danivon wrote:No, DF, because I don't think it makes a difference If I am killed by one or the other. Again, stop telling me what you think I think, you are not a mind-reader.

Again, so dishonest you can't even admit you are almost guaranteed NOT to be killed by the IRA.

Keep dancing.

freeman3 wrote:I was looking at the figures for Europe when attacks were high in the 70s and 80sS from Owen's link. Most of the casualties appear to be from IRA or Protestant groups in Northern Ireland or from Basque Separatists in Spain.

And, if we were talking about the 70s or 80s, that would be a great point. Of course, I could also say, "Don't travel to Basque areas, Ireland, or the UK and you should be fine."

Those groups had at least some plausible political goals they were fighting for. The attacks by jihadists appear to be basically nihilistic without any real rational political goal.

Nihilism is the code word of the day, I suppose, but this (and Kerry's use of it) is an abuse of it. Nihilism:

the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless.

This is not how ISIS views it. They see life as meaningful, but only as a means to a religious end.

Liberals are working so hard these days to "prove" ISIS is not Muslim that they ignore what ISIS says and how it trains people to think. ISIS is Muslim. Yes, they are extreme in their views and actions, but they are not out of the main flow of historical Islam. Say what you like, but the battles of Tours and Vienna have some historical significance because they halted the advance of Islam. Islam was not advancing by evangelism.

So, no, ISIS is not nihilistic. It is advancing its aims by means we don't approve of and cannot really understand. However, they are convinced they are following the Qur'an. They are convinced they are doing the work of Allah. They are not trying to kill everyone. They are trying to usher in the end of the world in a religious sense, not in a "let's all die" sense.

Ray Jay wrote:It's good to get perspective, but you also have to distinguish between attacks against the policy of a particular western country (England in Ireland or Israel in the case of the Munich Olympics) vs. an attack that's targeting all of the West as we have recently seen.

I'm with Freeman; there is no negotiation ... there is no compromise ... there is nothing in the philosophy of ISIS that can allow you to say "on the other hand". This is war to the death, ours or theirs. We win it now, or we win it later. I suggest now.

Wow. I could not agree more.

I am not sure who DF would rather fight: ISIS or liberals (not literally)...how do you look at my point about territorist groups in the 70s and 80s as having rational political goals while ISIS does not as being soft on ISIS? I don't get it. Gee, and I had not realized how conservatives hate the use of the word nihilistic when it comes to ISIS until I looked it up. Of course,on another topic (Europe's Porous Borders) I was arguing with Ricky that we are fighting an ideology in Radical Islam that appeals to a significant number of Muslims. To me ISIS is nihilistic in the sense (as RJ put it) that since there is no real rational political goal there is no ability to negotiate with them.

So I do believe we need to do what it takes to defeat ISIS. And since radical Islam will not go away just because ISIS is defeated we need to make sure there is no vacuum of power in the Middle East that allows radical groups to flourish. Bush II's historic blunder in invading Iraq is the gift that just keeps giving...neoconservatives allowed ISIS to be created with their idiotic foreign policy, let's not forget that. Liberals would never have invaded Iraq. That one is on conservatives.

But now we have to clean up the mess created by conservative foreign policy. It has to be done.

freeman

Those groups had at least some plausible political goals they were fighting for. The attacks by jihadists appear to be basically nihilistic without any real rational political goal. I suppose you could argue that the attacks are designed to take pressure off of ISIS so that a Caliphate could be formed--I just can't see that as being rational.

You'll remember I brought up the period of anarchist terror in Europe? Does it not seem similar when you think of the lack of a rational political goal for ISIS? Those anarchists, who were far more effective at assassination and bombing than Daesh has been so far....were essentially people with no central political notion that made sense. (They managed to assassinate an American President after all...)
Consider also that many, perhaps most, of the terrorists who are European are really unlikely Muslims. Two owned a bar in Belgium. One frequented gay bars in Belgium.
As far back as this..

Belgium’s complicated relationship with jihad can be traced back over a decade to the death of Muriel Degauque, a convert to Islam who died when she detonated her explosive vest amid an American military patrol in Iraq in 2005.
After several years of drinking and drug use, Ms. Degauque married an Algerian man who introduced her to Islam. Her radicalization came years later when she married her second husband, Issam Goris, a Belgian citizen.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015 ... .html?_r=0

Many of those being recruited have lives lived on the margins and in despair. They seem to be easy targets for those who offer something as solid as belonging to a cause...Even if they little understand the cause or what they are trying to accomplish. For a brief period, they believe their lives have been given meaning and they belong to something...
A reason that Europe may be a better place for recruitment for Daesh is that North American Muslims have better assimilated and fit into society. They feel included into their new homes, and within a generation most have seen their children begin to prosper,....
Not so much in Europe.
All of these are reasons why policies and rhetoric that seeks blame an entire religion (through the phrase Islamic terrorists) is mistaken. Language matters. Nothing is gained by labeling these nihilists as Islamic Terrorists. Much is lost by alienating those who's religion you paint with a broad brush. It is genuine Muslims who will be the one's who can best help defeat the nihilists.

This doesn't mean that Islam is not currently a religion that is very useful to severe fundamentalists and out of step with modern liberal values. But, if North American Muslims can adapt their religion to work so well ...its obvious that the religion can accommodate and change when faced with new ideas and ways of doing things. Just like every other major religion has changed..

freeman3

And since radical Islam will not go away just because ISIS is defeated we need to make sure there is no vacuum of power in the Middle East that allows radical groups to flourish

.
Yes.
But this doesn't mean a western occupying army. It was the occupation of Iraq that legitimized the resistance to the west by the fundamentalists and gave rise to Daesh.
Its vital that an indigenous Muslim force (since we can't change the nature of the region to a multi cultural, liberal society) be the force that both ends the Daesh regime and re-establishes governance. If it were another American lead co-coalition that plunked itself down ... we'd just re legitimize the resistance and go round again...

That why the current strategy of limited involvement by the West is correct. And why the simple minds that want to carpet bomb or send in the legions are wrong.

freeman3 wrote:I am not sure who DF would rather fight: ISIS or liberals (not literally)...how do you look at my point about territorist groups in the 70s and 80s as having rational political goals while ISIS does not as being soft on ISIS? I don't get it. Gee, and I had not realized how conservatives hate the use of the word nihilistic when it comes to ISIS until I looked it up. Of course,on another topic (Europe's Porous Borders) I was arguing with Ricky that we are fighting an ideology in Radical Islam that appeals to a significant number of Muslims. To me ISIS is nihilistic in the sense (as RJ put it) that since there is no real rational political goal there is no ability to negotiate with them.

They believe they have a rational policy goal. Whether we agree that it is rational or not is immaterial.

And, again, nihilism has to do with the futility of life. They don't believe life is futile; they believe it is a proving ground for the life to come. (Before anyone starts it, this is antithetical to Christianity. We believe that our works have no salvific value.)

So I do believe we need to do what it takes to defeat ISIS. And since radical Islam will not go away just because ISIS is defeated we need to make sure there is no vacuum of power in the Middle East that allows radical groups to flourish. Bush II's historic blunder in invading Iraq is the gift that just keeps giving...neoconservatives allowed ISIS to be created with their idiotic foreign policy, let's not forget that. Liberals would never have invaded Iraq. That one is on conservatives.

Bilge.

The invasion is on Bush. The vacuum was created by the "beat feet" policy of Obama/Clinton. Whine all you want about Bush's mistakes (certainly Obama has), however Obama, like every President before him, knew what he was getting into and is responsible for what he does with what he inherited. On that score, he is an abject failure.

But now we have to clean up the mess created by conservative foreign policy. It has to be done.

Lame. Syria, Libya, Yemen, the Iran deal, Ukraine, Crimea, and on and on it goes, ALL are Obama's "legacy" of weak sauce diplomacy.

Using epithets to describe my arguments does not make your arguments convincing. Bilge. Lame. You can't make a decent argument so you use epithets. If you make a compelling, persuasive argument then you don't need to use epithets. If you have to start using epithets it means your argument is weak.

Fate

. We believe that our works have no salvific value.)

well, your sect's version anyway.
There are a lot of other sects versions...
Just as there are many versions of Islam.

rickyp wrote:Fate

. We believe that our works have no salvific value.)

well, your sect's version anyway.
There are a lot of other sects versions...
Just as there are many versions of Islam.

Please show the verses that support your argument where works are required for salvation.

freeman3 wrote:Using epithets to describe my arguments does not make your arguments convincing. Bilge. Lame. You can't make a decent argument so you use epithets. If you make a compelling, persuasive argument then you don't need to use epithets. If you have to start using epithets it means your argument is weak.

Wait, "weak" is an epithet!

I'll stand on these:

1. The invasion is on Bush. The vacuum was created by the "beat feet" policy of Obama/Clinton. Whine all you want about Bush's mistakes (certainly Obama has), however Obama, like every President before him, knew what he was getting into and is responsible for what he does with what he inherited. On that score, he is an abject failure.

2. Syria, Libya, Yemen, the Iran deal, Ukraine, Crimea, and on and on it goes, ALL are Obama's "legacy" of "smart power" diplomacy.

In the Bible that is.

rickyp wrote:Fate

. We believe that our works have no salvific value.)

well, your sect's version anyway.
There are a lot of other sects versions...
Just as there are many versions of Islam.

Beyond what bbauska said, it's immaterial how many versions of Islam there are. ISIS is the topic. They are trying to please Allah.

Please dispute that if you want to argue religion.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:No, DF, because I don't think it makes a difference If I am killed by one or the other. Again, stop telling me what you think I think, you are not a mind-reader.

Again, so dishonest you can't even admit you are almost guaranteed NOT to be killed by the IRA.

Keep dancing.

On current trends, I am almost guaranteed NOT to be killed by any terrorists. And my odds are better based on the last 15 years than they were for the first 25 years of my life.

Now, please stop being personal.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:No, DF, because I don't think it makes a difference If I am killed by one or the other. Again, stop telling me what you think I think, you are not a mind-reader.

Again, so dishonest you can't even admit you are almost guaranteed NOT to be killed by the IRA.

Keep dancing.

On current trends, I am almost guaranteed NOT to be killed by any terrorists. And my odds are better based on the last 15 years than they were for the first 25 years of my life.

Now, please stop being personal.

Sure.

I've already seen you avoid the question to the best of your abilities.