What should the West do Now about Islamic Terrorism?

[Saint Frankenstein]

I am sure ISIS would have a field day under your policy.

I fail to see how further violence is going to solve the problem.

 

[YmirGF]

So why West don't support temporary Syrian Army to defeat the terrorists (as Russia) ?

Largely because the Obama administration is relatively clueless on Foreign Policy matters. Proof of this was when he asked John Kerry to take over for Hillary. Dumb and Dumber, comes to mind.

 

[icehorse]

A big part of the problem, however, is a fear about what family members or 'the community' might think.

There are "positive", more benign aspects to Islam and there are destructive aspects. If a particular Muslim is a Wahhabist, the odds are I won't trust him. My core values are in stark contrast with the core values of Wahhabism. On the other hand, as you've described your take on Islam, it seems we probably share some important core values.

So depending on the denomination a Muslim chooses (I know that often choice is not possible), the community might think favorably or the community might not.

Beliefs matter.

 

[Acim]

Should we become more isolationist and turn away from involvement with the Islamic world both economically and militarily. If we become more isolationist do we stand by for the killing of innocent villagers in the Islamic world and sit on our military hands? Are we expected to be humanitarian even at the risk of being labeled interventionists?

After reading the thread, I come back to this option as best approach going forward, politically.

I mostly don't know what the 100% right way is, nor do I feel like entirety of perceived problem is within my control (or anyone's), unless I take the whole thing strictly into domain of spirituality/theology. As I'm not wanting to go there in this post, I'll stick to the political as if that is (magically) devoid of spiritual considerations.

I don't see the isolationist strategy being something that would work based on prevailing understandings of isolationism. But, I'd still suggest the U.S. particularly move in that direction.

There are two items I find challenging to get around (politically).
1) The sleeper militant jihadist who can wait 30 years before carrying out an attack and give off every appearance of being fully assimilated into whatever culture they reside.
2) The governments of the world that say one thing, but are doing other things that clearly contradict that, and are (intentionally) covert.

I don't know of sure-fire way to overcome the first one, and all my ideas (that aren't spiritual) would involve a bit of deception for such an individual, i.e. (falsely) convincing them that Allah is speaking directly to them and that their jihad mission is now over.

The second one is arguably way bigger problem. Such that if U.S. did move toward isolationism in major way, but was still conducting covert activities in a foreign region, that wouldn't bode well. And even if U.S. was fully in isolationism direction, it could take a fairly long time for rest of world's intelligence to fully accept/acknowledge this. So, if two factions in a land outside of the U.S. are in a civil battle, it could be conceivable by either side that the U.S. is pulling the strings (of discord), even while the reality might be that the U.S. is not.

I see the isolationist strategy as the U.S. being clear (with U.S. citizens foremost) what the U.S. (government) is responsible for in this world. And hopefully being about the U.S. showing high degree to take care of its own, while not violating the inalienable rights of non-U.S. citizens in that process. Not that isolationism would work perfectly all the time in this way, but I see it working significantly better than the interventionist strategy.

Isolationism would need to be okay with killing of innocent villagers in the Islamic world, and have U.S. military sit on our hands - for it to work over the longterm. Not easy to come to that type of conclusion, but perhaps easier when one realizes that interventionism is asking us to be okay with U.S. killing of innocent villagers in the Islamic world as 'cost of doing business/war in that region.'

Isolationism doesn't mean, to me, that we aren't keenly interested in political allies and establishing full faith and trust in all people of the world that align with American interests and principles. So, if there are regions outside of U.S. experiencing 'innocents being killed' it wouldn't mean, to me, that U.S. sticks its proverbial head in the sand and ignore such a problem. I'm sure non-isolationists will forever spin in that way. To me, it means we would provide strategy or example of how to make that type of situation work in their region, and maintain our physical isolationism, as a political strategy. For surely, the U.S. will plausibly be dealing with people within U.S. borders that wish to cause harm to innocents. I don't know if there's been a year in U.S. (entire) history where that hasn't occurred. To which, most in U.S. citizenry are continually hoping American principles/constitution is applied to that situation whenever it arises.

By going with interventionist strategy we are, IMO, implying that the foreign areas (and problems there) are our own. Are our interests. And we have claim to those people, those lands, their resources (as if it is our resources - or all of the world's resources). I don't completely despise that position, but I think it has visibly become counterproductive to have the U.S. be seen as responsible for policing the world. And hypocritical with the idea that the U.S. can barely manage to righteously police its own areas. Do we need a whole bunch more of "_____________ lives matter" as we go about exercising legal justice across the world?

The only other thing I'll add is that it would be very helpful if there was a 'one world' strategy to deal with all the world's problems, but right about now, I would be highly skeptical of that if it were starting with premise of that's best done by secular types. And I'm around 99.9% confident that secular types would be highly skeptical if that was starting with premise of that's best done by religious/spiritual types. So, knowing that going in, I think the U.S. ought to go for isolationism and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

There are "positive", more benign aspects to Islam and there are destructive aspects. If a particular Muslim is a Wahhabist, the odds are I won't trust him. My core values are in stark contrast with the core values of Wahhabism. On the other hand, as you've described your take on Islam, it seems we probably share some important core values.

So depending on the denomination a Muslim chooses (I know that often choice is not possible), the community might think favorably or the community might not.

Beliefs matter.

Sorry, should have been clearer, by 'the community' I meant the local Muslim community to which the Muslim in question belongs (often, probably even typically, a particular ethnocultural community). Appreciate that doesn't really take anything away from what you have said above. And I completely agree, beliefs really do matter. But just wanted to clarify what I meant in my earlier post.

 

[George-ananda]

I fail to see how further violence is going to solve the problem.

So if an ISIS militia is marching for another village bent on raping and killing indiscriminately, we should not do anything but allow it to happen? I hope you can see the situation is more complicated than only providing humanitarian support as you suggest. Humanitarian support includes stopping the invasion of the village in my opinion.

 

[Jumi]

So if an ISIS militia is marching for another village bent on raping and killing indiscriminately, we should not do anything but allow it to happen? I hope you can see the situation is more complicated than only providing humanitarian support as you suggest. Humanitarian support includes stopping the invasion of the village in my opinion.

Well that's not what's happening now, since the priority for some powers has been to get Assad instead of ISIS. Whereas Russia worked with Assad to do just what you said. Who is the humanitarian?

 

[George-ananda]

Well that's not what's happening now, since the priority for some powers has been to get Assad instead of ISIS. Whereas Russia worked with Assad to do just what you said. Who is the humanitarian?

You missed the point. It was a theoretical question for those who only want humanitarian aid.

 

[Aquitaine]

They target all civilians (Muslims and non-Muslims) .

Yeah: lazy targeting.

They believe that you vote for your governments so you are responsible too.

This too is a short-sighted and lazy perspective.

they believe it's you which cause the suffering of Palestinians and Iraqis and Syria,and Libyan

Damned if you do...

,and being silent for Burma genocide to Muslims ...etc

... damned if you don't.

Though having said that, are the Tutsis and moderate Hutus from Rwanda staging terrorist attacks in other countries for not intervening during their genocide?

for whom born and raised in West ,they may sympathy with others, or get provoked by "Hebdo"...etc

If you can't deal with criticism, then you're living in the wrong type of country.

 

[Aquitaine]

There continued attacks and influence are dubious reasons? We must it clear they are not welcome here, and it will be more than their death. They desire death. They want to be mayrted heroes. Make the cost so high they'll have second thoughts.

Exactly: a lot of them aren't fussed about dying.
The people who are fussed about dying though - the civilians - will inevitably get caught up in the mess and will probably have the highest body count. In turn this will generate even more anti-west sentiment and radicalized recruits, which will mean even more terrorist attacks against our own civilians.

When it comes to war we absolutely end up throwing the baby (civilians) out with the bath water (enemy combatants).

It would work however if you gave the "General" full autonomy, refused to let any media cover the festivities and blocked all communication out of the region - in perpetuity.

Allowing the military full control over vast areas populated by civilians, whilst also allowing them to shut down (or at least attempt to shut down) all media reporting would be an absolute disaster. The nation(s) involved would quickly be accused of commiting genocide.

I'm more worried about what the east should do about Western/atheist/christian/jewish terrorism.

Aye: these Atheist terrorists commiting atrocities against people in the name of Atheism are becoming a real problem nowadays. . .

 

[Sunstone]

Terrorism will not be solved by the West acting alone. Ever. The only long term solutions to terrorism involve the West partnering with the rest of the world to defeat it.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm more worried about what the east should do about Western/atheist/christian/jewish terrorism.

Damn those atheists! Damn them and their suicide bombs!

 

[YmirGF]

Allowing the military full control over vast areas populated by civilians, whilst also allowing them to shut down (or at least attempt to shut down) all media reporting would be an absolute disaster. The nation(s) involved would quickly be accused of committing genocide.

Well, DUH!

 

[YmirGF]

Damn those atheists! Damn them and their suicide bombs!

I know that's my first thought when I hear of the Terrorist Attack D'jour.

 

[Sunstone]

I know that's my first thought when I hear of the Terrorist Attack D'jour.

Tell me about it! I myself have taken to sleeping with one eye open at night least Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris slips up on me with an AK-47 and a suicide vest!

 

[YmirGF]

Tell me about it! I myself have taken to sleeping with one eye open at night least Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris slips up on me with an AK-47 and a suicide vest!

You know it, baby.



*looks out window suspiciously at a passing squirrel*
*Grabs .50 cal and goes to investigate*

 

[Sunstone]

You know it, baby.



*looks out window suspiciously at a passing squirrel*
*Grabs .50 cal and goes to investigate*

Are you sure a .50 cal is a enough fire power??? For godsakes man! It's a Squirrel! They're no less dangerous than a four legged bundle of plastique explosive on a meth/crack cocaine cocktail!

 

[icehorse]

A drum I've banged before: I think the terrorism discussion is 99% red herring. Folks have alluded to this differently on this thread, saying that terrorism gets too much press, As far as that goes I agree.

But (and I know I'm repeating myself), it's not about terrorism, it's about theocracy vs. secularism. There aren't many terrorists. There are hundreds of millions of folks who'd like to see Sharia be the law of the land. IMO, THIS is the real problem. This is where the true conflict exists.

 

[Aquitaine]

Well, DUH!

All I'm saying is that trying the same old gung-ho tactics won't work.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

But (and I know I'm repeating myself), it's not about terrorism, it's about theocracy vs. secularism. There aren't many terrorists. There are hundreds of millions of folks who'd like to see Sharia be the law of the land. IMO, THIS is the real problem. This is where the true conflict exists.

Good point. This partly explains why secular France has been a prime target for Islamist terrorism.