Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

This is the mosque attended by the two gunmen who were shot at the last Draw Muhammad Day event, which is obviously why that location was chosen.

You will note that in every report on the event across America, the anti-Islam protestors are being referred to as "free speech" protestors (with the quotes) while anti-anti-Islam protestors are being called supporters of religious tolerance (no quotes necessary).

One quote they keep pushing sticks out to me.

{ Events like this one and other developments have Muslims in the area scared, said Imraan Siddiqi with the Council on American-Islamic Relations. }

"Attacks like this one and other attacks have Americans in the area scared."

What's the difference? Why is "omg the Muzzies r frightened u bullies" supposed to justify censoring Americans in favor of Muslim terrorists, but Muslims decapitating people/blowing themselves up in public areas is not good enough to justify responding to the ideology that compels them?

When the Nazi movement began capturing territories and slaughtering tens of thousands of people, the world responded with war.

When ISIS began capturing territories and slaughtering tens of thousands of people, the world…. called for religious tolerance.

I want to know why.

oh noez I'm double posting

but I also want to know KYM's reaction to the Al Jazeera poll which closed yesterday.

The exact question asked was "Do you consider the Islamic State’s advance in Iraq and Syria to benefit the region?"

Again, we're presented with more evidence that the overwhelming majority of typical, everyday Muslims support terrorist actions in the name of advancing Islam.

>When ISIS began capturing territories and slaughtering tens of thousands of people, the world…. called for religious tolerance.
>I want to know why.

No western superpower currently has the stomach to fight another war in the desert that won't fix anything.

(And what does that have to do with the people protesting at the mosque? )

(And why do you insinuate that the media being displeased with the protesters means everyone in the world is displeased with the protesters? There are a lot more protesters then there are news outlets)

Why wont another large war fix things?
All major problems in history have been solved with a large war.
It has proven to be our most reliable method of fixing things.

The people at the mosque are protesting the way censoring the rest of the world in favor of Islam is considered religious tolerance, it has everything to do with them. Many of them are there holding offensive cartoons/art of Jesus and other offensive Christian imagery that is widely accepted across the world despite many Christians taking terrible offense to them, but nobody tries to censor those artists. Why is the standard different for Islam?

What does the rest of the world's news outlets have to do with US media coverage of a US protest?

Kinda awkward that only the free speech side brought American flags

>Why wont another large war fix things?

There can't be a large war because the western power would squish the active forces of ISIS like a bug, and then the whole situation would devolve into endless guerilla warfare, just like last time. Just like Vietnam.

>The people at the mosque are protesting the way censoring the rest of the world in favor of Islam is considered religious tolerance, it has everything to do with them.

What does the intolerance of free speech or not have to do with ISIS? ISIS is a political uprising local only to the middle east; it doesn't operate in Algeria, Indonesia, and other muslim countries.

>What does the rest of the world’s news outlets have to do with US media coverage of a US protest?

I don't know, you're the one who brought up the world in the first place.

>When ISIS began capturing territories and slaughtering tens of thousands of people, the world…. called for religious tolerance.

{ Kinda awkward that only the free speech side brought American flags }

There's one guy there on the bottom right.

but yeah, most of the anti-anti side preach Constitutional religious tolerance but hold horribly anti-American opinions. They only want the parts of America that benefit them, you see. The guise of religious tolerance will only hold off a response from those who fear crossing the PC line up to a certain rapidly approaching point.

The e-propoganda that continues to draw teenagers from USA/EU countries to Syria is becoming the straw that breaks the camel's back. Most recently the UK schoolgirls who hopped a plane to join ISIS-controlled Syria have made contact with their families and said they're not coming back. Three completely average girls, no reason to believe they had been radicalized, read and saw things online from ISIS that convinced them to steal money and leave the country for a religious war zone. And it all goes completely unchecked, with sites like Twitter refusing to remove ISIS' posts until they cross specific lines because of, there it is again, religious tolerance.

{ and then the whole situation would devolve into endless guerilla warfare }

Well hey, good thing that's not what's happening over there right now, good thing tens of thousands of innocent civilians aren't being slaughtered by corrupt government forces on top of ISIS fundies, we sure wouldn't want any of that to happen! We better just play it safe and wait it out, it's not like this is a serious situation already.

{ it doesn’t operate in Algeria, Indonesia, and other muslim countries. }

ISIS is not the only Islamic fundie group. Boko Haram operates in North Africa, and they're expected to be officially teaming up with ISIS as they pick up territory closer and closer to Nigeria.

ISIS' uprising also reestablished Indonesia's jihadis, the rate has more than tripled since 2013.

They are active, they are spreading, what are we going to do about it?

{ >When ISIS began capturing territories and slaughtering tens of thousands of people, the world…. called for religious tolerance. }

That doesn't say anything about the news? That's the world collectively in general. This was about the media coverage:

{ You will note that in every report on the event across America, the anti-Islam protestors are being referred to as “free speech” protestors (with the quotes) while anti-anti-Islam protestors are being called supporters of religious tolerance (no quotes necessary). }

>When ISIS began capturing territories and slaughtering tens of thousands of people, the world…. called for religious tolerance.
>I want to know why.

Because people began blaming an entire religion based on the actions of an extremist group.

{ Because people began blaming an entire religion based on the actions of an extremist group. }

People blamed an entire country based on the actions of an extremist group, again I ask, why are we making an exception for Islam?

All these exceptions and double standards.

>Well hey, good thing that’s not what’s happening over there right now, good thing tens of thousands of innocent civilians aren’t being slaughtered by corrupt government forces on top of ISIS fundies, we sure wouldn’t want any of that to happen! We better just play it safe and wait it out, it’s not like this is a serious situation already.

But you seem to think that armed intervention by a foreign power will change that?

Troops move in, pissed insurgents suicide bomb the troops until they go away, pissed insurgents use said invasion as justification for the shit they do.
It's not in our interests to prolong that cycle any longer.

>They are active, they are spreading, what are we going to do about it?

Nothing that we aren't already doing?

Just because muslim insurgent groups exist in different countries doesn't mean they operate in the same manner, or would benefit from 'teaming up' (these are political organizations, not fucking supervillains). Nor do they pose any significant threat to any western country; it's the locals who are suffering.

>That doesn’t say anything about the news? That’s the world collectively in general.

Why do you assume that all of the world shares that view when there ARE protesters in the first place? Why do you think UKIP exists, and received a ton of votes?

Which country and group are you talking about?

{ It’s not in our interests to prolong that cycle any longer. }

No, it's in our interest to demolish the other side entirely and move on with modern society.

{ But you seem to think that armed intervention by a foreign power will change that? }

Armed intervention by the rest of the world's foreign powers will change this. A one or three country show is what we have now, I'm talking WW3. China and Russia are already chomping at the bit.

{ would benefit from ‘teaming up’ (these are political organizations, not fucking supervillains) }

ISIS and Al Qaeda announced an official partnership in Syria in November of 2014.
Why would smaller groups not join the two largest who agreed to put their minor fundamental differences aside and join forces?

{ Why do you assume that all of the world shares that view when there ARE protesters in the first place? }

I know the majority of the rest of the world shares that view because we constantly poll that very question in pretty much every country with a modern news reporting agency in service. That's why the media gets away with spinning it so obviously, they're pandering to the majority.

{ Nor do they pose any significant threat to any western country; it’s the locals who are suffering. }

How many countries that actively participated in WW2 were genuinely under threat from Nazi Germany?
We fought in WW2 because it was the right thing to do.
We will fight in WW3 because it's the right thing to do.

{ Which country and group are you talking about? }

All of the ones who paid/are still paying WW2/etc reparations and dealing with lasting economic consequences.

Not every single person in each country agreed with their country's actions, yet they share in the punishment. That's how the cookie crumbles.

PSA: going to bed, gotta get up early and keep driving tomorrow (I'm out of town for the weekend).
I'll get back to you all when it's not my turn to drive.

How is a government of a country the same as an extremist group? The Government decides for the country, that's the point of a government. So when they mess up, the country suffers. That has nothing to do with people being prejudice against a whole Religion when members who do not act, speak, or represent their whole Religion misbehave.

>No, it’s in our interest to demolish the other side entirely and move on with modern society.

That was the idea back when we originally invaded Afghanistan. Clearly it didn't turn out so well.

>Armed intervention by the rest of the world’s foreign powers will change this. A one or three country show is what we have now, I’m talking WW3. China and Russia are already chomping at the bit.

Are you drunk?

>ISIS and Al Qaeda announced an official partnership in Syria in November of 2014.
Why would smaller groups not join the two largest who agreed to put their minor fundamental differences aside and join forces?

Probably because they have share many members and operate in the same countries; you could not say the same for Boko Haram and the Indonesian groups.

>I know the majority of the rest of the world shares that view because we constantly poll that very question in pretty much every country with a modern news reporting agency in service.

God knows opinion polls have always been the most trustworthy way of determining things. That's why both Romney and Obama won the 2012 election in a landslide. You'd know if you read the polls.

>How many countries that actively participated in WW2 were genuinely under threat from Nazi Germany?

Most of them?

America didn't join until they were attacked on their soil (Hawaii)

Russia, China, France, Britain, and all the other european countries were being invaded in some way or another.

The only exceptions were countries that were legally Britian's colonies at the time (Canada, India, etc) and some of those protested mightily about it.

{ How is a government of a country the same as an extremist group? }

The government of the Islamic Republic countries are exactly the same as the extremist groups. Syria's government has slaughtered over 200,000 civilians as of January, that's a bit more than twice ISIS/Al Q's total.

They also project the same values. These are the governments of countries where women are not legally allowed to leave their homes without male chaperones, where they are legally third class citizens in every way, why do we not take a stand against governments who, year after year, unabashedly refuse to ratify basic human rights treaties?

I only came back here to mention that #NotMyAmerica is trending in response now.

Freedom of speech: #NotMyAmerica
Censoring in favor of terrorists: #MyAmerica

They're already winning.


k now I'm going to bed.

Just because they say they represent all of Islam doesn't mean they do. The actions of Syria and Isis do not represent Muslims all over the world.

Also, those are the countries who enforce those anti-women laws, the Bible is pretty anti-woman too, but no country is enforcing the Bible as strictly as the Middle East enforces the Quran. But that's a different issue, a country issue, not a religious one

@lisalombs

>"No, it’s in our interest to demolish the other side entirely and move on with modern society.

>"Armed intervention by the rest of the world’s foreign powers will change this.

>"I’m talking WW3"

Once again the paranoid first-world Americans are shitting their pants at the site of things on the other side of the pond, the only thing they want is another invasion by the American world police in an effort to deliver "Freedom" and peace to a society and culture much much different from their own, one so alien and bizarre that it must simply be destroyed and wiped out. The fact that the third-world is often barbaric and full of bloodshed seems to completely delude you so you feel as though you need to correct it with bombs delivered by unmanned flying machines and tanks.

>"These are the governments of countries where women are not legally allowed to leave their homes without male chaperones, where they are legally third class citizens in every way"

You just seem to be completely incapable of accepting the fact that there is difference amongst the world.

>"unabashedly refuse to ratify basic human rights treaties?"

What do you want to do? forcefully "liberate" these people from their own cultures? "huh this isn't very American at all, better invade and add to the slaughter. America is the only real truth on Earth and everyone must conform to it"

If this scare/war mongering didn't happen in the first place then America wouldn't have trashed Iraq long ago and Saddam would still be ruling with an iron fist, he would have stamped ISIS out at its roots and prevented a lot of his from happening.

Barbaric third world lands need to be ruled with complete power, their own power, not through the intervention of foreigners from far off lands but by a person/party that understands its own people and will keep the bloodshed under control. Democracy rarely works in a place such as this

You are the incarnation and voice of the frightened first-world

America is not the world.
The world is not America.

This is something people don't understand. Not everywhere is your perfect freedom-spewing Eagleland. No, the truth is, parts of the world do things a lot different and have different environments, natural and social, than the United States. Is it normal to have to be required to own a gun because your country doesn't have an army? To the Swiss it is. Is it normal to constantly deal with wild animals like giant spiders in your own backyard? It is to Australians. Now here's a tough one: are the laws of your country based on religion? If you are an American and you answered yes because you believe the laws of the United States are based on Christianity, I kindly direct you to the Mojave Desert so you can have a saguaro cactus rammed up your asshole.

And what luck; that's exactly where we were headed. Now, first off, the actions of ISIS and religious extremists in general, Islamic or otherwise, are completely inexcusable. That being said, I find that most of the protesters on the "free speech" side are simply bigots who think all Muslims are somehow the spawn of Satan because "muh 9/11" and "muh jayzus". People need to understand that when talking about religious extremism for one religion, they better fucking not fall into extremism for theirs. RELIGION SHOULD NOT DICTATE WHO YOU LIKE, WHO YOU HATE, AND WHAT YOUR MORALS ARE. I have a… negative… view of religion in general (with the exception of ones that are mostly peaceful, such as Buddhism, and philosophies like Confucianism), but shit like this pushes it over the top. And I will end this post with a sort of book end:

Not all terrorists are Muslims.
Not all Muslims are terrorists.

So what's your response to the poll, and others like it, which show a clear majority of non-terrorist Muslims supporting ISIS'/extremist actions?

I'm back in NV btw, I'll be able to actually respond to this thread in like 20 min (well, add a bit to unpack the car).

Where is this poll that samples the entire Muslim world?

You mean the largest poll ever taken of typical, everyday Muslim opinion, spanning 39 countries where more than 90,000 interviews took place in 80+ different languages?

(In Russia and Thailand the question was changed to include "do you support making Sharia the law of the land in Muslim areas only" and Thailand's interviews came exclusively from the five most southern provinces, where the population of Muslims is the most dense.)

I would really like to know why you're all blatantly ignoring my second post with the poll of 50,000+ where more than 80% admit they support ISIS' actions?

& hey, just for fun, let's go over some Sharia law examples as sourced from al-Hidaya: A Classical Manual of Hanafi Law, Islamic Laws (the Grand Ayatollah Sistani of Shiites published in 1994), and Codified Islamic Law (3 Volumes compiled by a committee of six scholars, published by Islamic Foundation Bangladesh in 1995).

{ Denying “Scholarly consensus” about Sharia laws turns a Muslim to an apostate. }
Don't forget that apostasy in punishable by death~

{ Criminals of genocide, mass-rape, looting etc (Hiraba) will not be punished if they repent. }

{ A Muslim shall not be put to death for murdering an unbeliever. }

{ No retaliation for parents and grandparents for killing their offsprings. }
How "honor killing" is allowed to happen.

{ Proof of adultery and rape liable to Hudood shall be one of the following namely
(1) Either confession of the accused), or,
(2) At least four Muslim adult male witnesses give evidence as eyewitnesses. }

{ Women’s testimony is not accepted in Hudood cases. }

{ Men can divorce wives instantly; in such case she gets no maintenance.

To remarry the previous husband a divorced wife must marry another person, have sex with him and get divorced by him voluntarily. (Often the husband pronounces “Divorce” in a fit of anger and the Sharia Court forces the wife to marry a stranger, have sex with him and get voluntary divorced from him to remarry the previous husband). }

{ Husbands are obliged to provide only food, clothes and accommodation to wives. Anything else including doctor’s fees, medicines etc is a charity to her. A rebellious wife does not get anything. }

{ A murderer has to pay blood money or compensation if the family members want it, as follows:

100,000 riyals if the victim is a Muslim man

50,000 riyals if a Muslim woman

50,000 riyals if a Christian man

25,000 riyals if a Christian woman

6,666 riyals if a Hindu man

3,333 riyals if a Hindu woman }

But hey, you know, fuck standing up for basic rights, the world isn't America you egotistic bastards!!

That's a poll showing how many Muslims want their Religious Law to be their Countries Law, the response, while terrifying, isn't exactly what I asked for. I asked for the poll of all the Muslim world showing majority support for the slaughtering. Also, that first poll was from a news outlet run out of a single country and well known to side with extremist views anyway

Did you read through all 14 pages? It expands on various topics in great detail. I honestly expected you to at least skim it.

{ Also, that first poll was from a news outlet run out of a single country and well known to side with extremist views anyway }

Al-Jazeera???

{ Initially launched as an Arabic news and current affairs satellite TV channel, Al Jazeera has since expanded into a network with several outlets, including the Internet and specialty TV channels in multiple languages. Al Jazeera is accessible in several world regions.

The network is sometimes perceived to have mainly Islamist perspectives, promoting the Muslim Brotherhood, and having a pro-Sunni and an anti-Shia bias in its reporting of regional issues. However, Al Jazeera insists it covers all sides of a debate, it says it present Israel's view, Iran's view and even aired videos released by Osama bin Laden. }

Still scary, but still not what I asked for
I'm not asking how many Muslims support the extreme parts of the Quran, I'm asking for how many support Isis and Terrorism.

Also lol "Al Jazeera is not bias toward Muslim extremism" Source: Al Jazeera
Come on lisa, you should know better than that

The Middle East doesn't exactly have a media watchdog, Ryu, who exactly am I supposed to quote? It's the Middle East version of CNN, they'll report all the facts but you're always aware of biased opinion slipped in.

They have a network here too, it's called Al Jazeera America and I actually read it regularly. It's a great place for American news, much less liberal bias.

Their poll is the first that directly asks the question.

You can't quote the person in question when defending against bias accusations. Have you watched the one in the Middle East or just the one in America? Because they aren't guaranteed to have the same bias or lack thereof. Bias itself isn't the easiest thing to definitively prove, all I know is, friends of my mother (who was in the Air Force) that got sent over there along with just about anything else I ever read about it, talks about it being "the voice of jihadists" I highly doubt the one in America would be the same as the one in the Middle East anyhow.

And the audience of a news network isn't going to be the best place for reliable information, since the audience is going to have the same bias as the news station itself, making decisions based on the information the news outlet in question provides.

But I would like to know which branch of Al Jazeera, and the audience, that poll is comprised of. How many of them are American or European Muslims and how many are Middle Eastern? So far, nothing in the first poll you posted said anything about who they were asking beyond "AL Jazeera readers"

I frequently read articles translated from various different languages, when I'm reading about international news I try to get each country's media's take on it. It's super easy to find translations online, there are blogs/sites dedicated to providing English translations of specific foreign news agencies.

{ And the audience of a news network isn’t going to be the best place for reliable information, since the audience is going to have the same bias as the news station itself }

That's true of any network, but we accept polls and surveys done by news agencies all the time. The thing to look at is their sample size. This poll was posted on the Arabic-language website for the network itself. Here is a link to the poll itself on their website. The poll is now closed, even if you vote it wont count it, it just displays the results.

I don't accept polls from News sites without a grain of salt. While that doesn't tell me how much of the Muslim world that poll speaks for, it does make me think it didn't have many western voters.

I've just heard nothing myself that would make me trust Al Jazeer's polls, nor did you provide a multinational poll that directly states most Muslims in the world back Isis.

{ nor did you provide a multinational poll that directly states most Muslims in the world back Isis. }

There is no such thing. If you can find it I'd like to read it as well.

Many Westernized Muslims are assimilated into the cultures they settled in, why would we want their opinions anyway? If a Muslim has an opinion that disagrees with Islamic scholar opinion, by Islam's own definition they are no longer a Muslim but an apostate that deserves the same death as you or I. That's the problem with Islam, it prohibits modernizing and moderates.

That's what's called "fundamentalism" You can apply that logic to Christianity in America and find not too many "True Christians" in America. That's why this whole battle has been against Fundamentalist Islam. The same way you can't expect a sane person to follow the Bible 100%, you can't sane Muslims to follow the Quran 100%. While I do personally think this is cheating, the fact remains that many self0identifying Muslims who don't support Isis are being thrown in with them, and people are thinking everyone who identifies as Muslim is a Terrorist or Terrorist supporter.

Using that logic, the opinion of any Christian or Jew on an issue pertaining to their religion that doesn't agree with a strict orthodox interpretation of their religious text has no relevance to the discussion. I don't see anyone saying a non-fundamentalist Catholic's opinion on the separation of church and state is irrelevant because they criticized the pope.

Yes, but Christianity doesn't require death for rose-colored glasses "Christians". Christianity was allowed to modernize, it was allowed to become moderate and leave extreme fundamentalism in the past. To be a Christian fundamentalist is a choice, to be a Muslim fundamentalist is a requirement.

I don't expect any sane people are fundamentalists, kinda the point. Westernized Muslim leaders try to say that they don't support ISIS' actions, but they preach the exact same values. Even if they're not planning on blowing anybody up over it, they're still preaching fundamentalism. Some Muslims resent the moderate leader's lessons, they don't consider it moderation, they consider it censoring, it's defiling their faith which clearly spells out certain conditions that must be met.

>to be a Muslim fundamentalist is a requirement
No it's not, by not being a fundamentalist, that means you don't follow the Quran 100%, meaning you don't have to follow the "And compromise means death and not a Muslim" part. Do you have proof of Western Muslim leaders preaching the same version of Islam as the Extremists, death to infidels and all? Not all Muslims follow the same version of Islam mind you, like the Bible, it has been interpreted many different ways.

Sharia doesn't originate from the Quran, its extremities were created by Muhammad's "revelations" and personal life in the Hadith. The whole reason Islam split from Christianity is because Muhammad claimed to be the final Prophet who came bearing news that Allah said Arabs would inherit the Earth from the Jews as His new Chosen People. It's what actual governments across the world right now incorporate into their constitutions. Also:

There are many essays out there written by both specifically Muslim scholars and general theological scholars that debate the "correctness" of Islamic Modernism.

{ Modernist apologetic has been severely criticized by many scholars as superficial, tendentious and even psychologically destructive, so much so that the term "apologetics" has almost become a term of abuse in the literature on modern Islam. }

I could sit here picking apart your individual points all day, but as I can see everyone else is already doing that, so I'll just say one thing. Frankly, your world-view on this subject is disgusting, from criminal generalization, trying to justify being a proud xenophobe using statistics, treating war like some kind of game. Muslims aren't all extremists and you can't judge them all by individuals. If you disagree, I don't have much to say other than that generalizing and cherry-picking statistics is a named fallacy and it's pretty sickening. Speaking of sickening, there's being an outright xenophobe which Laika so graciously and thoroughly pointed out. Wanting to wipe out cultures that you don't like? Again, there's not much to argue as that in itself is wrong at its very core.

And lastly, but most importantly, your posts present an almost child-like view of war, like it's some kind of game. Like the livelihoods of American people being thrown at the desert is fodder for your xenophobic and hopeless agenda. Like the lives of the citizens who will suffer and die because of a war that isn't theirs to fight in the US and abroad. The fact that trying to fight against unorganized guerilla forces is hopeless and you surmise that "more weapons and soldiers and shit=sure win!". That's the view a little kid would get from this. Has history taught you nothing? Have the last 50 something years of America trying to shove its ass into the East and pulling out every time not made anything click? The civilian casualties and brutality and soldiers periahing over something we shouldn't be involved in and with no success? This is not how the real world works I'm sorry to inform you of this. I dearly hope you never get any real political power. Unfortunately many of the people in power are just like you and possibly worse.

{ unorganized guerilla forces }

Is that what you think they are? An unorganized band of bandits hiding under rocks in the desert?

You know ISIS now controls 1/3 of Syria and Iraq? Theodore Karasik, research director at Dubai-based think tank INEGMA, estimates ISIS takes in $1,000,000 per day in Iraq oil profits alone, it releases annual reports to its followers and supporters outlining its methods and plans, they publish literature detailing how lone wolfs in Western countries can contribute to the cause, the CIA estimates ISIS pays $300-$2000 monthly salaries to about 1,000 highly trained commanders in the filed with technical, military, and security experience, the world's governments tracking them estimate they have anywhere between 50k-200k active fighters, which puts their military strength on par with Australia at the low end and France at the high.

We are not fighting "unorganized guerrilla forces", we are already fighting a war.

Don't let reality hit you too hard on the ass on your way out~

Here's a bit of news from today that might help illustrate the issue for you: OPEC under siege as ISIS threatens world's oil lifeline

{ Thick black smoke rising from the Baiji oil refinery could be seen as a dirty smudge on the horizon as far away as Baghdad after fighters from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) set fire to the enormous processing plant just over 100 miles north of the capital last week. }

Many of the countries most threatened by the onslaught of the extremist group, which has grown out of the chaos of Syria but was initially dismissed as a wider threat to regional stability, will gather at the end of this week in Vienna for the meetings of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec).

Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and Iraq – which together account for two thirds of the cartel’s production – are all now affected by the inexorable march of the Isil jihadists but appear powerless to prevent it.

According to Daniel Yergin, the energy expert and vice-chairman of IHS, the business information provider, the biggest threat to oil prices is the political chaos that threatens to engulf the Middle East, combined with the West’s reluctance to intervene. }

Yeah, they own a country, and this is different from vietnam how? We're fighting forces made of armed civilians who have control over lots of land who are in the East who use guerilla tactics in an environment the US army is still struggling to understand, and not only Vietnam but every other instance in which we've tried sticking our nose into the middle east against terrorists which are extremely similar, more so than Vietnam. News flash: they never work

Keep having these child-like fantasies about throwing bodies and fire at the desert. I'm only seeing more and more sickness. I don't see you rushing to enlist to fight for this cause that's so important to you. Oh it's not that important? You're not going to fight? Gee I wonder why! It's very easy to talk about why you're right online but if it was your family or your own life on the line you'd think twice about it wouldn't you?

WOW WOW WOW
I've never met a real psychic before!!
You answered the questions you asked me FOR me, girrrrrl, teach me how to do that psychic shit!

Let me try:

A+ assumptions, what did you base them on? Oh, nothing? You pulled them out of your ass because you have nothing relevant left to say? You've convinced yourself my argument is "the us shud do what its doin nao but wit more"? Gee, I wonder why! No, wait, I know why, because you didn't actually read the thread~ Wow, ESP really is that easy~!

>the CIA estimates ISIS pays $300-$2000 monthly salaries to about 1,000 highly trained commanders in the filed with technical, military, and security experience, the world’s governments tracking them estimate they have anywhere between 50k-200k active fighters, which puts their military strength on par with Australia at the low end and France at the high.

Numerical strength means nothing if their equipment is shit. Which, compared to Western powers, it sure is. Any western army would decimate them in a matter of days in open combat.

Have you not read up on the two previous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Did you suffer amnesia? Are you twelve? Are you just an idiot? Please, answer truthfully.

Yeah, sure, they took over 1/3 of Iraq and Syria with sticks and stones, it's not like they've been capturing territories and taking over all the supplies and weapons we gave to the Iraqi Army or anything.

{ ISIS's continued success is at least partially due to its seizure of military equipment from fleeing Iraqi soldiers. When ISIS overran Mosul, they captured weaponry that allowed them a conventional army, rather than a ragtag insurgency. }

Here's a breakdown. Some of my favs:

HJ-8s (anti-tank missile launchers)

M79 Osa Rocket Launchers (has utterly devastated the Iraqi Army's armored vehicles)

ZU-23-2 Anti-Aircraft Guns

M198 Howitzers (developed for the US army)

Type 59-1 Field Guns (that we believe they are directly buying from China)

Have you not read up on the war we're in now ?

I hope you never make it into politics, you are the type of person who is far to content with sending troops to their deaths and far to keen about waging a war against the middle-east, an action that will blow the situation so far out of proportion that it will make the seizure of Mosul look like small skirmish in comparison.

You are condoning all out warfare on, not only ISIS but an entire religion by the sounds of it, you are forcing something resembling a 10th Crusade.

>"Not every single person in each country agreed with their country’s actions, yet they share in the punishment. That’s how the cookie crumbles."

As if ISIS, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda didn't see American intervention as a crusade anyway you are actually putting it into words. Military intervention with the sole purpose of stamping out ISIS will drive it further underground and more extreme, you'd be making a martyr of every "terrorist" you kill.

>"All major problems in history have been solved with a large war. It has proven to be our most reliable method of fixing things."

I find it hypocritical how you have this gripe (just a hunch) about religious extremism yet you yourself are an extremist in openly demanding war, you are no better with only reason being that you don't have the balls to enlist and fight them yourself and would much rather sit and talk about it because it is obvious that even though you enjoy war you are far to good for it to get involved on the ground.

Watching a frightened-tumblr-murican-freedom-keyboard-warrior order multiple battalions into war for no cause other than to (in your own words) "demolish the other side entirely and move on with modern society." is something I'd happily pay to see.

I have a question: how many of them who support sharia law are open to criticism and are able to respond to it?

Muslims are not secularists, but they will respond to criticism.

Well, considering normal, everyday practitioners routinely massacre bloggers/critics, I would guess slim to none. Bangladeshi citizen groups have already killed three bloggers since the beginning of 2015.

If you blog critically in Saudi Arabia, the government themselves will sentence your 1,000 public lashings. The first public beating of Raif Badawi was so bad that doctors postponed the rest of his sentence while scars from the first round heal, which is taking so long they're now attempting a retrial for apostasy instead, which comes with a death penalty in Saudi Arabia.

Again, Islam remains extreme and without moderates because Muslims continue to murder all the moderates.

{ far to keen about waging a war against the middle-east }

We're already waging war in the Middle East, the situation is already out of control and proportion, and instead of changing our tactics to get serious you suggest….? Doing nothing? Letting ISIS continue their rampant takeover of ME regions? What alternative are you suggesting here?

{ will drive it further underground and more extreme }

The group that has taken control of 1/3 of Iraq and Syria and has a global social network propaganda campaign that has been successfully used to convert and lure thousands of foreign fighters to Syria are underground?

They are already extreme and they are already above ground, out in the open, declaring caliphates, and they already consider terrorists who get killed to be righteous martyrs. So what do we do? What is the alternative you are suggesting? You don't like my suggestion of fighting fire with fire, so what do you propose instead?

Of course, if you don't actually have an answer, you could always stick around to make more baseless assumptions about my family's military history.

>Have you not read up on the war we’re in now ?

I see a bunch of outdated Russian equipment that would be wiped away in a few days.

Do you see any aircraft on that list? Do you think their armed forces would last under the withering firepower of the modern (and now, unmanned) air force of any western superpower? Do you think fucking anti air guns are worth jack shit in the age of jet aircraft?

Do you know they've adapted to and been able to avoid our airstrikes for the last year and a half?

{ “Air strikes alone are really not enough to defeat Isis,” said Idris Nassan, a senior spokesman for the Kurdish fighters.

He said Isis had adapted its tactics to military strikes from the air. “Each time a jet approaches, they leave their open positions, they scatter and hide. What we really need is ground support. We need heavy weapons and ammunition in order to fend them off and defeat them.” }

Plus, even after the city of Kobani was absolutely ravaged and utterly destroyed by dropping bombs all over civilian houses that ISIS troops took cover in, ISIS just last month returned and began attacking the people slowly trying to rebuild their lives again. They want that city, its location is imperative.

So what should we do? Should we drop some more bombs on the temporary tent cities civilians have built while trying to recover? If we had kept our ground troops there in the first place, we wouldn't have had to level an entire city to stop the ISIS fighters that are apparently so underground and unadvanced and unable to do anything at all.

Here's the latest for everybody who thinks air warfare is soooo effective:

{ At least 72 people have been killed in Syria's northern Aleppo province by barrel bombs dropped from government helicopters. Syria's government has repeatedly denied using barrel bombs – large containers filled with explosives.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), which gathers information through a network of activists in Syria, called it one of the worst massacres perpetrated by the government so far this year.

Meanwhile, Islamic State (the news agencies are officially calling them by their declared worldwide caliphate name now, completely legitimizing it) is reported to have blown up Tadmur prison near the ancient city of Palmyra – which fell to the militants earlier this month. }

More than anything else in this thread, I find your assumption that our troops, who volunteered their lives to stopping terrorists who are torturing the civilians trapped in the territories they've captured, who went through years of incredibly difficult, mentally breaking physical and psychological training, you think those soldiers would really rather fly unmanned aircraft into civilian cities to indiscriminately bomb the area because it was captured rather than directly engage the terrorists themselves while saving as many innocent civilian lives as possible, that I find the most repulsively offensive idea posted in this thread so far.

This reminds me those several wedding airstrikes but that's another story.

Maybe it's just me, but I think this discussion has derailed completely. What is it supposed to be about? The free speech/draw Muhammad conflict mentioned in the opening post or the viability of US military involvement in the mideast?