Is there an answer to Islamic terrorism?

[marco]

And so beautiful Barcelona joins the list of cities terrorists have attacked. I don't doubt that there are those who will say America and the West are responsible. One of the terrorists apparently wrote of his desire to kill infidels.

I was in Madrid a few weeks ago and had intended to revisit Barcelona and its busy street, Las Ramblas, where the atrocities occurred. So terror is just a breath away, at least here in Europe.

Is it possible for those who want to kill to be educated if not by impious Westerners by Imams? Are those who want to kill "infidels" already known in their home circles? Obviously the scale of this lunacy will grow and we will hear on our screens the fatuous: "They will not win." But they do.

What can we do to ensure "they will not win"? Should the world convert to Islam, at least nominally?

[Bust Nak]

Nothing there tells of the USA fighting against the gov of Syria as the objective.

It was literally the very first sentence of the first link, and I quote "The United States launched a military strike Thursday on a Syrian government airbase in response to a chemical weapons attack."

Here is a News source closer to reality = Huffington Post ~ The United States intervened militarily in Syria under the premise of the war on terror and the fight against ISIS, but their presence is actually helping the Syrian government.

This is a report in 2016, of course the US is in Syria to fight ISIS.

What I have figured out is that this is an example of Jesus telling people to "seek the truth" because it sounds so simple and surely everyone considers their self as knowing the truth, and yet Jesus said this anyway, and now I get the point that virtually no one ever really seeks the truth, because people accept shallow and superficial info as the truth and they do not seek anything further.

Good advice.

The USA says to go into a war - and the people go to war without seeking any truth.

I also see people say don't go to war, without seeking any truth.

The people are told that this is the enemy - so they are the enemy - and no one seek the truth as to why are they the enemy?

Lots of people sought the truth and now know the truth as to why are ISIS is the enemy.

The people are told that those are the "bad" guys and we are the "good" guys - and no one seeks any such truth as to = why are they the "bad" guys? and why are we the "good" guys?

They are the bad guys because they and their prior associates, conducted terrorist attacks on us. We are the good guys because we fight the bad guys.

Should the west be there?

Yes.

The west was there supporting terrorists.

Correction, supported rebels. Some of whom have became terrorist.

Assad knows it, he want them all out.
If Russia had not helped Syria it would have been balkanized by now and Assad would have been killed most likely - Libya style. That's western democracy.

Assad is accused to war crimes against his own citizens by the UN, you'd preferred a dictator over western democracy?

[Monta]

[Replying to post 151 by Bust Nak]


"Assad is accused to war crimes against his own citizens by the UN, you'd preferred a dictator over western democracy?"

In what way have western powers contributed to the betterment of its citizens?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ation.html

Raqqa is now in ruins. More than 4,450 airstrikes by the U.S.-led military coalition and others have left its streets a moonscape of shattered buildings and mountains of detritus. What was once a city of 200,000 is now all but deserted. Clouds of flies hover near collapsed buildings, a sign of the bodies crushed beneath.

[JP Cusick]

It was literally the very first sentence of the first link, and I quote "The United States launched a military strike Thursday on a Syrian government airbase in response to a chemical weapons attack."

Striking an airbase is not the same as attacking the Syrian gov - and it is a silly game to pretend otherwise.

And if the USA were against the Syrian gov then where is the declaration of war?

Then why is it that the Syrian gov is not fighting against the American military?

Why would we bomb an airbase but not the Syrian Capital? or its Dictator?

I say we need to raise this discussion above the shallow level.

[Bust Nak]

In what way have western powers contributed to the betterment of its citizens?

It has stopped the further chemical attack on Syrian citizens. That's a pretty huge betterment, don't you think?

Raqqa is now in ruins. More than 4,450 airstrikes by the U.S.-led military coalition and others have left its streets a moonscape of shattered buildings and mountains of detritus. What was once a city of 200,000 is now all but deserted. Clouds of flies hover near collapsed buildings, a sign of the bodies crushed beneath.

Granted it's a huge mess over there, but that is against ISIS, not the Syria government. Besides, was that supposed to make a dictator the more attractive alternative? Or perhaps you think ISIS would be better?

Striking an airbase is not the same as attacking the Syrian gov.

Striking a Syrian government airbase is literally attacking the Syrian government.

And if the USA were against the Syrian gov then where is the declaration of war?

There is none because there isn't a war against Syria.

Then why is it that the Syrian gov is not fighting against the American military?

Because they are fighting against ISIS and the rebels.

Why would we bomb an airbase but not the Syrian Capital?

Because the US is actively trying to avoid killing civilians.

or its Dictator?

Because that would be an assassination against a foreign head of state, one that you are not at war with, and it would be a diplomatic nightmare.

I say we need to raise this discussion above the shallow level.

First you need to stop making things up as you go along.

[JP Cusick]

Striking a Syrian government airbase is literally attacking the Syrian government.

So hey = the entire war against Syria lasted only a few hours and that was the end of it.

That was the quickest war ever fought in all world history. ~ Mocking sarcasm FYI.

The other 5 years of war is just the USA fighting against the Syrian people who really are fighting against their Dictator and his evil government.

Of course to some people the 5 years of murder and atrocities by America invading Syria is not even comparable to the few hours bombing of that one (1) airbase, and that airbase continued functioning as before directly following the FAMOUS and historical American bombing.

[Bust Nak]

So hey = the entire war against Syria lasted only a few hours and that was the end of it.

What war? I already told you the US is not at war with Syria.

The other 5 years of war is just the USA fighting against the Syrian people who really are fighting against their Dictator and his evil government.

Why are you equating the Syrian people with terrorist? This 5 years you are referring to, started of as the US offering support to the rebels, against their Dictator and his evil government. Since then actual US strikes other than these isolated incidents I mentioned, are directed against ISIS.

Of course to some people the 5 years of murder and atrocities by America invading Syria is not even comparable to the few hours bombing of that one (1) airbase...

What invasion? Stop making things up.

and that airbase continued functioning as before directly following the FAMOUS and historical American bombing.

But no more chemical attacks.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 155 by JP Cusick]


"The other 5 years of war is just the USA fighting against the Syrian people who really are fighting against their Dictator and his evil government. "

Let's remind ourselves that Syria had elections not long after the war started.
People overwhelmingly voted for their President.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 155 by JP Cusick]


"The other 5 years of war is just the USA fighting against the Syrian people who really are fighting against their Dictator and his evil government. "

Let's remind ourselves that Syria had elections not long after the war started.
People overwhelmingly voted for their President.

I think, If I get this right, we should leave them to themselves? I kinda think so too. These are primitive people for the most part. Why not stand outside the Fray and help them destroy themselves? Box them off, give them sanctions and arms, and wait till most are gone? That would work here in a lot of cities, too.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 158 by brianbbs67]


"I think, If I get this right, we should leave them to themselves? I kinda think so too. These are primitive people for the most part. Why not stand outside the Fray and help them destroy themselves? Box them off, give them sanctions and arms, and wait till most are gone? That would work here in a lot of cities, too."

Good reasoning that we should leave them alone, but why should we give them tools to destroy themselves? What have they done to warrant this?

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 159 by Monta]

I would not want them actually becoming a power in the world. They wish to kill our men and enslave our women and children. So, give them enough toys to destroy or keep engaged with their own internal fights(as they always have been). Pretty simple. They have attacked us and continue too as Islam. Why not help them go back to killing each other? They seemed to like this greatly.