what would be the best way to eliminate isis/al queda

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,278
9,362
146
My side (the right) won the Cold War with strength.

The right didn't win the Cold War. Over decades, the United States of America won the Cold War. Liberals and conservatives, WE were mostly all cold warriors. Did you not know that? Are you seriously saying otherwise?

You may feel the left's ideas were superior, but had we continued down the path of Carter, appeasing them because Communism is far too strong to oppose, the Soviet Union with all its evils would still be going strong.

No, it wouldn't. The Soviet Union collapsed from within.

You feel that the best ideology will always win out, but that simply isn't true in any reasonable length of time. Communism did not win out in Eastern Europe because it was the better ideology, it won out because there were more Communists with guns willing to kill to impose it on their fellow man.

Stop now, you're embarrassing yourself. Communism DID NOT win in Eastern Europe. It collapsed across multiple countries with scarcely any bloodshed all, even with all those "Communists with guns."

Does this FACT teach you anything about what is stronger in the long run?

Not withstanding that Islam has a hell of a lot more staying power than communism, I don't wish to see my nation (or any nation) subjected to even a half century of darkness before discovering that their previous culture really is worth fighting for.

Our culture is, and always has been, incredibly diverse and founded on immigrants. Stop with this "half a century of darkness" if we admit 10,000 Syrian refugees fleeing ISIS. There are already 2.7 million Muslims in our country. I've got news for you, we are already multi-cultural. Your hysteria is bigoted.

Also, please note that this is not a short term "quick fix". On the contrary, this is a cold recognition that this will be a very long battle of cultures and in such, entrenching the opposing culture within our own is not smart.

Pssst. "They" are already here. 2.7 million of them.


EDIT: I'm also curious as to why you oppose a wall but support border crossings.

I oppose the wall and wild expansion of the Border Patrol because they and it are a costly bureaucratic nightmare that doesn't even succeed at stopping illegal Mexican immigration after the fact (when they're already at our border) instead of competently and comprehensively attacking the underlying reasons.

Am I missing something that makes it sensible to have measures against something undesirable as long as those measures aren't effective?

That's one tortured sentence, but, yeah, I believe you're missing more than one thing. See above.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
While I'm somewhat less comfortable with 100,000 than I would be with 10,000, I'm a little confused after reading that article as to what will be the actual number. However, you do realize that we take in about 100K Muslims per year through ordinary, legal immigration channels, right? If you run some basic math, it would take roughly 3,000 years for Muslims to equal the non-Muslim population here, assuming literally zero pop growth from both groups, an assumption which actually cuts the other way because the non-Muslims start with a much higher base. In any event, to even become 10% of the population would take 300 years. Allowing an extra 100K in would advance that timeline by...one year.

In Europe I'm afraid they let in quite a lot more than that, especially in relationship to the lower populations in those countries. It's just a problem on an entirely different scale that isn't really going to be affected by a one-off situation where we let some refugees come in.
In Europe, the problems don't start at 10%, they start around 1% to 2%. Hopefully America will see an even higher problem percentage because we're more conservative and more religious (and therefore less offensive to conservative Muslims) and also because we're more diverse. Harder to feel ostracized for being different in a land where everyone is different, everyone is from somewhere else. But again, it isn't just the numbers only, it's that refugees are inherently people who didn't choose to immigrate but were forced to immigrate. Look at the problems we have now; they are mostly from refugee families, not from immigrant families. Refugees cling to their own traditions because they never wanted to give them up and they raise their children accordingly. Willing, planned immigrants tend to cling to their religion because that is so fundamental, but also raise their children with American values.

The right didn't win the Cold War. Over decades, the United States of America won the Cold War. Liberals and conservatives, WE were mostly all cold warriors. Did you not know that? Are you seriously saying otherwise?

No, it wouldn't. The Soviet Union collapsed from within.

Stop now, you're embarrassing yourself. Communism DID NOT win in Eastern Europe. It collapsed across multiple countries with scarcely any bloodshed all, even with all those "Communists with guns."

Does this FACT teach you anything about what is stronger in the long run?

Our culture is, and always has been, incredibly diverse and founded on immigrants. Stop with this "half a century of darkness" if we admit 10,000 Syrian refugees fleeing ISIS. There are already 2.7 million Muslims in our country. I've got news for you, we are already multi-cultural. Your hysteria is bigoted.

Pssst. "They" are already here. 2.7 million of them.

I oppose the wall and wild expansion of the Border Patrol because they and it are a costly bureaucratic nightmare that doesn't even succeed at stopping illegal Mexican immigration after the fact (when they're already at our border) instead of competently and comprehensively attacking the underlying reasons.

That's one tortured sentence, but, yeah, I believe you're missing more than one thing. See above.
Jeez. Communism in Eastern Europe collapsed AFTER half a century. It won out because of Communists with guns; it eventually lost because people realized that their lives were only going to continue getting shittier under Communism and thus standing up to and fighting Communism was the right thing to do. It did NOT collapse with "scarcely any bloodshed all", it collapsed after numerous uprisings and millions of lives lost, from 1946 all the way to 1989. That's like saying someone died peacefully in her sleep rather than saying she died in hospital of gunshot wounds suffered at the hands of terrorists.
 

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
The War Mongers. The Governments. The Religions.

Aren't ever going to be able to get rid of Isis/Al Queda.

The only thing that will get rid of Isis/Al-Queda is,

limiting War Mongers, limiting Government, limiting Religion,

and promoting freedom. The freedom of the individual.

Individual freedom.

-John
 
Last edited:

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
26,704
25,039
136
The War Mongers. The Governments. The Religions.

Aren't ever going to be able to get rid of Isis/Al Queda.

The only thing that will get rid of Isis/Al-Queda is,

limiting War Mongers, limiting Government, limiting Religion,

and promoting freedom. The freedom of the individual.

Individual freedom.

-John

How would you propose NGOs go about this?
 

unokitty

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2012
3,346
1
0


Obama doesn't have this handled?

Reality is that political elites, like Obama, don’t have a problem with ISIS. Obama's never missed a golf date or a gourmet meal because of ISIS.

In fact, the war provides him with excellent cover to reward the weapons contractors that contributed to his campaign. Think its easy to raise a billion dollars, like Obama did, for a political campaign?

Wars will end when political elites and their cronies stop profiting from them...

Uno
 
Last edited:

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
69,546
27,852
136
You may feel the left's ideas were superior, but had we continued down the path of Carter, appeasing them because Communism is far too strong to oppose,
There was no appeasement under Carter. You're making stuff up.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,278
9,362
146
There was no appeasement under Carter. You're making stuff up.

Is he ever! From claiming it was the right wing that won the Cold War when it was a decades long and fully bi-partisan effort (we were ALL cold warriors) to this below, the guy simply doesn't seem know the basic FACTS of post WWII history.

Jeez. Communism in Eastern Europe collapsed AFTER half a century. It won out because of Communists with guns...

RUSSIA won because of the predominance of the Red Army in Eastern Europe after WWII. The Soviet Union under the murderous facist Stalin was a nationalist, expansionist, totalitarian state that was "Communist" in name only.

It did NOT collapse with "scarcely any bloodshed all", it collapsed after numerous uprisings and millions of lives lost, from 1946 all the way to 1989.

Millions of lives lost in "numerous" uprisings in Eastern Europe from 1946 -1989? Please try and document this hysterically untrue fake right wing history you put forth. It is simply not true.

Neither the German uprising in 1953 nor the more famous Hungarian uprising in 1956 did one damn thing to alter the Russian occupation. Your fevered, fake history that VIOLENT dissent brought down that occupation is, whole cloth, untrue.

The Russian occupation collapsed across numerous countries when the Soviet Union collapsed. And, yes, the Russian domination of Eastern Europe collapsed in country after country with almost no bloodshed at all.

You are not welcome to your own facts on this history.

That's like saying someone died peacefully in her sleep rather than saying she died in hospital of gunshot wounds suffered at the hands of terrorists.

Uhh, nope. That's like saying after a couple/three attempts at shots went wide and caused no real damage at all to the occupation, which, YEARS LATER, collapsed and died because it was an IDEA whose time had passed.

The West won the war of ideas. And the West will only prevail against the Islamic militants, not by trying to kill them all, but by winning, patiently and doggedly over time, the war of ideas.

I know it's not as alluringly simple as the extreme right wing solution of "kill them all", based on the bigoted right wing notion of "All Muslims bad", but there you go.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
There was no appeasement under Carter. You're making stuff up.
You don't recall Carter cancelling the B1 bomber outside of his own strategic talks, thus getting no Russian concessions for caving to their demands?

How about Carter negotiating his own SALT that would take the United States from a significant advantage in strategic weapons to a strategic disadvantage? That treaty was so far down appeasement lane that a safely Democrat Senate would not touch it, wouldn't even come close to ratifying it.

Is he ever! From claiming it was the right wing that won the Cold War when it was a decades long and fully bi-partisan effort (we were ALL cold warriors) to this below, the guy simply doesn't seem know the basic FACTS of post WWII history.



RUSSIA won because of the predominance of the Red Army in Eastern Europe after WWII. The Soviet Union under the murderous facist Stalin was a nationalist, expansionist, totalitarian state that was "Communist" in name only.



Millions of lives lost in "numerous" uprisings in Eastern Europe from 1946 -1989? Please try and document this hysterically untrue fake right wing history you put forth. It is simply not true.

Neither the German uprising in 1953 nor the more famous Hungarian uprising in 1956 did one damn thing to alter the Russian occupation. Your fevered, fake history that VIOLENT dissent brought down that occupation is, whole cloth, untrue.

The Russian occupation collapsed across numerous countries when the Soviet Union collapsed. And, yes, the Russian domination of Eastern Europe collapsed in country after country with almost no bloodshed at all.

You are not welcome to your own facts on this history.



Uhh, nope. That's like saying after a couple/three attempts at shots went wide and caused no real damage at all to the occupation, which, YEARS LATER, collapsed and died because it was an IDEA whose time had passed.

The West won the war of ideas. And the West will only prevail against the Islamic militants, not by trying to kill them all, but by winning, patiently and doggedly over time, the war of ideas.

I know it's not as alluringly simple as the extreme right wing solution of "kill them all", based on the bigoted right wing notion of "All Muslims bad", but there you go.
Yeah, you're going to have to explain to me how "the predominance of the Red Army in Eastern Europe after WWII" is somehow different from "more Communists with guns willing to kill to impose [Communism] on their fellow man". Are you perhaps under the impression that the Red Army remained in Eastern Europe on holiday? Perhaps selling time shares in Crimea? Because most of us are aware that they were there imposing Communism on their fellow man.

There were a LOT of uprisings in Europe, not two. There were numerous uprisings especially in the 50s and 60s, typically put down by tanks and followed by a mass of arrests and disappearances. Millions of Europeans over half a century were killed by military action, disappeared by secret police, or simply starved. Martin Malia's estimate of 85 - 100 million deaths by communism, with approximately 1 million in Eastern Europe alone. But let's look at country by country. In and around 1945 alone, Bulgaria lost between 50,000 and 100,000. East Germany lost 80,000 to 100,000, Romania between 60,000 and 300,000, Hungary probably another 120,000. Now since you maintain that the Soviet Union collapsed from within and wasn't even Communism anyway, you probably consider these acts of G-d, but during the twentieth century there were no equivalent famines in non-Communist countries. The tiny Baltic states alone had over half a million deported, with 20,000 dying in the Soviet Union, on top of massive deportations (with a 50% death rate) in '40 & '41. That isn't even including the death rate of those who fought the Soviets until 1958.

Scott Manning has compiled his own list of the total deaths caused by Communism after the initial subjugation period. (i.e. for Europe, his numbers typically start in '48 or '49.) His numbers for Europe are:
East Germany: 70,000
Albania: 100,000
Bulgaria: 222,000
Czechoslovakia: 65,000
Hungary: 27,000
Poland: 22,000
Romania: 435,000
Yugoslavia: 1,072,000

Just for those eight European nations, that's 2,013,000 deaths. And again, this is AFTER the initial years of deportations, murders, fighting, & disappearances.

The left likes to minimize the evil of Communism, perhaps because it's a left ideology and perhaps because it's true colors are not well suited to the left's celebrated strategy of doing nothing over long periods of time. But even in Europe, Communism was an evil, bloody, violent and repressive form of government. Now that we're being faced with an equally evil, bloody, violent and repressive opposing ideology, the left's strategy has shifted to embracing them, trying not to anger them, and hoping for the best.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#East_Germany
https://archive.org/details/TheBlackBookofCommunism10
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states
http://www.scottmanning.com/content/communist-body-count/
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,307
136
The best way to eliminate any organization is to bankrupt them. Isolate them from their funding sources, take away their workforce, make it so they can't pay their soldiers.
 

ralfy

Senior member
Jul 22, 2013
485
53
91
Probably won't be relevant if these groups are controlled by military powers.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,884
34,846
136
The best way to eliminate any organization is to bankrupt them. Isolate them from their funding sources, take away their workforce, make it so they can't pay their soldiers.

That would have to include the US turning on our "allies" like the Saudis who actively helped foment this thing with financial and political support.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |