Terrorist Attack in Nice, France. Dozens dead.

[vla1ne]

You have to do more than just wipe out ISIS though. Since IS is just one example - A particularly effective example - of Islamic fundamentalism. When ISIS dies, some other group will rush to take there place, with the example of IS to follow, and maybe they'll be better or worse at the job, but they'll still exist. And they'll be even more pissed at the West for slaughtering hundreds of thousands (If not millions) of there fellows, so they'll target us even more than we are currently targeted. So we'll have to wipe those other likely groups out as well. And then what about the people sympathetic to those causes who will probably be driven over the edge having watched the faceless, emotionless West destroy there families, there friends families, there peoples homes. All that bloodshed might drive them to seek vengeance and be radicalised against us? 

 

It's just a stupid idea to try and drive out the radicalised Islamic nations by force. Blood will beget blood, and just make them more likely to attack us instead of other Muslims. Since we will just add to the pile of the dead - Add to the Hundreds of Thousands of people we've already killed in that region of the world because of maybe 1000 people who died in our part of the world. 

 

It's why I hate the argument "We need to make them suffer for what they've done to us" by almost every conceivable metric we have made them suffer time and time and time again. 

while i agree with much of your post, i have to say, they aren't going to stop targeting the west, it's literally written into their religion that they conquer any people who don't follow the same faith, and establish Shari'a law in all governments. they are going to attack the west regardless, and they'll likely attack the east, north, and south in the future. claiming we'll be more of a target if we strike back isn't as strong of an argument as it sounds.

 

as for the groups who bear resentment, or rise after ISIS. that could be a problem, which is why i say leave the region. handle those who cross over, but stay out of their internal affairs. let them eat each other from the inside. the only place we need to support is Israel. because that's our main ally over there.  

 

saying blood begets blood is correct in theory, but they aren't (at least not completely) after us because we killed their people, they're after us because their religion demands it. staying out of their way won't make them leave us alone. but we'd have to give up our morals to strike them back in any real capacity.

 

i'm not saying make them suffer, i'm saying do it right, or don't do it at all. 

[Aerion Brightflame]

My point was more you get people driven into the ideology because of the amount of damage the West has done. It's easy to be convinced to hate the west and hate everything else when your only knowledge of west is the scream of fighter jets and the sounds of explosions and death. Yes, it's true they would eventually strike out at us because of the idea they need to supplant our governments with sharia law, but hell we don't exactly make it a hard rhetoric to spin. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

When is genocide the right choice? When 51% of Islam is sympathetic to the cause? Or 66? Or 75?

 

If each of them can take our 75 people. We're in a mess.

[vla1ne]

When is genocide the right choice? When 51% of Islam is sympathetic to the cause? Or 66? Or 75?

 

If each of them can take our 75 people. We're in a mess.

 if were talking morally/ethically, genocide should never be the right choice. if we're talking about most effective outcome, then genocide is the clear winner. but genocide is also the most destructive solution in the short term, and not too far behind drawn out war in the long term. unless there's no other choice, then genocide (and/or burning the region to the ground) should be the last card on the table.

[Progenitor]

I think you guys are misunderstanding what is being suggested by "we could finish this in a matter of days/weeks".  Sure, mass genocide is an option, but that's just completely unreasonable.

 

At least for me, I was moreso suggesting direct, covert involvement in dismantling the entire organization from within.  Because, by international law, these people are criminals.  If the UN really wanted to, they could call a meeting of the world's powers, and potentially get a joint collaboration between nations to get the job done.  This doesn't need to be a mass genocide.  ISIS has been a bit less than secretive about their objectives and locations.  With proper, active methods, obtaining information is fairly simple due to the methods we and other nations have perfected over the years.  Once all the holes have been filled in, you launch one singular, massive operation to completely destroy the pillars and foundation on which ISIS stands.

 

After which, the UN comes public, officially declaring these people as the disgraces that they are, and demonstrating the cooperation between these countries that ended in it's destruction.  This statement is crucial.  It says to these radicals that they not just fighting the US; not just Israel; not whoever else they want to bully to send a "message".  It sends the message that "enough is enough.  You have done nothing but cause the world grief, and now the world has banded together to shut you down.  If you want to be the one to pick up that torch, go right the funk ahead.  But just know that, if you do, it's the entire world you're going to be staring down.  If you have the balls to face that, then go for it bud.  We'll see you in a week".

 

That's the kind of message that needs to be sent, but it will only have an effect if most of the worlds powers actually set aside their personal quarrels to finally put this issue to rest.  So long as the negotiations are covert, I don't think it's an unachievable resolve for the majority of nations.

[Aerion Brightflame]

What happens when IS just take two steps back in the aftermath and go underground for a bit? Rooting out insurgents entirely is stupidly hard. We can 'deal' with IS because unlike most terrorist groups they've attempted to form a nation - A nation has infrastructure, has monetary demands, has traditional supply lines. All stuff that's easy to target and blow to kingdom come. 

 

You take out there ambitions in the short term, but they'll still exist. The members will still have there ideologies, they'll still have cells over the globe. Someone would take over, or the cells would merge with other terrorist organisations. You don't actually address the problem, you just shift it to something else, some other organisation. That's not achieving anything, that's essentially a show. 

 

The reason we went to genocide is because genocide is the only way force actually solves the issue. You are talking about an idea, the only way you destroy an idea through force is to destroy the minds the idea could inhabit. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Remove Islam. Cut of the food supply for Daesh propaganda. While you're at it eliminate all of religion.

 

Religion is a divisive fiction that has no place in a civilized society. Islam is the first example of this, and while other regions have "modernized" they're still primitive. The world's only region should be science. Daesh has no foothold in fact, their propaganda isn't logical. It's all emotional pressure. Pull that out from under their foot

[Progenitor]

Actually, I have to disagree with you when you say that breaking this down will only cause someone else to rise from the ashes, and the fact that rooting out ISIS is difficult. Because the honest truth is that the US has about 75% of that information ready to go, but can't act upon it.

 

What people have to realize is that the only reason these groups are gaining support is because we allow them to keep succeeding. Somewhat radical thinkers who normally would not have the courage to act on their own, suddenly gain courage knowing they are part of something larger. What I suggested fights ideology with an equally present ideology. By destroying the major pillars upon which ISIS stands, you at the very least weaken the organization. And, if done with proper, joint support from nearly the entire world, you have done what these half-assed followers thought was impossible: you made them fail. As such, they lose confidence. Sure, another organization is just gonna take its place. Weeds grow in your garden every year. Do you just root them up once and then hope they don't come back? No. You stay proactive on that sheet, destroying weeds as soon as they even begin to poke above the soil.

 

That is not something out of reach of a collaboration between world powers. You beat these people down with cold, unrelenting skill and presence, and you can completely snuff out the fire of those who only support to be part of the group. It doesn't matter how many times it takes. Eventually, one by one, these people will realize the futility of their effort, and lose interest. Humans are social creatures. They tend to want to be on the side of the winners. As soon as you start making these terrorist groups lose not just the physical battle, but the IDEOLOGICAL battle, then that's when you can start combating this problem at its source.

 

And all this is done without the need of mass genocide. The hardest part is taking that first step and succeeding in doing enough damage all at once to at least severely cripple ISIS. From there you simply remain firm in your pressure and force this insane ideology out of the water with force of presence.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

While you're at it eliminate all of religion.

How?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Salt the land, make it unlivable, give them naught but ashes. Daesh is welcome to control a land of toxic fumes

How?

Same way you make other things illegal. Ignorance isn't bliss mate, and that's realistically what religion is at the end of the day, an ever shrinking area in the wake of science's advances

 

The only way to deal with Daesh and it's type is to make an example out of some area, and not be reluctant to commit to that.

[Progenitor]

I mean I'm not a religious man myself, but I'm a full supporter of the positive benefits a zealous but not overzealous belief can endorse both physically and mentally. But that's honestly a topic for another section. There's too much that I would want to go into and would need evidence/examples to support, and I don't really feel like doing all that digging for a topic that isn't really related to the thread at hand

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Religion is a divisive fiction that has no place in a civilized society.

 

Civilized society is a divisive fiction that has no place in civilized society. 

 

 

if were talking morally/ethically, genocide should never be the right choice. if we're talking about most effective outcome, then genocide is the clear winner. but genocide is also the most destructive solution in the short term, and not too far behind drawn out war in the long term. unless there's no other choice, then genocide (and/or burning the region to the ground) should be the last card on the table.

 

Most effective at what?

 

Note that "effectiveness" is entirely within the domain of ethics. 

 

The reason we went to genocide is because genocide is the only way force actually solves the issue. You are talking about an idea, the only way you destroy an idea through force is to destroy the minds the idea could inhabit. 

 

What issue? If you're at the point of considering genocide but not at the point of considering whether you could be the issue then that's an issue. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Civilized society is a divisive fiction that has no place in civilized society. 

 

 

 

Most effective at what?

 

Note that "effectiveness" is entirely within the domain of ethics. 

 

 

What issue? If you're at the point of considering genocide but not at the point of considering whether you could be the issue then that's an issue. 

Cute, but back that up please

 

It's effective cause it's potentially utilitarian. 

 

Lol no, If one of them kills 70 of us. Then genocide is no different than self-preservation

 

It's not needed, but the issue was them to start.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Salt the land, make it unlivable, give them naught but ashes. Daesh is welcome to control a land of toxic fumes

Same way you make other things illegal. Ignorance isn't bliss mate, and that's realistically what religion is at the end of the day, an ever shrinking area in the wake of science's advances

 

The only way to deal with Daesh and it's type is to make an example out of some area, and not be reluctant to commit to that.

So in other words you don't have a plan to actually get rid of religion and just want it gone? Cause that's, ironically, a very ignorant thing to just say.

Cause "Same way you make other things illegal" is a really broad statement.

It's weird you want to get rid of religion when you're so gung-ho about not taking away freedom of speech and such.

 

....This isn't the place for this.

More people dead in humanity's sick quest to kill each other. Such a terrible event...

[vla1ne]

Actually, I have to disagree with you when you say that breaking this down will only cause someone else to rise from the ashes, and the fact that rooting out ISIS is difficult. Because the honest truth is that the US has about 75% of that information ready to go, but can't act upon it.

 

What people have to realize is that the only reason these groups are gaining support is because we allow them to keep succeeding. Somewhat radical thinkers who normally would not have the courage to act on their own, suddenly gain courage knowing they are part of something larger. What I suggested fights ideology with an equally present ideology. By destroying the major pillars upon which ISIS stands, you at the very least weaken the organization. And, if done with proper, joint support from nearly the entire world, you have done what these half-assed followers thought was impossible: you made them fail. As such, they lose confidence. Sure, another organization is just gonna take its place. Weeds grow in your garden every year. Do you just root them up once and then hope they don't come back? No. You stay proactive on that s***, destroying weeds as soon as they even begin to poke above the soil.

 

That is not something out of reach of a collaboration between world powers. You beat these people down with cold, unrelenting skill and presence, and you can completely snuff out the fire of those who only support to be part of the group. It doesn't matter how many times it takes. Eventually, one by one, these people will realize the futility of their effort, and lose interest. Humans are social creatures. They tend to want to be on the side of the winners. As soon as you start making these terrorist groups lose not just the physical battle, but the IDEOLOGICAL battle, then that's when you can start combating this problem at its source.

 

And all this is done without the need of mass genocide. The hardest part is taking that first step and succeeding in doing enough damage all at once to at least severely cripple ISIS. From there you simply remain firm in your pressure and force this insane ideology out of the water with force of presence.

ISIS already declared war on the world, they haven't gotten to it just yet, but they've already declared it. they aren't intimidated because they don't think anything of those people who don't believe/ don't believe properly. and it's not just ISIS, isis is the most extreme side of it, but islam itself (the religion, not the people) promotes the idea that those who follow it are not only due the world, but are the heroes who are fighting in the name of the lord. the entire region believes in this to some extent, ISIS is just the most vocal about it. the UN declaring war back might lessen the issue, but it would do far less good than the scorched earth policy.

 

in one case, you fight them on their on the normal terms, just with global cooperation, you might do more damage than a single country, but the end result wouldn't be too far off from the average bout against an ideology, you harm it, it retreats, and it simply slinks its tendrils into the region more as it recovers from its wounds.

 

scorched earth doesn't allow that. it leaves no room for doubt about opposition, it demonstrates the sheer power of whomever enacts it. it is by far the least moral policy, but in effect, it would be the most effective, and impressing one.

 

Most effective at what?

 

Note that "effectiveness" is entirely within the domain of ethics.

 

in the domain of ethics alone, it is the worst policy.

 

in the domain of military intimidation, you do not go against the country that can reduce you to bones and ash in agonizingly few seconds.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

So in other words you don't have a plan to actually get rid of religion and just want it gone? Cause that's, ironically, a very ignorant thing to just say.

Cause "Same way you make other things illegal" is a really broad statement.

It's weird you want to get rid of religion when you're so gung-ho about not taking away freedom of speech and such.

 

....This isn't the place for this.

More people dead in humanity's sick quest to kill each other. Such a terrible event...

It's not that I don't have a plan. I'm just 100% confident you guys wouldn't like it. 

 

People in the caliphate are a lost cause. Either they're turned or they're going be killed by Daesh.

 

Scorch-earth the area. Make that area unlivable for the next 1000 years. And make it very clear that religious weaponization will be dealt with similarly in the future.

 

That goes for any religion. Hindu, Christian, Islam, etc

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

It's effective cause it's potentially utilitarian. 

 

Lol no, If one of them kills 70 of us. Then genocide is no different than self-preservation

 

Sounds an awful lot like Daesh's mindset, and it didn't even take religion! 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Sounds an awful lot like Daesh's mindset, and it didn't even take religion! 

Huhn, Daesh is certainly killing a lot of their potential recruits for "self-preservation" isn't it

 

They're hemorrhaging support, even other terrorist groups realize that

 

Daesh at the end of the day is just another anarchist group hiding behind the prospects of relgion

 

Now that brings us to the prefect idea. Daesh is self-defeating. We isolate them from the world, and soon enough we'll find the rats supporting them, and they'll also starve themselves. Nothing gets in or out of syria. And woah, didn't even need genocide to get to that pt

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Genocide by mass-starvation is still genocide. 

 

Daesh is a western-funded entity, and those "rats supporting them" are what made them the talking point that they are. 9/11 was used as incitement for the Iraq genocide, and what did that solve? We still have desperate people in the region being manipulated by warmongers to perpetuate an industry of death and paranoia.

 

This isn't anything new, just keep calm and carry about your business.  

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Genocide by mass-starvation is still genocide.

 

Daesh is a western-funded entity, and those "rats supporting them" are what made them the talking point that they are. 9/11 was used as incitement for the Iraq genocide, and what did that solve? We still have desperate people in the region being manipulated by warmongers to perpetuate an industry of death and paranoia.

 

This isn't anything new, just keep calm and carry about your business.  

Nope, we're just letting Daesh show the world the great empire they plan to build.

 

Call it economic sanctions

 

Also, Polar, this is what your line of thinking get people to

 

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

It's not you who'll be doing anything, you're as untethered to Daesh's fate as I am and that's not such a bad position to be in.

 

Whoever is tasked with weaving the mythology of Al-Qaeda/Daesh/etc (and those are some very influential people. Hell, they've influenced *you!*), will do so on their own terms, and with luck they won't do anything too drastic.   

[Delibirb]

I'm on board with the elimination of religion. And I know how one might do so.

 

We make a real god.

 

A near omnipotent, omniscient, largely omnipresent, debatably omnibenevolent ASI. We don't promote it's worship, we promote it's continued progress as a third party whose only interest would be optimal and realistic levels of peace, efficiency, and improvement as a society.

 

It'll take time, effort, collaboration and education, but it's not infeasible.

[Tentacruel]

Remove Islam. Cut of the food supply for Daesh propaganda. While you're at it eliminate all of religion.

 

Religion is a divisive fiction that has no place in a civilized society. Islam is the first example of this, and while other regions have "modernized" they're still primitive. The world's only region should be science. Daesh has no foothold in fact, their propaganda isn't logical. It's all emotional pressure. Pull that out from under their foot

See, what it's coming down to now is your ignorant white edgy teenager bullshit.

 

You can wage a war with a majority of humanity, but I will funking fight you.  

[Progenitor]

Completely unrelated but holy sheet did that statement from your profile pic make me funking laugh

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

See, what it's coming down to now is your ignorant white edgy teenager bullshit.

 

You can wage a war with a majority of humanity, but I will funking fight you.

 

  

Completely unrelated but holy sheet did that statement from your profile pic make me funking laugh

I'm so confused...how did I become white in all this