The real tragedy with groups that have been pushed to the extreme is that in some cases, if they were less violent then many of these kinds of groups could be considered to be part of legitimate revolutions. People from more "stable" countries might suggest for the unhappy ones to go protest or something but really what can a person do if their government is corrupt or if those that speak out are silenced through violence? Its also hard to say that all terrorists should be wiped out because that's just not a reasonable objective on a global scale.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Serious What can be done about terrorism?
- Thread starter Pikamemnon
- Start date
what makes a revolution legitimate iyo? I don't consider a revolution legitimate if it's funded by countries like the USA for their own interests and fuels a civil war against the people's will. anyway revolution is a fundamental act of violence (I don't inherently condemn violence), and as you've noted you cannot have a peaceful revolution where the side being overthrown is armed.
anyway the definition of a terrorist is extremely ideological. are you talking about wahhabism? communists? PETA? i don't think you can 'eradicate terrorism' in the same way you can't eradicate chemical warfare (edit: well technically you could probably make chemical warfare obsolete, although it will probs never be, but you can't obsolete terrorism). for small 'extreme' groups 'terrorism' will always be one of the most effective tactics for them, and anything else they do will typically be categorised as terrorism anyway because terrorism has a secondary function in that it's associated intrinsically with acts of violence promoting or promoted by an ideology that runs counter to the state's.
also a lot of the 'stable' countries have terrible governments and are actively destabilising the 'unstable' countries by funding violence in their regions, arming neighbouring agents, or by outright coups (see: latin america, the middle east). economic violence doesn't help, as well as the fact those places are disproportionately prosperous and exploit the 'unstable' places generally. NATO could definitely stop arming and training random militias if it wants fewer bombings to happen
this post is all over the place i guess because i'm half-asleep and i guess what i'm trying to say is your post is kind of nebulous but so is the concept of terrorism and i think revolutionary violence may be necessary in a lot of places but a lot of what is considered modern revolutionary violence is actually disproportionately imperialism fucking over the people of select countries.
edit: ps please do not cite the Arab Spring at me without considering foreign involvement and the outcomes of all those uprisings
anyway the definition of a terrorist is extremely ideological. are you talking about wahhabism? communists? PETA? i don't think you can 'eradicate terrorism' in the same way you can't eradicate chemical warfare (edit: well technically you could probably make chemical warfare obsolete, although it will probs never be, but you can't obsolete terrorism). for small 'extreme' groups 'terrorism' will always be one of the most effective tactics for them, and anything else they do will typically be categorised as terrorism anyway because terrorism has a secondary function in that it's associated intrinsically with acts of violence promoting or promoted by an ideology that runs counter to the state's.
also a lot of the 'stable' countries have terrible governments and are actively destabilising the 'unstable' countries by funding violence in their regions, arming neighbouring agents, or by outright coups (see: latin america, the middle east). economic violence doesn't help, as well as the fact those places are disproportionately prosperous and exploit the 'unstable' places generally. NATO could definitely stop arming and training random militias if it wants fewer bombings to happen
this post is all over the place i guess because i'm half-asleep and i guess what i'm trying to say is your post is kind of nebulous but so is the concept of terrorism and i think revolutionary violence may be necessary in a lot of places but a lot of what is considered modern revolutionary violence is actually disproportionately imperialism fucking over the people of select countries.
edit: ps please do not cite the Arab Spring at me without considering foreign involvement and the outcomes of all those uprisings
Last edited:
Wait what the heck? It was US that supported and armed Mujahideen against the Soviets, the precursor of today's Taliban, which is pretty much the beginning of modern Islamic terrorist movements. In case you don't know, Reagan even invited them to the Oval Office:
"In making mention of freedom fighters, all of us are privileged to have in our midst tonight one of the brave commanders who lead the Afghan freedom fighters—Abdul Haq. Abdul Haq, we are with you. They are our brothers, these freedom fighters, and we owe them our help." -Reagan
Instability in the Middle East is a very recent phenomenon. Pre-Gulf War Iraq and pre-Arab Spring Syria and Libya were stable regimes, though oppressive against their minorities and dissenters (well, Shia were a majority in Iraq). Afghanistan was a secular socialist state before US decided to fund their jihadists. War, instability and terrorism in the Middle East isn't eternal, it's very recent and you're delusional if don't see disasterous western interventions at the root of it. Know your history.
Leaving behind both the ethics and success rate of bombing foreign countries, this doesn't even make sense. Which areas exactly?
tehy
Banned deucer.
I think most people would define this as getting involved in the middle East and as a corollary define it as the opposite not getting involved in the middle East
Could just be me
Granted his argument tends more to the side of it's their fault but it certainly includes the concept of our fault existing so.
I'll add a more full response about what I feel the nature of the problem non-state terrorism poses for current structures of global security at a later point, but for anyone interested:
Registration is free (the above link is for registration) and only requires a first name + any random email address.
(N.B. I don't work for Stratfor or anything, I just subscribe to their free articles as 21st Century US foreign policy and Counter-terrorism are significant parts of what I study, and you guys seem like you might find it useful/interesting)
Stratfor (a highly respected global intelligence firm) are hosting a webinar tomorrow (Wednesday 13th) at 12:00 PM US Central Time (GMT-5) on a closely related / heavily overlapping topic. Details below.
Beyond the Lone Wolf Threat: Grassroots Terror Cells
Schedule: Discuss how grassroots terror cells operate, explore the implications and note their vulnerabilities and the methods that can be employed to counter them.
Schedule: Discuss how grassroots terror cells operate, explore the implications and note their vulnerabilities and the methods that can be employed to counter them.
Registration is free (the above link is for registration) and only requires a first name + any random email address.
(N.B. I don't work for Stratfor or anything, I just subscribe to their free articles as 21st Century US foreign policy and Counter-terrorism are significant parts of what I study, and you guys seem like you might find it useful/interesting)
Last edited:
I get the point of the question, but whenever I see average people talking about terrorism and terrorists, I always get the sense it is about suicide attacks, bombings, hostage scenarios, or similar. It's only really when the government or media tries to talk about terrorism in legal terms, or tries to group all activism together, that I really think this skepticism is necessary.
I think the global phenomena of terrorism has similar roots to the racial tensions we see domestically (US, Canada, Australia). Terrorism ends up more spectacular because it is global, the attacks need to be long range to grab the attention of western media, but the underlying issues appear to be the same. If this comparison has any legitimacy, progress will be extremely slow, but will likely be tied to increasing economic stability.
There are some bandaid solutions, by cutting off revenue sources to terrorist groups (Oil, Saudis, etc.), or by bombing, or by invading, but I think we've seen through Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya that these really don't help long term.
Last edited:
Yeah, the way I tend to see terrorism being used is to describe large-scale, violent attacks targeting civilians as a fear tactic. Taking 9/11 as an easy example, had the attacks not included the WTC and the weapons not been planes full of innocent people (a bombing or something against the Pentagon and White House), it would've definitely been seen as an act of war, but not necessarily an act of terror (using the above colloquialism of the word). Targeting a political administration and the military backing them is generally seen as standard fare for revolution and war. Specifically going after civilians is just mass murder.
S'ok, I'm sure they also don't blame you for any high-profile shootings, though you could've done more to prevent those...
tehy
Banned deucer.
my personal definition is targeting of civilians to induce terror, more broadly attacks that are on nonmilitary targets. I've often argued to myself that the pentagon crashing is a great example of 'not terrorism' because it's an attack on the military apparatus, not random civilians.
for example if soldiers in afghanistan are driving around and a bomb blows up under them...that's more like guerilla warfare than 'terrorism'.
No I know, I also responded to that part of that question (although I think that scepticism is also always necessary, given the organisations popularly considered terrorists), but my point is terrorism isn't something you can just make not exist right now because 'acts of terror' are the main means available to the same groups that are definitionally terrorists. If we're just here to talk ISIS and shit then we need to be specific as well for what should be obvious reasons (HelenTheHero), I doubt anyone is here to talk about Anders Breivik for example or the complex historical situation in Indonesia.
I agree there are racial tensions underlying but more in the sense that for most of the terrorist agents being considered in this post, racial tensions are something to make use of strategically; there is an existing fascist ideology already (that gains traction sometimes because others are provoked). Also note that two of the countries you have identified have been pretty 'terrorism-free' while the other hasn't (despite their governments all being complicit in some heinous things the last few decades)
I'm not sure I agree it's only economic stability rather than that economic stability is heavily correlated with some possibly more key factors (I'd say p much all these countries would be more economically stable if they'd not been in a state of war for 5-20 years variously and their neighbours weren't also in flux), but I also don't want to talk economics more than I already did for simple reasons I don't want to derail this into a capitalism thread (even though it's pretty relevant since a lot of the countries the US has been injecting Liberalism in have or had a socialist character).
And if we're just going to talk about that, then only one of those solutions works, let alone is morally appropriate: stop funding, training, and arming them, including client states that are used to fund terrorist groups. Most Terrorist Organisations have a pretty murky history of gathering up former US army trainees or being egged on rather cynically by the US in certain countries, and the US likes to arm already militant groups (which would not be otherwise able to carry out sustained warfare) to act on its behalf in wars in the Middle East, which ultimately funnels more resources that way over time. Invading causes more trouble for similar reasons and tends to kill massive amounts of civilians and repeated bombing and drone strikes on top of disproportionately affecting civilians I'd argue are terrorism perpetuated by a state, which goes back to why I was conceptual in my response.
(When I say the US in this post I mean the US, but specifically in the context of NATO acts, I just got out of bed)
HelenTheHero your post is disturbingly genocidal
Your history is a Wikipedia article. There's a handy 'See Also' section that links to interesting articles like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe
You might also want to consider how many years of its existence the country you probably live in, the United States, has been engaged in some 'war' (never mind the fact it was founded on colonial massacres and slavery), before you link to a Wikipedia list full of, quite literally, ancient history. I realise you're just perpetuating racist media propaganda and state ideology, but to conceptualise bad things happening in the world as ISIS instead of the numerous other terrible things going on right now is pretty bad, let alone as a justification for committing more genocide. 'I don't think we should intervene, but we should probably just destroy the place so high-profile bombings cease' is an impressively contradictory opinion and not even correct from a mindlessly utilitarian stance unless you value Middle Eastern lives less. Look up how many people are estimated to have died in Iraq already from sanctions alone.
Also we do target areas with 'high concentrations of terrorists' (Strategic Targets) which is why so many civilians die to drone strikes. Hmmm...
It's also interesting you brought up Jerusalem! What do you know about the foundation of the state of Israel as it pertains to foreign intervention and the conflict with the Palestinians, for example? Since you like your history so much, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine
(there are more hi-res versions of this map all over the place, I'm in a hurry)
To avoid derailing the thread I'm going to leave your Reagan and USSR comments alone, they're there for posterity
Last edited:
I don't mean that the tensions are necessarily racial, but they seem to have similar character to the racial tensions here (rich v poor, cultural identity). Also when I said economic stability, I meant it as an important characteristic of the end goal, not necessarily the end goal itself, or the best attribute to target going forward. I'd claim both Libya and Afghanistan had a hand in terrorism before they were most recently invaded, but that's only because they had been previously invaded rather recently. For a lot of the conflicts, its hard to define a real start date.
Of the solutions I mentioned, I obviously agree only cutting off revenue sources is a good idea, but expanding, I think there are some precautions that have to be taken that don't feel entirely morally consistent. I think international pressure and economic sanctions should be used. I think taking a slow approach towards refugees from the region is important, despite the need, and I think something (some type of publicity campaign?) needs to be done in regards to culture/human rights. I don't really know what to call it, but Muslim opinion polls are somewhat scary:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_towards_terrorism
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...homosexuality-should-be-illegal-a6978091.html
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/...ligion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/
Of the solutions I mentioned, I obviously agree only cutting off revenue sources is a good idea, but expanding, I think there are some precautions that have to be taken that don't feel entirely morally consistent. I think international pressure and economic sanctions should be used. I think taking a slow approach towards refugees from the region is important, despite the need, and I think something (some type of publicity campaign?) needs to be done in regards to culture/human rights. I don't really know what to call it, but Muslim opinion polls are somewhat scary:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_towards_terrorism
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...homosexuality-should-be-illegal-a6978091.html
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/...ligion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/
It's way too complicated to get real solutions. We can't just abandon the Middle East because we have too many interests there and we cannot purge our Muslim populations like it is 1492 Spain. And we also cannot change mindsets and the Quran and the hadiths.
Even though I hate Trump, I think he is right that we ought to limit (Sunni) Muslim immigration to Western countries.
Everyone assumes Islam is one homogenous religion but it is not. That guy who was recently murdered in Scotland was part of a sect that embraces tolerance and peace. But he was murdered by someone who was no doubt a Sunni for not being a real Muslims. Shiites hate the West but they don't suicide bomb us and murder innocent civilians. Alawites, the sect that Bashar al-Assad belongs to allows the drinking of Alcohol and they aren't violent AFAIK.
If we need Muslims so bad in Western countries we ought to pick and choose from sects where the religious leaders with authority do not condone suicide bombings, murder of innocents, and non-believers.
America seems to be doing pretty good in this regard, Muslims here go through some heavy background checks and have to prove they're an asset to America. But Europeans are just allowing anyone and this is literally a ticking time bomb.
I don't have any solutions, just options to minimize the West being affected by it. But even then, were in bed with so many Sunni Muslim countries, even restricting immigration may not even be an option. Look at how Turkey is taking advantage of Europe. I guess this is the best option. Better the devil you know...
Oh and I guess find an alternative to oil. Those rich gulf Arab assholes are the ones setting up mosques all over the world that preach their hardline, literal interpretations. They're also funding terrorist groups. But by privste citizens, of course, because their governments are officially our friends. Seriously, fuck em. They're the reason Muslim populations from Southeast Asia to Sub-Saharan Africa are radicalizing.
It's simple, where there are war zones there are terrorists, if you don't solve the underlying issues there will always be people feeding from extreme hunger, trauma and religion/ethnic tension.
The fact that Middle East got royally fucked by the Mongols when they sacked Baghdad, threw centuries worth of books and knowledge down the river and ruined the irrigation canals which turned a once lush green garden into a desolate desert shouldn't matter anymore, nor the fact the British came later and in a bid to weaken the Othman empire inflamed Arabic national sentiments and then proceeded to give a foreign population a promise of a land they haven't visited or cared about nor have they owned anything in it and cause a mass Diaspora of millions because they got lobbyist money, the same money that is making America staunchly defend Israel, a country that continues to annex land by force, routinely kill civilians and uproot more locals and change the demographics and names of places via illegal settlements, when it doesn't even make religious, financial or political sense.
So,what to do? Simple, bring peace. Redraw the clumsy lines that were inherited from colonial times (look at Africa and see how many wars have been brought from this), force Israel to go back behind the 1967 lines, bring back the refugees and stop supporting tyrannical dictators/failed projects (Saddam, Al Qaeda precursors from Afghanistan, etc.) or start wars you are unable to finish (Iraq, Libya, both hotbeds of ISIS). Arabs on the other hand need to continue their reforms and remove these extremist religious sects from public life, reverse decades of social conservatism and apply fiscal and judicial reforms and start handing down power. Also stop making excuses and learn from other, past wartorn nations.
Going back to mention the origins of "terrorist inventions", the suicide car bombs was used first by Tamil insurgents, the hotel bombings and hitting public spaces was used extensively by the Haganah against the British, torture devices were all the rage in the French revolution which took inspiration from the Spanish Inquisition, etc.
Where there is constant war there is evil, it doesn't matter what color your are.
The fact that Middle East got royally fucked by the Mongols when they sacked Baghdad, threw centuries worth of books and knowledge down the river and ruined the irrigation canals which turned a once lush green garden into a desolate desert shouldn't matter anymore, nor the fact the British came later and in a bid to weaken the Othman empire inflamed Arabic national sentiments and then proceeded to give a foreign population a promise of a land they haven't visited or cared about nor have they owned anything in it and cause a mass Diaspora of millions because they got lobbyist money, the same money that is making America staunchly defend Israel, a country that continues to annex land by force, routinely kill civilians and uproot more locals and change the demographics and names of places via illegal settlements, when it doesn't even make religious, financial or political sense.
So,what to do? Simple, bring peace. Redraw the clumsy lines that were inherited from colonial times (look at Africa and see how many wars have been brought from this), force Israel to go back behind the 1967 lines, bring back the refugees and stop supporting tyrannical dictators/failed projects (Saddam, Al Qaeda precursors from Afghanistan, etc.) or start wars you are unable to finish (Iraq, Libya, both hotbeds of ISIS). Arabs on the other hand need to continue their reforms and remove these extremist religious sects from public life, reverse decades of social conservatism and apply fiscal and judicial reforms and start handing down power. Also stop making excuses and learn from other, past wartorn nations.
Going back to mention the origins of "terrorist inventions", the suicide car bombs was used first by Tamil insurgents, the hotel bombings and hitting public spaces was used extensively by the Haganah against the British, torture devices were all the rage in the French revolution which took inspiration from the Spanish Inquisition, etc.
Where there is constant war there is evil, it doesn't matter what color your are.
how to tell someone is white and raised firmly entrenched in their america/eurocentric mindset:
they say stuff like "minimize the west being affected" and "if we need muslims so bad in western countries" as if the peaceful practitioners of the religion should just be tossed to the wolves of the violent minority because they aren't the Master Race
if u can't have empathy for those living out the non-violent doctrine of their religions despite those twisting the religious text to excuse and justify hate/violence you need to seriously reconsider what kind of a selfish person you are.
they say stuff like "minimize the west being affected" and "if we need muslims so bad in western countries" as if the peaceful practitioners of the religion should just be tossed to the wolves of the violent minority because they aren't the Master Race
if u can't have empathy for those living out the non-violent doctrine of their religions despite those twisting the religious text to excuse and justify hate/violence you need to seriously reconsider what kind of a selfish person you are.
If only the NATO didn't retaliate back Iraq because of 9/11 (which didn't even have anything to do with Osama Bin Laden but lets arc like that was the case).
Terrorism can also be created by terrorism and what "we" did in Iraq is nothing different really. Or didn't our soldiers kill, rape or humiliate inconnent people in the various countries we occupied?
I am really worried now if either Hillary or Trump manage to become president of the United States. Trump is unpredictable (especially foreing affairs) and talks about war as if it is a morning exercise for him, while Hillary makes jokes about how she killed Gadafy and constantly lies or contradicts herself.
Terrorism can also be created by terrorism and what "we" did in Iraq is nothing different really. Or didn't our soldiers kill, rape or humiliate inconnent people in the various countries we occupied?
I am really worried now if either Hillary or Trump manage to become president of the United States. Trump is unpredictable (especially foreing affairs) and talks about war as if it is a morning exercise for him, while Hillary makes jokes about how she killed Gadafy and constantly lies or contradicts herself.
Asek
Banned deucer.
I really do hate posting in this forum for the most part but some posts here are actually worrying.
You do know bombing the middle east would be slightly more provocative than poking them which you seem to be against? lol. Bundling the whole region in together as 'they' is also quite a silly thing to say; their are many differant groups and states within the region, there isn't just one collective ethnicity or group of people. The only reason the middle east is 'more trouble than its worth' as you would put it is due to the history of western intervention into the matters of the area within the 20th and 21st centuries; jumpluff raises a very good example with israel effectively displacing a whole group of people and getting away with it by providing the West with a key ally and sympathizer within the region, not to mention the other regimes we've tried to prop up under the guise of being 'liberal democratic states' (hint: most of these have been oppressive and despised by the people they ruled over). The accusation that the middle east has always been fighting is also laughable considering the brutal history of war that engulfed europe for most of the dark ages up until effectively the end of the second world war is much more bloody and destructive than fighting within the middle east across the same period.. I won't deny radical islam isn't a problem - it very much is but to simply point the finger at radical islam branches as being the cause for terrorism instead of the much larger political reasons that are the root cause is something that I dislike hearing everytime a thread like this is bought up in this forum (which seems to be a lot fsr)
Another alarming recurring theme in these posts is 'America and its allies need access to oil' just handwaved as a justification for imperialism. Nah actually America has a disproportionate control on the world's resources and the shit people will do for oil and other natural resources are war crimes, sorry. The posters in question act like it's life or death for America so of course America can't just stop but the people dying are the people in the Middle East. No it won't stop, yes because of those interests, but you should condemn it not treat it like a real concern.
I can't be bothered with the 'the Arabs/Muslims/homogeneous blob of humans in the Middle East need human rights taught to them and America of all countries must bring it to them' shit anymore (edit: as asek's pointed out it's failed repeatedly through history anyway even if you believed it was just, wise, fair, or moral, let alone necessary. also some of the most potent resistance to these orgs -- particularly ISIS -- and ideologies has been internal, both from the people and the states.)
I can't be bothered with the 'the Arabs/Muslims/homogeneous blob of humans in the Middle East need human rights taught to them and America of all countries must bring it to them' shit anymore (edit: as asek's pointed out it's failed repeatedly through history anyway even if you believed it was just, wise, fair, or moral, let alone necessary. also some of the most potent resistance to these orgs -- particularly ISIS -- and ideologies has been internal, both from the people and the states.)
Last edited:
To me, it feels like no matter what the US does, it won't matter as long as deep-seeded hatred between ethnic and religious groups always flare up, and every government seeks out to oppress some group or other. Now, I've heard it has been a loooong time (just several hundred years, that's all...) since Suni and Shiah last peacefully co-managed a state, but I believe Muslims still feel pride for, and glorify the enlightened age of the Islamic world. A huge empire from east to west, and a hotbed of thought, science, philosophy, etc. While it was not a centralized empire so much as several Islamic domains, it was a time where Turks and Kurds, Suni & Shia, Indians, Christians, Jews, all manner of folks were able to live in relative peace and prosperity. If the people of the Middle East want to see great days ahead of them, they need to learn from the best of their history, I'd think...
Last edited:
Terrorism is a tactic. Broadly though, it depends on motive.
ISIS wants to establish a theocratic state and eradicate the Kuffar (Infidels).
Iran (those nice Shiites) wants nuclear weapons to cut out the middle man in their global intimidation campaign.
Saudi Arabia wants to keep on the US Government's good list while subverting other cultures by spreading Wahabbism.
There are other terrorist entities, but none of them are running (or attempting to establish) any kind of nation state or empire (Caliphate). Civil wars and internal sectarian violence is ceaseless, the only terrorism any nation has a hope to combat is the kind that likes to expand outward and dominate other cultures. If they want to send soldiers to do that, fine. That's a war, and nobody on earth will ever win a war against NATO as currently constructed.
You break Islamic terrorism by making sure it loses. It needs to lose both theologically and militarily. Every radical cleric? Remove them from Western nations. Promote whatever "moderate" clerics you can find to replace them. The rest can happily preach in warzones and thereby be subject to military targeting. And for goodness sake don't be like the current loser occupying the Oval Office who bankrolls our enemies, backed the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, destabilizes relatively secular strongmen, and establishes "red lines" he has no intention of enforcing. Most of these places only understand the universal language of strength. So show strength and they'll leave you alone. Show weakness, submission, dhimmitude, and pandering and you may as well invite them into the halls of government, because they will outbreed you and do to other Western cities what they already did to Malmo, Sweden. (It competes with Somalia for Rape Capital of the World.)
Oh and on Israel "displacing" anyone: Judaism precedes Christianity by 2000 years and Islam by 2700. The Jews are peaceful, democratic, and pro-Western. The Palestinians by contrast teach their schoolchildren that Palestine will not be satisfied until the rocks scream out "there is a Jew behind me" so they can execute them. Historically, Islam was causing Thomas Jefferson and the British Empire trouble via the Barbary Pirates long before anyone was discussing the British Mandate of Palestine. Long story short it's Palestine that is a recent addition to the world. If they spent as much on their own economy as they do on Jew-killing they might be able to scrap together a functioning nation-state.
ISIS wants to establish a theocratic state and eradicate the Kuffar (Infidels).
Iran (those nice Shiites) wants nuclear weapons to cut out the middle man in their global intimidation campaign.
Saudi Arabia wants to keep on the US Government's good list while subverting other cultures by spreading Wahabbism.
There are other terrorist entities, but none of them are running (or attempting to establish) any kind of nation state or empire (Caliphate). Civil wars and internal sectarian violence is ceaseless, the only terrorism any nation has a hope to combat is the kind that likes to expand outward and dominate other cultures. If they want to send soldiers to do that, fine. That's a war, and nobody on earth will ever win a war against NATO as currently constructed.
You break Islamic terrorism by making sure it loses. It needs to lose both theologically and militarily. Every radical cleric? Remove them from Western nations. Promote whatever "moderate" clerics you can find to replace them. The rest can happily preach in warzones and thereby be subject to military targeting. And for goodness sake don't be like the current loser occupying the Oval Office who bankrolls our enemies, backed the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, destabilizes relatively secular strongmen, and establishes "red lines" he has no intention of enforcing. Most of these places only understand the universal language of strength. So show strength and they'll leave you alone. Show weakness, submission, dhimmitude, and pandering and you may as well invite them into the halls of government, because they will outbreed you and do to other Western cities what they already did to Malmo, Sweden. (It competes with Somalia for Rape Capital of the World.)
Oh and on Israel "displacing" anyone: Judaism precedes Christianity by 2000 years and Islam by 2700. The Jews are peaceful, democratic, and pro-Western. The Palestinians by contrast teach their schoolchildren that Palestine will not be satisfied until the rocks scream out "there is a Jew behind me" so they can execute them. Historically, Islam was causing Thomas Jefferson and the British Empire trouble via the Barbary Pirates long before anyone was discussing the British Mandate of Palestine. Long story short it's Palestine that is a recent addition to the world. If they spent as much on their own economy as they do on Jew-killing they might be able to scrap together a functioning nation-state.
Hooray! A Deck Knight post!
This attitude of "if the West does morally abject shit it's fine because it's the West and we're the best" is utterly cancerous in general. It's the most blatant form of white supremacy you can imagine, for it basically shows that while we are supposed to mourn the losses of Americans or French or Belgians due to terrorist attacks, when the West decides to bomb Iraq or some shit and causes many, many civilian deaths, it's just "collateral damage", and when the West annexes a non-Western country it's totally cool. Try to see non-Western people (specifically innocent civilians) as actual humans for once, because they are, and just because they happened to be born and raised in a country that does not support your set of values doesn't make their lives any less valuable. Causing civilian deaths is a war crime, no matter where the civilians are from.
Oh and by the way, "the Jews are peaceful"? Don't make me laugh. Without generalizing them (because there are plenty of progressive Israelis who aren't about that whole violence business), the Israelis did cause a substantially higher amount of Palestinian deaths than vice versa. See this (ignore the blurb of text, I know Al Jazeera isn't unbiased and I'm merely linking it for the statistics) for just one example of the death toll in one of many Israeli-Palestinian conflicts. For every Israeli death, there have been roughly 7 Palestinian deaths in this conflict alone. Regardless of questions like "who started the conflict?" (because just because somebody punches you, that doesn't give you the right to stab them in the gut), it's hard to imagine a supposedly "peaceful" country causing this many deaths.
I don't know what you're getting at exactly, but I suppose you're trying to rationalize why the Jews "deserve" Israel by vaguely mentioning something about pirates and how Palestine is a recent addition to the world, which I suppose refers to the fact that long before Palestinians, there lived Jews in these parts? Sorry, but I'm not really buying this logic, for if we were to tell which country belongs to whom by telling what people lived there "first", we would have to request of all Americans with British, French, Spanish, Portuguese etc. ancestry to move back into Europe, for that part of the world belongs to the Native Americans. Of course I may very well misunderstand your case, so please do tell if I did and clarify what you're actually trying to get at here, for winning a discussion by merit of straw men is a foul win.
You say this like exiling people for their thoughts is an easy and ethical thing to do for Western countries. It's not. You can't just take somebody's passport and send them off to their "secondary" country (if they even have one), let alone for them having an opinion you consider "anti-Western" or whatever. If the situation gets out of hand, deal with it in your own country, but don't go "lol not my problem" and send them away to another country so they can spread their bile somewhere else.
You forget that terrorists generally already live in the country they bomb. The big problem with terrorism is that you can't hold one country accountable for it, terrorism can be anywhere at any time. You think in terms of nation states controlled by governments that will surely back off when you show how many nukes you got, but terrorists aren't part of one particular nation state, in case of Daesh aren't under control of a central governing body (yes, ISIS has leaders, but terrorists don't require the permission of some big shot to blow up Paris, they're individual actors). So flexing your muscles and dropping bombs all over Syria and Iraq might solve the situation in the territory occupied by Daesh (not even mentioning the death toll of innocent civilians in case you just bomb the shit out of those places), but they don't solve the problem that there are Islamic people in the West itself who feel disillusioned, secluded, and most of all angry.
You speak of Muslims as though they are an invasive species with a hivemind that says "must take over Europe". If you believe that a few percent of the population can "outbreed" the natives to such a degree that they will soon form a majority, you're rather foolish, sorry to say. Believe it or not, but there is no global network involving all Muslims working towards the decline of Western civilization. They do not intend to take over the government and even if they for some reason do, they will be stopped in due time.
Disregarding your blatant stereotypification and generalization of Palestinians, what disturbs me more than anything else about this line is how you seem to think it's totally normal and moral to intervene in a state and basically take it over simply because the guys you represent share your set of values. There is no objective moral standard that tells us that the West is superior and therefore somehow has the right to claim any "inferior" country as theirs if they so please. Regardless of what you think of Palestinian culture, it is a moral outrage to simply seize part of their country (which later gets even further annexed due to Zionist bullshit) while Palestine is hardly threatening the West in any way.
This attitude of "if the West does morally abject shit it's fine because it's the West and we're the best" is utterly cancerous in general. It's the most blatant form of white supremacy you can imagine, for it basically shows that while we are supposed to mourn the losses of Americans or French or Belgians due to terrorist attacks, when the West decides to bomb Iraq or some shit and causes many, many civilian deaths, it's just "collateral damage", and when the West annexes a non-Western country it's totally cool. Try to see non-Western people (specifically innocent civilians) as actual humans for once, because they are, and just because they happened to be born and raised in a country that does not support your set of values doesn't make their lives any less valuable. Causing civilian deaths is a war crime, no matter where the civilians are from.
Oh and by the way, "the Jews are peaceful"? Don't make me laugh. Without generalizing them (because there are plenty of progressive Israelis who aren't about that whole violence business), the Israelis did cause a substantially higher amount of Palestinian deaths than vice versa. See this (ignore the blurb of text, I know Al Jazeera isn't unbiased and I'm merely linking it for the statistics) for just one example of the death toll in one of many Israeli-Palestinian conflicts. For every Israeli death, there have been roughly 7 Palestinian deaths in this conflict alone. Regardless of questions like "who started the conflict?" (because just because somebody punches you, that doesn't give you the right to stab them in the gut), it's hard to imagine a supposedly "peaceful" country causing this many deaths.
Islam, not Palestine. A lot of Muslims countries radically differ from one another, you might do well to remember that.
I don't know what you're getting at exactly, but I suppose you're trying to rationalize why the Jews "deserve" Israel by vaguely mentioning something about pirates and how Palestine is a recent addition to the world, which I suppose refers to the fact that long before Palestinians, there lived Jews in these parts? Sorry, but I'm not really buying this logic, for if we were to tell which country belongs to whom by telling what people lived there "first", we would have to request of all Americans with British, French, Spanish, Portuguese etc. ancestry to move back into Europe, for that part of the world belongs to the Native Americans. Of course I may very well misunderstand your case, so please do tell if I did and clarify what you're actually trying to get at here, for winning a discussion by merit of straw men is a foul win.
I get annoyed by mindless focus on the US and Oil in pretty much any talk about mideast policy, whether it be specifically terrorism focused or otherwise.
1) The US produces the majority of the oil it uses (somewhere around 60%). We're a really freaking big oil producer and imports matter way less than you think.
2) The number 1 importer of oil to the US? That scary middle eastern country called CANADA.
3) Number 3 on the list btw? Mexico. 4? Venezuela. 5? Russia.
4) Number 2 on the list of importers is an Arab state, sure. But it's at least our "ally" Saudi Arabia. Countries like Iraq and Egypt and Libya really don't factor into US energy consumption in the grand scheme of things.
5) Natural Gas is increasingly important and as a result oil matters less and less each year to the US's energy needs anyway.
In other news, people who know nothing about the Israel-Palestine conflict (read: pretty much anyone who's wasting time on Smogon) should not be talking about it. Your exceptionally dumb "analyses" based on regurgitating things you've read in your filter bubble online are not helping anyone.
1) The US produces the majority of the oil it uses (somewhere around 60%). We're a really freaking big oil producer and imports matter way less than you think.
2) The number 1 importer of oil to the US? That scary middle eastern country called CANADA.
3) Number 3 on the list btw? Mexico. 4? Venezuela. 5? Russia.
4) Number 2 on the list of importers is an Arab state, sure. But it's at least our "ally" Saudi Arabia. Countries like Iraq and Egypt and Libya really don't factor into US energy consumption in the grand scheme of things.
5) Natural Gas is increasingly important and as a result oil matters less and less each year to the US's energy needs anyway.
In other news, people who know nothing about the Israel-Palestine conflict (read: pretty much anyone who's wasting time on Smogon) should not be talking about it. Your exceptionally dumb "analyses" based on regurgitating things you've read in your filter bubble online are not helping anyone.