Terror attacks in Brussels

[low-key]

this is sick, I notice a lot of Country's who didnt really give support us much on 9/11 (thinking the terrorist wouldn't target them if they just ignore friends USA and Israel) are finding out that policy dont work . But I honestly cant remember if Belgium supported us hard or soft

 

[Colleen27]

And you meet halfway with terrorists... how?

By destroying their narrative rather than attempting to destroy their physical capabilities. Right now, it is the narrative that is their most powerful weapon - the aggressive, uncaring West, destabilizing the Muslim world and then turning its collective backs on the human suffering that its foreign policies cause. We can't bomb Daesh out of existence because they don't exist in a single shared physical space. They occupy a shared ideology that crosses borders and oceans, recruiting around the world using the stories they script, and we continue to feed them lines by reacting exactly the way they're telling their desperate and disaffected audience that we would.

So yeah, let's go bomb another country. Ramp up attacks on impoverished communities already ravaged by war. Keep telling ourselves that the destruction of their roads and hospitals and infrastructure are unavoidable costs of war. And watch the next generation of terrorists - whether they call themselves Al Qaeda or Boko Haram or ISIS - spring up to continue the war they're waging.

 

[Colleen27]

this is sick, I notice a lot of Country's who didnt really give support us much on 9/11 (thinking the terrorist wouldn't target them if they just ignore friends USA and Israel) are finding out that policy dont work . But I honestly cant remember if Belgium supported us hard or soft

By supporting us after 9/11, I assume you mean in the decision to invade Iraq? France has always been one of our allies but they did stand against that effort... and I don't think it was their policy that didn't work. There's no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, but his iron fist did keep the territory of Iraq stable and enforce a (temporary) end to centuries of sectarian unrest. Daesh rose to its current strength, in part, because of the power vacuum created by Saddam's death.

 

[DLgal]

No, it doesn't. I am well aware of how long the people over there have been fighting, and am well aware of why. Not only the far back historical reasons, but the newer historical reasons. Please don't lecture me, I love history. BUT, you don't kill our citizens. That doesn't happen. Or, it should not happen.

Um, okay. That's great that you love history. Did you happen to volunteer yourself for military service in the past decade and spend several cumulative years in Iraq and Afghanistan, dealing with the citizens there, the tribal leaders, and trying to help fix the problem with ISIS firsthand? If so, perhaps you have a good idea of how difficult and ineffective "wiping them off the map" would be.

It's basically the same as saying "let's just get rid of everything in the world that is red and the color will just disappear." It doesn't work like that.

And no one "should" get killed, but that's also not how our world works. People have been getting killed by other people for ideological reasons since the dawn of time! Why should Americans be excluded?

By destroying their narrative rather than attempting to destroy their physical capabilities. Right now, it is the narrative that is their most powerful weapon - the aggressive, uncaring West, destabilizing the Muslim world and then turning its collective backs on the human suffering that its foreign policies cause. We can't bomb Daesh out of existence because they don't exist in a single shared physical space. They occupy a shared ideology that crosses borders and oceans, recruiting around the world using the stories they script, and we continue to feed them lines by reacting exactly the way they're telling their desperate and disaffected audience that we would.

So yeah, let's go bomb another country. Ramp up attacks on impoverished communities already ravaged by war. Keep telling ourselves that the destruction of their roads and hospitals and infrastructure are unavoidable costs of war. And watch the next generation of terrorists - whether they call themselves Al Qaeda or Boko Haram or ISIS - spring up to continue the war they're waging.

Exactly.

Newsflash everyone....a good number of these ISIS fighters were impressionable little Iraqi boys and girls, oh 10-15 years ago. They became bitter towards America and Westerners as a DIRECT RESULT of our invading their homeland and destabilizing their whole region in our attempt to "bring justice for 9/11 and take down Sadaam Hussein." We created this mess. Now we have to live with the consequences. And it isn't something we can "fix" with military force. It didn't work last time. It won't work now.

 

[MickeySP]

Are you all willing to sacrifice your children on this altar? Noone said invade any country, or randomly bomb anyone, why do you automatically assume that someone who does not share your ridiculously do nothing attitude is priming the war machine? There are other options but by simply thinking you can talk to the jihadists is beyond naïve it is suicidal.

By using the intelligence we are able to gather and be proactive rather than reactive we might be able to save innocent lives. But keep thinking if we do nothing but nice them to death will work, I'll be scraping your kids off some wall somewhere.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

By destroying their narrative rather than attempting to destroy their physical capabilities. Right now, it is the narrative that is their most powerful weapon - the aggressive, uncaring West, destabilizing the Muslim world and then turning its collective backs on the human suffering that its foreign policies cause. We can't bomb Daesh out of existence because they don't exist in a single shared physical space. They occupy a shared ideology that crosses borders and oceans, recruiting around the world using the stories they script, and we continue to feed them lines by reacting exactly the way they're telling their desperate and disaffected audience that we would.

So yeah, let's go bomb another country. Ramp up attacks on impoverished communities already ravaged by war. Keep telling ourselves that the destruction of their roads and hospitals and infrastructure are unavoidable costs of war. And watch the next generation of terrorists - whether they call themselves Al Qaeda or Boko Haram or ISIS - spring up to continue the war they're waging.

I am not going to suggest bombing anyone.

But whatever it is we are doing right now--isn't working at all.

So how exactly should we react so they finally decide to stop attacking Westerners?

 

[MickeySP]

By supporting us after 9/11, I assume you mean in the decision to invade Iraq? France has always been one of our allies but they did stand against that effort... and I don't think it was their policy that didn't work. There's no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, but his iron fist did keep the territory of Iraq stable and enforce a (temporary) end to centuries of sectarian unrest. Daesh rose to its current strength, in part, because of the power vacuum created by Saddam's death.

Are you seriously saying that Sadam Hussein was good for his people? You really need to go read what his prisons were like, and btw the French were very complicit in his regime so that tends to dent their armor. It is like saying Hitler made the trains run on time, so he did some good. WOW JUST WOW.

 

[LisaR]

And wipe them off the map, is the next bit. Brit's (with help), did that too. Not sit around being PC and doing "for show" measures.

I think we should start with San Bernardino, CA. We all know they harbor terrorists. Once we wipe those terrorists who are still there who were helping the attackers, we can move on to someplace else. New Jersey?

 

[Magpie]

Are you all willing to sacrifice your children on this altar? Noone said invade any country, or randomly bomb anyone, why do you automatically assume that someone who does not share your ridiculously do nothing attitude is priming the war machine? There are other options but by simply thinking you can talk to the jihadists is beyond naïve it is suicidal.

By using the intelligence we are able to gather and be proactive rather than reactive we might be able to save innocent lives. But keep thinking if we do nothing but nice them to death will work, I'll be scraping your kids off some wall somewhere.

Wow... I'm amazed that's what you took away from what people have written. No one has said "just talk to the jihadists". No one said "just be nice".

Gov'ts around the world are already gathering intelligence. How exactly do you intend to use this intelligence more "proactively" than it's already being used? Targeted drone strikes? Smart missiles? That's already happening!

You are the one who was saying we should "wipe them out". What exactly should we be doing then, in addition to what we are already doing?

That's an awfully comfy armchair you got there.

 

[MickeySP]

This isn't a video game, it's real life. We need to look at the reason it's happening in the first place and figure out how to meet half way. Our big bombs vs their small bombs. Same.

Wow... I'm amazed that's what you took away from what people have written. No one has said "just talk to the jihadists". No one said "just be nice".

Gov'ts around the world are already gathering intelligence. How exactly do you intend to use this intelligence more "proactively" than it's already being used? Targeted drone strikes? Smart missiles? That's already happening!

You are the one who was saying we should "wipe them out". What exactly should we be doing then, in addition to what we are already doing?

That's an awfully comfy armchair you got there.

Really - no one suggested talking - hmmm then how does one meet a terrorist halfway. You can kill some of us but not the red heads, or maybe no one under 12 or just females. And why do YOU go to violence on a large scale? I never suggested it but what is wrong with small surgical strikes? What would you do? You seem to have all the answers so enlighten me - what is your brilliant plan to protect your children, parents, grandparents, spouse - what are YOU suggesting? Maybe we can just buy them all puppies!

Oh and please tell me where I said to "wipe them out?

Oh and I, unlike you do not sit in an armchair, I actually have to deal with this in the real world.

 

[Colleen27]

I am not going to suggest bombing anyone.

But whatever it is we are doing right now--isn't working at all.

So how exactly should we react so they finally decide to stop attacking Westerners?

That's exactly it - bombing people IS what we're doing now. And you're right. It isn't working.

I don't believe we can make them stop attacking Westerners in the short term. It takes time to change hearts and minds. In the long term, I believe we can do that, but only if we're willing to live the values we claim rather than setting them aside every time we're scared by something happening in the world.

I have an acquaintance who immigrated to the US from Iraq. He is a charming young man who embraces his heritage and his country (the US), and I'm sure he's bound for great things. He has a cousin who was recently killed in the conflict in Syria. On reflecting on that cousin, he was very aware that it could have been him. His parents came here when he was a child and raised him in an Arab-American community in the US. He went to decent public schools, graduated from college, and is launching a career. His cousin's parents stayed behind. They fled sectarian violence with little more than the clothes on their backs and tried unsuccessfully to make it to Europe after spending years moving from place to place living in refugee camps and other temporary settings. It was in that situation that his cousin grew up hearing Islamist propaganda about the US/the West. Is it any wonder that after seeing his home destroyed, his neighbors killed, and his family unwelcome anywhere, he was controlled by his anger?

If we want peace, we have to be peacemakers, builders, homemakers. Not an invading force sending planes and drones to rain destruction down on people who are just as damaged by our help as they are by the problem we're trying to fight.

Are you seriously saying that Sadam Hussein was good for his people? You really need to go read what his prisons were like, and btw the French were very complicit in his regime so that tends to dent their armor. It is like saying Hitker made the trains run on time, so he did some good. WOW JUST WOW.

Not at all. Like I said, he was a cruel and brutal dictator. But I'm not sure that justified our action to eliminate him, especially since we did so without a solid plan to restore/maintain stability in the region. He wasn't Hitler, invading our allies and committing mass murder on their soil. He was a terrible human being and treated his own people deplorably, but there are a lot of terrible human beings in power all over the world and we don't take it upon ourselves to eliminate them all. But even if you do believe we did the right thing in eliminating Saddam, it is impossible to deny that doing so destabilized Iraq and sowed the seeds of the current civil war.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Wow... I'm amazed that's what you took away from what people have written. No one has said "just talk to the jihadists". No one said "just be nice".

Gov'ts around the world are already gathering intelligence. How exactly do you intend to use this intelligence more "proactively" than it's already being used? Targeted drone strikes? Smart missiles? That's already happening!

You are the one who was saying we should "wipe them out". What exactly should we be doing then, in addition to what we are already doing?

That's an awfully comfy armchair you got there.

What are your suggestions?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

That's exactly it - bombing people IS what we're doing now. And you're right. It isn't working.

I don't believe we can make them stop attacking Westerners in the short term. It takes time to change hearts and minds. In the long term, I believe we can do that, but only if we're willing to live the values we claim rather than setting them aside every time we're scared by something happening in the world.

I have an acquaintance who immigrated to the US from Iraq. He is a charming young man who embraces his heritage and his country (the US), and I'm sure he's bound for great things. He has a cousin who was recently killed in the conflict in Syria. On reflecting on that cousin, he was very aware that it could have been him. His parents came here when he was a child and raised him in an Arab-American community in the US. He went to decent public schools, graduated from college, and is launching a career. His cousin's parents stayed behind. They fled sectarian violence with little more than the clothes on their backs and tried unsuccessfully to make it to Europe after spending years moving from place to place living in refugee camps and other temporary settings. It was in that situation that his cousin grew up hearing Islamist propaganda about the US/the West. Is it any wonder that after seeing his home destroyed, his neighbors killed, and his family unwelcome anywhere, he was controlled by his anger?

If we want peace, we have to be peacemakers, builders, homemakers. Not an invading force sending planes and drones to rain destruction down on people who are just as damaged by our help as they are by the problem we're trying to fight.



Not at all. Like I said, he was a cruel and brutal dictator. But I'm not sure that justified our action to eliminate him, especially since we did so without a solid plan to restore/maintain stability in the region. He wasn't Hitler, invading our allies and committing mass murder on their soil. He was a terrible human being and treated his own people deplorably, but there are a lot of terrible human beings in power all over the world and we don't take it upon ourselves to eliminate them all. But even if you do believe we did the right thing in eliminating Saddam, it is impossible to deny that doing so destabilized Iraq and sowed the seeds of the current civil war.

I don't have that confidence.

The peace and love thing isn't working at all. There is multi-generational hatred of the West. You really think if we stopped bombing today that we could suffer for decades of attacks on the West?

Because that is what would happen.

What do you do when ISIS has zero interest in our positive attributes and wants nothing to do with us?

 

[Colleen27]

Wow... I'm amazed that's what you took away from what people have written. No one has said "just talk to the jihadists". No one said "just be nice".

Gov'ts around the world are already gathering intelligence. How exactly do you intend to use this intelligence more "proactively" than it's already being used? Targeted drone strikes? Smart missiles? That's already happening!

Exactly. We do have to address the leaders of these movements, the true believers, the ones for whom it really is jihad. But we also need to act on the intelligence we have about how they're recruiting and work to prevent that message from connecting with others, ones for whom it is an outlet for anger about losing their home, feeling economically powerless/hopeless, etc. We know what strengthens support for radical groups. We should be using that knowledge to weaken it.

 

[UncleMike101]

Are you all willing to sacrifice your children on this altar? Noone said invade any country, or randomly bomb anyone, why do you automatically assume that someone who does not share your ridiculously do nothing attitude is priming the war machine? There are other options but by simply thinking you can talk to the jihadists is beyond naïve it is suicidal.

That "Do nothing attitude" is precisely what our leadership is engaged in at the moment.
It took the Lusitania to get us into WWI, and Pearl Harbor to get us into WWII.
I wonder what major city must be attacked and hundreds killed before the "Wait and see" crowd cries enough!

ISIS will eventually self destruct. They are halfway there. They are already feeling the squeeze that comes with trying to establish your own state. And their members are getting tired of fighting for them for free. The shine is wearing off.

ISIS will not self destruct any more than Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan self destructed. They must be utterly and completely destroyed just as was done to Germany and Japan. Our current leadership has neither the will, nor the inclination, nor the skills to do that. If our new POTUS doesn't move swiftly to eradicate the radical Muslims we in the U.S. will be burying our children, friends, neighbors, and fellow countrymen/women by the thousands or even the millions.

No, it doesn't. I am well aware of how long the people over there have been fighting, and am well aware of why. Not only the far back historical reasons, but the newer historical reasons. Please don't lecture me, I love history. BUT, you don't kill our citizens. That doesn't happen. Or, it should not happen.

Yup....
Religious fervor has no compromise point and those espousing it will fight till their death.
And if that's what they want we'd better give it to them before they give it to us,

OMG how ridiculously uninformed is that statement. Isis, and their affiliates do not want a dialogue, they do not want to negotiate they simple want to extinguish all non-Islamic life. The sooner the rest of the naïve we can just talk to them idiots get that through their heads the sooner an actual plan can be put in place.
To put in succinctly - they want you dead, they want your children dead, they want your parents dead. They want an Islamic world that reflects their idealogy. It's like saying the Jews should have negotiated with the Nazis.

Exactly!!
Our very existence as a free nation depends on our leaders taking the initiative and having our Military track down those murdering ba****** and slay them without mercy.
Exactly as they do to the innocents that they have murdered, and will continue to murder, until every radical Muslim is dead!

 

[Pea-n-Me]

By destroying their narrative rather than attempting to destroy their physical capabilities. Right now, it is the narrative that is their most powerful weapon - the aggressive, uncaring West, destabilizing the Muslim world and then turning its collective backs on the human suffering that its foreign policies cause. We can't bomb Daesh out of existence because they don't exist in a single shared physical space. They occupy a shared ideology that crosses borders and oceans, recruiting around the world using the stories they script, and we continue to feed them lines by reacting exactly the way they're telling their desperate and disaffected audience that we would.

So yeah, let's go bomb another country. Ramp up attacks on impoverished communities already ravaged by war. Keep telling ourselves that the destruction of their roads and hospitals and infrastructure are unavoidable costs of war. And watch the next generation of terrorists - whether they call themselves Al Qaeda or Boko Haram or ISIS - spring up to continue the war they're waging.

You must be confusing me with someone who suggested "bombing them". I merely asked how you meet terrorists halfway who believe in a long-held ideology that we in the West are infidels and deserve nothing less than death?

 

[Magpie]

Really - no one suggested talking - hmmm then how does one meet a terrorist halfway. You can kill some of us but not the red heads, or maybe no one under 12 or just females. And why do YOU go to violence on a large scale? I never suggested it but what is wrong with small surgical strikes? What would you do? You seem to have all the answers so enlighten me - what is your brilliant plan to protect your children, parents, grandparents, spouse - what are YOU suggesting? Maybe we can just buy them all puppies!

Oh and please tell me where I said to "wipe them out?

Oh and I, unlike you do not sit in an armchair, I actually have to deal with this in the real world.

Ah crud, I mixed you up with pat fan, who said we should "wipe them off the map". And I asked that person how they expected to go about accomplishing such a task. When I got a response saying I'd know if I was paying attention, I came up with some "wipe 'em off the map" type suggestions.

Anyway, I cerainly do not have all the answers.

Intelligence gathering is already happening. Various agencies are doing the best they can to use that intelligence. Gov'ts and analysts and people with way more experience and knowledge than me are working on this problem this very moment.

So when some says, just "wipe them off the map" I get annoyed. If it was that easy, we'd have done it already.

By the way, you didn't answer... what exactly should we be doing, that we're not already doing? (And don't underestimate the importance of "talking" - that's how people get radicalized in the first place!)

 

[Colleen27]

I don't have that confidence.

The peace and love thing isn't working at all. There is multi-generational hatred of the West. You really think if we stopped bombing today that we could suffer for decades of attacks on the West?

Because that is what would happen.

What do you do when ISIS has zero interest in our positive attributes and wants nothing to do with us?

When have we tried "peace and love"? We've been at war in the middle east for most of my lifetime. But honestly, I'm not suggesting we meet their weapons with daisies.

I am suggesting that we put at least as much into building as we do into bombing, that we focus not on Daesh directly but on the people over whom they hope to rule. Because they're not an insurmountable force. Without the consent/complaisance of the people in the areas they seek to control, they cannot continue to claim territory. They're just not that big, not that well armed. But when people are desperate for stability, even a warlord may look better than anarchy. We need to offer a real alternative worth living with (and working to defend) rather than thinking in terms of getting rid of yet another negative without looking ahead to what will fill the power vacuum left behind. And I think the idea of "multi-generational hatred" is overplayed. History has showed time and again that the world can change in just a generation or two, and our own recent history shows that the opinions of youth are shaped by forces far more complex than their parents' beliefs... unless, as is the case in much of the middle east right now, they see evidence all around them that their parents' hatred is justified.

 

[Magpie]

What are your suggestions?

I have none, because I don't understand the complexities of the situation. I'm well aware of my gov't policy, foriegn intelligence, and strategic military planning limitations.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

When have we tried "peace and love"? We've been at war in the middle east for most of my lifetime. But honestly, I'm not suggesting we meet their weapons with daisies.

I am suggesting that we put at least as much into building as we do into bombing, that we focus not on Daesh directly but on the people over whom they hope to rule. Because they're not an insurmountable force. Without the consent/complaisance of the people in the areas they seek to control, they cannot continue to claim territory. They're just not that big, not that well armed. But when people are desperate for stability, even a warlord may look better than anarchy. We need to offer a real alternative worth living with (and working to defend) rather than thinking in terms of getting rid of yet another negative without looking ahead to what will fill the power vacuum left behind. And I think the idea of "multi-generational hatred" is overplayed. History has showed time and again that the world can change in just a generation or two, and our own recent history shows that the opinions of youth are shaped by forces far more complex than their parents' beliefs... unless, as is the case in much of the middle east right now, they see evidence all around them that their parents' hatred is justified.

They have elder, middle age, young adults recruiting 12 year olds. That is 3 generations.

The San Bernandino terrorists didn't seem anything remotely close to terrorists. How would one offer them a real alternative when they were living the alternative except for that small detail that they were terrorists plotting an attack.

What part of history are you comparing this to to draw the conclusion that your suggestions would be effective?