there are a multitude of other muslim extremist groups out there. A lot of them actually hate each other.
Gherbscan't express this enough. i'm hoping our next president will be able to come up with a better game plan than Obama has. I understand that it's a tricky battle to fight but these random attacks on the public is just not going to stop until the little shits are taken care of. again, there hasn't been an attack on the US public for a long time, since 9/11, and as grim as it sounds it may have to happen in order for our fucking government to screw their heads on straight.
Blindsurferso much lol at this. there are no laws of war. that is just something says when they aren't willing to use all means at their disposal to win
The Geneva Convention actually provides general standards for international law in which countries are required to follow. If a country or organization is to break a policy set by the Geneva Convention, they could potentially face war crimes. All of this is a bunch of technicalities that superpowers such as the US and Russia can rhetorically dance around. However, quite often countries that are weaker or on the losing side of things do face consequences for breaking these rules. Not long ago some Israeli leaders were brought up on war crimes by the United Nations. It is a more common occurrence than you would expect and technically speaking, yes there are laws of international war.
AlexFogo85The Geneva Convention actually provides general standards for international law in which countries are required to follow. If a country or organization is to break a policy set by the Geneva Convention, they could potentially face war crimes. All of this is a bunch of technicalities that superpowers such as the US and Russia can rhetorically dance around. However, quite often countries that are weaker or on the losing side of things do face consequences for breaking these rules. Not long ago some Israeli leaders were brought up on war crimes by the United Nations. It is a more common occurrence than you would expect and technically speaking, yes there are laws of international war.
You would be surprised how many war crimes occur that go unreported. That's all I'm going to say about that haha. "What happens on patrol, stays on patrol".
Like you said, war crimes only exist if you lose or someone with a stronger military gives a shit. The UN and NATO are a joke to be honest. The US, China and to a lesser extent, Russia can literally do what ever they want and no one is going to do a damn thing besides say they're really mad at them.
There are a number of effective measures which could be taken by the west to fight ISIS possibly without the need for further bombing, such as cutting off funding to them by imposing sanctions on countries and businesses known/to be found financing them (cough Saudi Arabia cough) and also forcing turkey to stop engaging with Kurdish fighters who would make major dents in ISIS forces without the need for western saviourism see: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/18/turkey-cut-islamic-state-supply-lines-erdogan-isis
while these things may seem idealist as a solution there seems to be little effort going into any sort of measure as this and trying to bomb syria into freedom seems to be the tact by most currently.
ISIS were allowed to flourish in part because of the failings of the west in their actions in the regions where efforts were made (with some amount of right) to overthrow dictatorships and poisonous regimes, followed by major failings to create stability in the regions. This left the door wide open for radicalism and the twisting of actions of the west by these groups to create an enemy for the weak to be poisoned into believing were trying to destroy islam.
I dont agree in interventionalist actions by the west such as the iraq war were correct but i wont disagree that something had to be done about the regimes. its just that what was done was ham-fisted and massively cocked up, and thats the bed we now have to lie in but (to paraphrase einstien) making the same mistakes again and again expecting different results is the definition of insanity.
non-directly agressive actions as i have mentioned above seem to me to be a reasonable approach given the reasons ISIS gave for the paris attacks.
This is such bullshit and misdirection. Let me explain to you as straightforwardly as I can.
AL QAEDA DOES NOT SUPPORT ISIS.
Suggesting that Muslims are anti-Isis has nothing to do with the content of their own beliefs, which from a secular liberal perspective may not differ meaningfully from those of ISIS. If they still want gays and apostates murdered, it does not matter in the LEAST that they are opposed to ISIS.
We have a serious problem on the left and THAT is why the President's response has been underwhelming and muddied. The problem is with his base. The left is confused and needs to get back to original principles.
J.D.This is such bullshit and misdirection. Let me explain to you as straightforwardly as I can.
AL QAEDA DOES NOT SUPPORT ISIS.
Suggesting that Muslims are anti-Isis has nothing to do with the content of their own beliefs, which from a secular liberal perspective may not differ meaningfully from those of ISIS. If they still want gays and apostates murdered, it does not matter in the LEAST that they are opposed to ISIS.
We have a serious problem on the left and THAT is why the President's response has been underwhelming and muddied. The problem is with his base. The left is confused and needs to get back to original principles.
I think you misunderstood the point of my reply and I don't think it is misperception.
My reply was a specific answer to the current misperception that if you're a Muslim you support ISIS and the impact that is having on our current situation with Syrian refugees. That is what I was answering.
Are there deeper issues within the religion of Islam as well? Yes, of course there are. Do you expect to address them all in one reply? Impossible. I'm not trying to shut down anybody who speaks out against Islam, but my point is that to generalize an entire religion is wrong and misguided.
Yes, I am sure some of those polled are supporters of Al Qaeda and thus say that they oppose ISIS. Are there others polled that may have views that may be favorable to the murder of gays and apostates? More than likely yes. However, any intelligent person should be able to understand the simplicity of the question in a poll and the one answer that is it hoping to achieve.
I didn't say anything about Obama's actions towards this situation. Was I expressing my views on the issue of the bill that was just passed working against taking in Syrian refugees specifically because of the fear that there would be ISIS terrorists hidden among them? Yes.
Also, my views don't come from one side or the other. I try my best to have an objective mind when it comes to this subject. The history of Islam is what I majored in and the subject that I wrote my thesis on. So, although I do not have the knowledge or experience as would a follower of Islam, I do have an educated respect and understanding of their religion, its origin and dynamics throughout history.
That video is something I would definitely recommend to others. Thanks for sharing.
One problem I see is that you need to defeat the idea of ISIS, not just kill the people. Anybody can join. You need to make people not want to, and I think this is harder than just blowing people to bits.
I mean, you also need to go in there and just kill them all, all the current guys. I'm not a fan of just exterminating people but it needs to be done before they cause more havoc. I don't see any sort of reason or logic causing them to abandon their beliefs.
goodiepocketThis refugee issue is frustrating. By refusing refugee's not only are we feeding into and supporting the message ISIS uses to recruit people (that the rest of the world is against Islam), but we are being absolute hypocrites to what our country was founded on. Also, did we learn nothing from WWII and suspecting spys within Jewish refugees and putting thousands of Japanese-Americans into those horrible internment camps? Both of which, to this day, have little to no evidence of preventing ANYTHING.
And again, in regards to the refugee situation, do you understand the process of being vetted for refugee status? Especially as a Syrian? It takes from 18-24 months, requires multiple in person interviews (in their home country), safety checks by numerous different security agencies etc etc
Let me ask you this, why would ISIS try to come into the US as a refugee, when a tourist visa is MUCH easier, like a million times easier, to get and come into the US?
Also, we have only accepted a little over 2k refugees vs the MILLIONS that have been displaced. It's not like they are flooding into the country...
As for what actions must be made, obviously something needs to be done to address ISIS and bring them to an end...but this Islamophobia is sickening.
I don't understand your point with denial of jewish refugees in WWII. It is a quite different situation in this case. In WWII we had a horrible NATION that was IDENTIFIABLE persecuting the jewish people in Europe. We abstained from joining the war as long as possible and it seems that maybe this was the view of the U.S government. Do not get involved by taking refugees.
In the Syrian Crisis, we cannot see the enemy. You go to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, or Iraq (now even Europe) and tell me who the enemy is. Walk those streets and try to find who the terrorist is. Their tactics are nothing like the Nazi's. That is why we must question this decision on bringing the refugees here. Extremists will not come in convoys with air support, instead they will sacrifice themselves in order to cause chaos and violence.
I'm not saying all muslims are doing this. However we need to be aware of their tactics.
goodiepocketI think you misunderstood the point of my reply and I don't think it is misperception.
My reply was a specific answer to the current misperception that if you're a Muslim you support ISIS and the impact that is having on our current situation with Syrian refugees. That is what I was answering.
I think this is a straw man. I don't know of anyone who thinks "if you're a Muslim you support ISIS". I haven't heard a single person say so. Those that do are just... idiots.
But then you have people who want to suggest that ISIS isn't really Islamic, or that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. And poll questions like "do muslims support ISIS" contain no useful information. Again, I cannot be clearer: the data you posted is utterly useless. Al Qaeda is anti-ISIS. This does not say anything particularly good about Al Qaeda.
The questions that matter are whether they support certain things ISIS also supports - like executing apostates such as the girl in that video. Unfortunately, you don't get the same overwhelming answer on that. A poll in Pakistan revealed that 78% of Pakistani Muslims supported killing apostates. 68% of British Muslims polled in 2006 said that anyone who insults Islam should be arrested. In 2009, 81% of polled Egyptian Muslims wanted Sharia law imposed in every Muslim country. In 2010, 77% of Egyptian Muslims favoured flogging and amputation of limbs as punishments for crimes. Over 80% of ALL women in Indonesia (97+% of Muslim women) are subjected to female genital mutilation according to separate 2003 and 2010 studies, and over 90% of families said they supported this practice and wanted it to continue.
Those are the actual beliefs that need to be dealt with, not whether a particular awful organization is supported, because if you'd support one set of barbaric practices but not another, that's not very comforting.
DavinI don't understand your point with denial of jewish refugees in WWII. It is a quite different situation in this case. In WWII we had a horrible NATION that was IDENTIFIABLE persecuting the jewish people in Europe. We abstained from joining the war as long as possible and it seems that maybe this was the view of the U.S government. Do not get involved by taking refugees.
In the Syrian Crisis, we cannot see the enemy. You go to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, or Iraq (now even Europe) and tell me who the enemy is. Walk those streets and try to find who the terrorist is. Their tactics are nothing like the Nazi's. That is why we must question this decision on bringing the refugees here. Extremists will not come in convoys with air support, instead they will sacrifice themselves in order to cause chaos and violence.
I'm not saying all muslims are doing this. However we need to be aware of their tactics.
My point of bringing up the denial of Jewish refugees because it was a similar fear of Nazi spys being hidden within the Jewish refugees. This is a very similar fear to terrorists being hidden among Syrian refugees. Their means of causing harm may be different, but the fear and reaction to the issue then and now is what is comparable.
I am not saying that we should let them all in without any vetting etc, however I think shutting the door on them completely is what is wrong.
J.D.I think this is a straw man. I don't know of anyone who thinks "if you're a Muslim you support ISIS". I haven't heard a single person say so. Those that do are just... idiots.
Maybe it's not so bad out there in Calgary, but out here in Brooks, we have a huge Muslim population living amongst a huge population of racist, redneck dicks who definitely feel that way.
One of my co-workers was just talking about how her husband was at a poker game last night and was embarrassed because most of the people at the table felt that way.
Regardless, I'm not sure anyone would dispute they're idiots.
Despite the US government's depiction of drone strikes as surgical and precise, independent observers have counted thousands of people killed by US drones under both the Bush and Obama administrations, including hundreds of civilian casualties, many of them children. According to secret US documents published by The Intercept, as many as 9 out of 10 people killed are not the intended targets–yet the Pentagon indiscriminately marks those killed with the uniform label “EKIA” (Enemy Killed In Action).
According to Bryant, many of those “EKIAs” were innocent civilians who bought used SIM cards traded off by suspected militants. According to the Snowden documents, SIM cards are one of the primary identifiers the NSA uses to help drone operators track and locate their targets. But many times, targets will simply flip their card on the black market, said Bryant, causing an innocent person to unknowingly place a giant metadata target above their head.
“This happens pretty often,” said Bryant. “They're pretty wise to it.”
"We also know, as U.S. officials acknowledge, that NATO bombing of jihadis boosts recruitment."
All too typical was a recent discussion on CNN in which an American-Muslim leader and an English former jihadi debated whether the attacks in Paris are best explained by the marginalization of France's Muslim population or by an "ideology." Missing was any reference to France's bombing of Syria.
How could that not have been part of the CNN discussion? The answer cannot be ignorance. Indeed, throughout the weekend the bombing of Syria was often acknowledged on France 24 television. At times the Paris attacks were portrayed as acts of vengeance, however horrifyingly misguided and evil. (While attacks on noncombatants are undeniably evil, we must note that western governments incessantly claim to act on behalf of their people.)
Why do the U.S. media think Americans need not know what the French know? (I won't say America's establishment media never associate jihadi terrorism with revenge, but it's far too infrequent.) The Islamic State's own statement made clear that the attacks were in response to the French bombing of Syria.
So if Americans and Europeans want safer societies, they must discard the old, failed playbook, which has only one play—more violence—and adopt a new policy: nonintervention.
J.D.I think this is a straw man. I don't know of anyone who thinks "if you're a Muslim you support ISIS". I haven't heard a single person say so. Those that do are just... idiots.
But then you have people who want to suggest that ISIS isn't really Islamic, or that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. And poll questions like "do muslims support ISIS" contain no useful information. Again, I cannot be clearer: the data you posted is utterly useless. Al Qaeda is anti-ISIS. This does not say anything particularly good about Al Qaeda.
The questions that matter are whether they support certain things ISIS also supports - like executing apostates such as the girl in that video. Unfortunately, you don't get the same overwhelming answer on that. A poll in Pakistan revealed that 78% of Pakistani Muslims supported killing apostates. 68% of British Muslims polled in 2006 said that anyone who insults Islam should be arrested. In 2009, 81% of polled Egyptian Muslims wanted Sharia law imposed in every Muslim country. In 2010, 77% of Egyptian Muslims favoured flogging and amputation of limbs as punishments for crimes. Over 80% of ALL women in Indonesia (97+% of Muslim women) are subjected to female genital mutilation according to separate 2003 and 2010 studies, and over 90% of families said they supported this practice and wanted it to continue.
Those are the actual beliefs that need to be dealt with, not whether a particular awful organization is supported, because if you'd support one set of barbaric practices but not another, that's not very comforting.
You may not have hear somebody say that in those exact words, but I think the actions of passing a bill that essentially refuses refugees is practically saying the same thing and encourages Islamophobia. The purpose of the poll was to relate to this specific misperception and the issue of Syrian refugees admittance into the US. I don't know how I can be any clearer about that.
I get it, you think the poll is pointless, is that the point of this argument? Because you're bringing up an entirely different conversation.
I'm not arguing that those questions aren't important, because they are and they are issues that do need to be addressed. However, explain to me how these questions pertain to the issue of Syrian refugees and Americas refusal of them.
goodiepocketYou may not have hear somebody say that in those exact words, but I think the actions of passing a bill that essentially refuses refugees is practically saying the same thing and encourages Islamophobia. The purpose of the poll was to relate to this specific misperception and the issue of Syrian refugees admittance into the US. I don't know how I can be any clearer about that.
I get it, you think the poll is pointless, is that the point of this argument? Because you're bringing up an entirely different conversation.
I'm not arguing that those questions aren't important, because they are and they are issues that do need to be addressed. However, explain to me how these questions pertain to the issue of Syrian refugees and Americas refusal of them.
First, the thread is about Obama's response to ISIS, not specifically just the Syrian refugee problem.
Second, we cannot address any of these ISIS-sourced problems without coming to grips with what we're actually opposed to here. If the question is "do you agree with ISIS", the answer may be "no, I think their practices are horrible and a violation of Islamic teaching", or it may be "no, but I am all about a Caliphate, just not their Caliphate". So your poll results remain useless on that question, also.
Third, this is just the wrong way to go about things. Your view that any effort to block refugees can be dismissed as thinly-veiled bigotry is obviously wrong - that is not the motivation of a huge number of people. A huge number of people are just plain scared. Fear is a really poor basis upon which to make decisions, so they may very well (and I think are) making the wrong decision by opposing refugee admittance into America. But the way to address that is to discuss their fears and provide more information. Information breeds confidence. Simply saying, "you're all bigots, end of discussion, don't want to talk to you" is not only incorrect factually but also completely unhelpful.
J.D.First, the thread is about Obama's response to ISIS, not specifically just the Syrian refugee problem.
Second, we cannot address any of these ISIS-sourced problems without coming to grips with what we're actually opposed to here. If the question is "do you agree with ISIS", the answer may be "no, I think their practices are horrible and a violation of Islamic teaching", or it may be "no, but I am all about a Caliphate, just not their Caliphate". So your poll results remain useless on that question, also.
Third, this is just the wrong way to go about things. Your view that any effort to block refugees can be dismissed as thinly-veiled bigotry is obviously wrong - that is not the motivation of a huge number of people. A huge number of people are just plain scared. Fear is a really poor basis upon which to make decisions, so they may very well (and I think are) making the wrong decision by opposing refugee admittance into America. But the way to address that is to discuss their fears and provide more information. Information breeds confidence. Simply saying, "you're all bigots, end of discussion, don't want to talk to you" is not only incorrect factually but also completely unhelpful.
You're correct, this thread is about Obamas response, but my reply and what you are discussing with me, is about the issue of Syrian Refugees and their admittance into the US.
Wow. I have never said "you're all bigots, end of discussion, don't want to talk to you" at all. I'm not sure where you got that impression, unless you are taking my responses too personally. If anything, I am continuing this conversation with you...am I not?
I even addressed the fact that I am not trying to shut down anyone who speaks negatively against Islam. If anything, the point of my original post was to simply address that, yes, there is an overwhelming fear within the US, but that unfortunately much of this fear becomes linked with the generalization of Muslims and their association with being terrorists.
That is the purpose of the poll: addressing that simple and wrong generalization held by many Americans. That's it. You're reading way too far into it and starting a completely different, although relevant, conversation.
I honestly don't see what we are arguing about...
You're correct, fear is a very poor thing to make decisions off of and by providing more information is exactly what I am doing. I am addressing one unfortunate generalization in America that has become an embodiment of this 'fear'.
Curious, what is this 'fear' as you see it? What exactly are people afraid of and what impact does that have on the issue of Syrian refugees? And how does that affect the image of Muslims within the US?
I've never once said you are wrong or spoke harshly about anyone who supports the refusal of refugees. I understand how and why such a bill was passed. I get it. I am simply addressing the point that I BELIEVE some decisions are being made based on an unfortunate generalization of one of the worlds largest religions and that is wrong. I am providing information to help address this 'fear' within America.
The US goal in December 2006 was to undermine the Syrian government by any means necessary. This is a fact. And that what mattered was whether US action would help destabilize the government., not what other impacts the action might have... In public, the US was opposed to Islamist terrorists everywhere; but in private it saw the potential threat to the legitimate government of Syria from the increasing presence of transiting Islamist extremists as an opportunity that the US should take action to try to increase. Destabilisation is and will always be a requirement for overthrowing a government. It's the primary reason an external force would do so. The other agenda seems to be the elimination of the Shia powerbloc for Western and Saudi interests, point blank. That is the motive.
You look at the "arab spring", Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Ukraine, and Syria and realize there's a similar strategy at play.
Now If US covert operations are not directly behind the dissent and protests in these countries as these wikileaks document would suggest they are directly behind it, we're coming in after the fact and supporting the dissenters.
December 13, 2006 cable, "Influencing the SARG [Syrian government] in the End of 2006,"1 indicates that, as far back as 2006 - five years before “ARAB SPRING" protests in Syria - destabilizing the Syrian government was a central motivation of US policy. The author of the cable was William Roebuck, at the time chargé d'affaires at the US embassy in Damascus. The cable outlines strategies for destabilizing the Syrian government. In his summary of the cable,
Roebuck wrote: We believe Bashar's weaknesses are in how he chooses to react to looming issues, both perceived and real, such as the conflict between economic reform steps (however limited) and entrenched, corrupt forces, the Kurdish question, and the potential threat to the regime from the increasing presence of transiting Islamist extremists. This cable summarizes our assessment of these vulnerabilities and suggests that there may be actions, statements, and signals that the USG can send that will improve the likelihood of such opportunities arising.
So yes, there was the possibility of estabilishing a declared salafist principality in eastern syria and this is exactly what the supporting powers ti the opposition want, in order to isolate the syrian regime
aqi , through the spokesman islamic state of iraq (x.y.) declared the syrian regime is the forefront ot shiites and called on all sunnies in iraq to vage war against the syrian regime.
... redacted redacted ...
The "possible actions" that were suggested in the cable:
-- PUBLICITY: Publicly highlighting the consequences of the ongoing investigation a la Mehlis causes Bashar personal angst and may lead him to act irrationally. ...
-- PUBLICITY: Publicly highlighting the consequences of the ongoing investigation a la Mehlis causes Bashar personal angst and may lead him to act irrationally. ...
-- PLAY ON SUNNI FEARS OF IRANIAN INFLUENCE: There are fears in Syria that the Iranians are active in both Shia proselytizing and conversion of, mostly poor, Sunnis. ... we should coordinate more closely with their governments on ways to better publicize and focus regional attention on the issue.
-- ADDITIONAL DESIGNATIONS: Targeted sanctions against regime members and their intimates are generally welcomed by most elements of Syrian society. ...
-- We should continue to encourage the Saudis and others to allow Khaddam access to their media outlets, providing him with venues for airing the SARG's dirty laundry. ...
-- ENCOURAGE RUMORS AND SIGNALS OF EXTERNAL PLOTTING: The regime is intensely sensitive to rumors about coup-plotting and restlessness in the security services and military. Regional allies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia should be encouraged to meet with figures like Khaddam and Rif'at Asad as a way of sending such signals, with appropriate leaking of the meetings afterwards.
-- HIGHLIGHTING FAILURES OF REFORM: Highlighting failures of reform, especially in the run-up to the 2007 Presidential elections, is a move that Bashar would find highly embarrassing and de-legitimizing. Comparing and contrasting puny Syrian reform efforts with the rest of the Middle East would also embarrass and irritate Bashar.
-- DISCOURAGE FDI, ESPECIALLY FROM THE GULF: Syria has enjoyed a considerable up-tick in foreign direct investment (FDI) in the last two years that appears to be picking up steam. ...
-- HIGHLIGHT KURDISH COMPLAINTS: Highlighting Kurdish complaints in public statements, including publicizing human rights abuses will exacerbate regime's concerns about the Kurdish population. Focus on economic hardship in Kurdish areas and the SARG's long-standing refusal to offer citizenship to some 200,000 stateless Kurds. This issue would need to be handled carefully, since giving the wrong kind of prominence to Kurdish issues in Syria could be a liability for our efforts at uniting the opposition, given Syrian (mostly Arab) civil society's skepticism of Kurdish objectives.
-- Publicize presence of transiting (or externally focused) extremist groups in Syria, not limited to mention of Hamas and PIJ. Publicize Syrian efforts against extremist groups in a way that suggests weakness, signs of instability, and uncontrolled blowback. The SARG's argument (usually used after terror attacks in Syria) that it too is a victim of terrorism should be used against it to give greater prominence to increasing signs of instability within Syria.
Dustin.That is technically the dumbest fucking thing I've heard anyone say in 5 years.
Not really? It's not a difficult concept to understand... Recently the United States has only been providing supplies to the United Nations. The United Nations is an organization separate from the US that is launching their own attacks against ISIS. It's comparable the United States providing supplies to an ally nation, we don't have to launch attacks to support a country or organization against an enemy.
AlexFogo85Not really? It's not a difficult concept to understand... Recently the United States has only been providing supplies to the United Nations. The United Nations is an organization separate from the US that is launching their own attacks against ISIS. It's comparable the United States providing supplies to an ally nation, we don't have to launch attacks to support a country or organization against an enemy.
It's not a difficult concept to understand? Dude, what the fuck are you talking about? Do you or do you not understand that the US air campaign against ISIS, AKA war, is over a year old? Sending supplies? If by supplies you mean leading the charge by dropping our entire inventory of JDAMs then yes, we are "sending supplies". Governments may be discussing whether to paint #ActuallyWar on those bombs, but it's not like they are going to take a vote and say "Okay guys, tomorrow we strike". That happened over a year ago, and the US did it.
AlexFogo85Not really? It's not a difficult concept to understand... Recently the United States has only been providing supplies to the United Nations. The United Nations is an organization separate from the US that is launching their own attacks against ISIS. It's comparable the United States providing supplies to an ally nation, we don't have to launch attacks to support a country or organization against an enemy.
First, Who the fuck cares. Can NSG go back to being about other shit?
Also "Should the US declare war on ISIS" No that's dumb as hell. I mean think about it. Should the US declare war on terror is pretty much what you're saying. We're already fighting an alleged "war on terror" and that's going so fucking stellar.
That said this will probably end up with us involved in some other countries that we can stay in forever, and more people to fight, more $$$ waste, more people dead for no reason, and very little if anything positive accomplished.
