Jordan pilot hostage Moaz al-Kasasbeh 'burned alive'

[pErvinalia]

The only principle that should matter is reducing the threat of terrorism. Creating MORE terrorists is clearly not the smartest thing to do.

Well, the only way to achieve that sole principle would be to surrender and submit to the World Caliphate and suffer in dhimmitude or become a convert to Islam.

the "only way"??

Fuck that. We'll just keep killing the towel-head motherfuckers until they are all gone or they decide to abjure violence and live in peace with everybody else.

It's a shame conservatives are actually incapable of rational thought on these issues due to their brain structures. You are not going to kill them all till they are gone. They are not going to decide it's all a bad idea to kill infidels. We need people with brains in charge of this sort of stuff, not conservatives like you.

[Seth]

I agree, but how do you DO that? They were creating terrorists long before Iraq I. Yeah Israel yeah infidels on Holy Land yeah yeah. Their reasons for flying airliners into skyscrapers were a bit thin. So kowtowing to them isn't going to stop them. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, after all. Their religious imperative is to forcibly convert or kill everybody else. You cannot negotiate with that sort of lunacy.

It's not a matter of kowtowing to them or exterminating everyone. That's a false dichotomy. Just don't enact policies that will clearly create more terrorists. Best example of that is Iraq.

Now you're going all Neville Chamberlain on us too?

Feel free to go appeal to their humanity and better natures.

Me, I'm going to stay armed and kill them as I come across them.

[pErvinalia]

The IRA was not defeated by killing them all. Nor will ISIS. There has to be an alternative. Certainly, they must be suppressed, and this is happening currently by arming and training Iraqi and Kurdish troops, and giving air support. This kind of action can be extended and increased. Ultimately, ISIS must be forced to the negotiation table.

By Iraqis who mostly agree with them?

Iraqis are not Brits, mate. Their loyalties are to their tribes and their particular reading of Islam, or the whip - not to their nations. They'll fold.
To see you antipodeans try to reason along the lines of "Countries" from the moral standpoint of your own peacetime culture either through denial or genuine naivete is almost comic. You'll get recruited eventually, and your fancypants little notions of civility will drop right in line with the rest of us as soon as you realize you're in a fight.

What fight?!?

More people are killed via domestic abuse than by terrorism. When will you be dropping your fancypants notions of civility in that arena?

You've drunk the fear kool-aid something shocking, piscator.

[Seth]

The only principle that should matter is reducing the threat of terrorism. Creating MORE terrorists is clearly not the smartest thing to do.

Well, the only way to achieve that sole principle would be to surrender and submit to the World Caliphate and suffer in dhimmitude or become a convert to Islam.

the "only way"??

Fuck that. We'll just keep killing the towel-head motherfuckers until they are all gone or they decide to abjure violence and live in peace with everybody else.

It's a shame conservatives are actually incapable of rational thought on these issues due to their brain structures. You are not going to kill them all till they are gone.

Well, we've got to try as best we can.

They are not going to decide it's all a bad idea to kill infidels.

That's exactly why we have to kill them.

We need people with brains in charge of this sort of stuff, not conservatives like you.

Thanks for your advice Neville. Please excuse us, D-day is upon us and we've got a continent to liberate.

[pErvinalia]

I agree, but how do you DO that? They were creating terrorists long before Iraq I. Yeah Israel yeah infidels on Holy Land yeah yeah. Their reasons for flying airliners into skyscrapers were a bit thin. So kowtowing to them isn't going to stop them. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, after all. Their religious imperative is to forcibly convert or kill everybody else. You cannot negotiate with that sort of lunacy.

It's not a matter of kowtowing to them or exterminating everyone. That's a false dichotomy. Just don't enact policies that will clearly create more terrorists. Best example of that is Iraq.

Now you're going all Neville Chamberlain on us too?

Feel free to go appeal to their humanity and better natures.

Why are conservatives so incapable of thinking outside of false dichotomies?! FFS. Bomb the fuck out of them. I'm no pacifist. I'm concerned about the morality collapse of becoming terrorists ourselves to protect our so-called free and enlightened states, and more directly concerned about not creating MORE terrorists. This is the problem with conservatives and their idiotic morals. You are more than happy to cut your noses off to spite your faces.

[Seth]

The IRA was not defeated by killing them all. Nor will ISIS. There has to be an alternative. Certainly, they must be suppressed, and this is happening currently by arming and training Iraqi and Kurdish troops, and giving air support. This kind of action can be extended and increased. Ultimately, ISIS must be forced to the negotiation table.

By Iraqis who mostly agree with them?

Iraqis are not Brits, mate. Their loyalties are to their tribes and their particular reading of Islam, or the whip - not to their nations. They'll fold.
To see you antipodeans try to reason along the lines of "Countries" from the moral standpoint of your own peacetime culture either through denial or genuine naivete is almost comic. You'll get recruited eventually, and your fancypants little notions of civility will drop right in line with the rest of us as soon as you realize you're in a fight.

What fight?!?

More people are killed via domestic abuse than by terrorism.

And an Ebola epidemic begins with one kid and a bat. And a forest fire begins with a single spark. Best to stamp these things out before they turn into a global conflagration or epidemic.

Once it's clear that the consequence of doing nothing is eventually catastrophic, there's no reason to delay taking action.

We're actually decades...almost a century behind in dealing with the scourge of radical Islam, thanks in large part to folks like you, Neville.

[pErvinalia]

The only principle that should matter is reducing the threat of terrorism. Creating MORE terrorists is clearly not the smartest thing to do.

Well, the only way to achieve that sole principle would be to surrender and submit to the World Caliphate and suffer in dhimmitude or become a convert to Islam.

the "only way"??

Fuck that. We'll just keep killing the towel-head motherfuckers until they are all gone or they decide to abjure violence and live in peace with everybody else.

It's a shame conservatives are actually incapable of rational thought on these issues due to their brain structures. You are not going to kill them all till they are gone.

Well, we've got to try as best we can.

No you don't. That's the point. The goal shouldn't be to try to kill as many as possible. That's idiotic conservative moralising. The goal should be to REDUCE the total number of terrorists. You'll never get rid of them. So aim to beat them down as much as possible. Creating 3 new terrorists for everyone you kill is just childishly idiotic. That is, conservative moralising to a 'T'.

They are not going to decide it's all a bad idea to kill infidels.

That's exactly why we have to kill them.

There's the "why" and there's the "how". You guys fail spectacularly on the "how".

We need people with brains in charge of this sort of stuff, not conservatives like you.

Thanks for your advice Neville. Please excuse us, D-day is upon us and we've got a continent to liberate.

And what continent exactly are you liberating, Winston? Merka or any of your allies isn't under any threat in the slightest.

[pErvinalia]

The IRA was not defeated by killing them all. Nor will ISIS. There has to be an alternative. Certainly, they must be suppressed, and this is happening currently by arming and training Iraqi and Kurdish troops, and giving air support. This kind of action can be extended and increased. Ultimately, ISIS must be forced to the negotiation table.

By Iraqis who mostly agree with them?

Iraqis are not Brits, mate. Their loyalties are to their tribes and their particular reading of Islam, or the whip - not to their nations. They'll fold.
To see you antipodeans try to reason along the lines of "Countries" from the moral standpoint of your own peacetime culture either through denial or genuine naivete is almost comic. You'll get recruited eventually, and your fancypants little notions of civility will drop right in line with the rest of us as soon as you realize you're in a fight.

What fight?!?

More people are killed via domestic abuse than by terrorism.

And an Ebola epidemic begins with one kid and a bat. And a forest fire begins with a single spark. Best to stamp these things out before they turn into a global conflagration or epidemic.

Once it's clear that the consequence of doing nothing is eventually catastrophic, there's no reason to delay taking action.

We're actually decades...almost a century behind in dealing with the scourge of radical Islam, thanks in large part to folks like you, Neville.

Feel the fear, Seth!! Go live in your bunker, you paranoid delusional. If it's not the tax man coming for you, it's marxists, and if it's not them it's now islamists. You exist in a bubble of total fear, Seth. I feel sorry for your lack of freedom.

[Seth]

I agree, but how do you DO that? They were creating terrorists long before Iraq I. Yeah Israel yeah infidels on Holy Land yeah yeah. Their reasons for flying airliners into skyscrapers were a bit thin. So kowtowing to them isn't going to stop them. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, after all. Their religious imperative is to forcibly convert or kill everybody else. You cannot negotiate with that sort of lunacy.

It's not a matter of kowtowing to them or exterminating everyone. That's a false dichotomy. Just don't enact policies that will clearly create more terrorists. Best example of that is Iraq.

Now you're going all Neville Chamberlain on us too?

Feel free to go appeal to their humanity and better natures.

Why are conservatives so incapable of thinking outside of false dichotomies?!

Because they aren't false dichotomies, they are hard facts.

FFS. Bomb the fuck out of them. I'm no pacifist. I'm concerned about the morality collapse of becoming terrorists ourselves to protect our so-called free and enlightened states,

I think we can manage to contain our terroristic impulses. We did quite well in Europe, and everywhere else we've been compelled to go in and clean up somebody else's mess in order to preserve world peace. Eggs get broken when you make egg salad. Sad but true. America is well-known for going in, kicking ass, taking names, defeating evil and then leaving, after spending untolled billions of American dollars rebuilding the nation we had to go spank because it's leaders got unruly.

Japan is the classic example. By rights we should have subjugated Japan and turned it into a US possession and territory and ruled it with an iron fist forever. But we didn't. And we never do. We don't build empires like the Brits did, we cut out the cancer and then do our damnedest to build a viable and peaceful constitutional republic to replace the despotism we have extirpated, then we go home.

It's hardly our fault that the primitive pricks who live in the deserts of the Middle East are too fucking stupid to know when they've got a good thing going.

and more directly concerned about not creating MORE terrorists.

Thanks, Neville, but they don't need an excuse to be barbaric animals, they are already barbaric animals...rabid ones at that, and they need to be put down. If others who profess to be Muslims are persuaded to become terrorists because the civilized nations of the world seek to extirpate the cancer of radical Islam and all notions of a World Caliphate, then they become enemies who also need to be killed.

When the "peaceful" Muslims of the world rise up in arms to help extirpate the apostasy of the radical fringe, then I'll consider not viewing every single one of them as a potential threat to humanity. But as long as they remain silent and actionless against the evil of radical Islam, I consider them to be conspirators, fellow-travelers and fifth-columnists who need to be watched very, very carefully.

When I see Saudi Arabia marching their legions of Muslim warriors against the Islamic State scum, then I'll begin to believe that they aren't simply lying through their teeth and aren't actually covert, cowardly supporters of Islamic terrorism.

This is the problem with conservatives and their idiotic morals. You are more than happy to cut your noses off to spite your faces.

If you have a better idea, out with it.

[Seth]

Feel the fear, Seth!! Go live in your bunker, you paranoid delusional. If it's not the tax man coming for you, it's marxists, and if it's not them it's now islamists. You exist in a bubble of total fear, Seth. I feel sorry for your lack of freedom.

The essence of reason is knowing when someone's trying to kill you and doing something about it before they do so. There's a very good reason to fear radical Islam, and thus a very good reason to prepare to take direct action should one come into personal contact with the agents of radical Islam. If that never happens, well, so what? Preparedness is always a good thing. It's so useful in so many circumstances against so many different kinds of threats it's worth doing just for it's own sake.

[laklak]

It's not a matter of kowtowing to them or exterminating everyone. That's a false dichotomy. Just don't enact policies that will clearly create more terrorists. Best example of that is Iraq.

Again I agree. But what policies? A really good article by Ali Rivzi, an atheist with muslim roots:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-riz ... 59286.html

His contention is (and I agree with him) that the root causes of Islamic terrorism have nothing at all to do with Israel or the U.S. or any policy by any Western country in the last two centuries. It is a part and parcel of Islam. He quotes Thomas Jefferson (then ambassador to France) to SecState John Jay. Jefferson had been negotiating with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, Tripoli's envoy to London, in 1786, concerning the predations of the Barbary pirates.

The ambassador answered us that [their right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

Ali Rivzi says

That is before al Qaeda and the Taliban, before the creation of Israel or the Arab-Israeli conflict, before Khomeini, before Saudi Arabia, before drones, before most Americans even knew what jihad or Islam was, and, most importantly, well before the United States had engaged in a single military incursion overseas or even had an established foreign policy.

This is my point. It makes no difference what policies we adopt. We could withdraw all U.S. troops from every country in the Mideast, drop all support for Israel, allow Iran to develop nukes, and put ourselves back into pre-WW I isolationism and it would make no difference, they're still going to come after us until we submit to Islam.

A South African guy I worked with for several years converted to Islam, basically because he could have 4 wives, treat them like shit and still be a respected member of the community. Hell, more than respected, honored. What he liked about it was whatever he told his wife to do she'd have to do, because "it's in the book". That's their grounding belief - it's in the fucking book.

It is not possible to deal rationally with people like this.

I'm not saying that the vast majority of muslims aren't peaceful people who want nothing to do with terrorism and just want to live their lives without interference. Just like the vast majority of Christians. However, I certainly blame Christianity for abortion clinic bombings, so I'd be less than honest not to blame Islam for the jihadis.

[pErvinalia]

It's not a matter of kowtowing to them or exterminating everyone. That's a false dichotomy. Just don't enact policies that will clearly create more terrorists. Best example of that is Iraq.

Again I agree. But what policies?

Don't invade Iraq. Don't invade Syria. Don't bomb weddings. Don't blow up people just because they are in the vicinity of a terrorist. Under a policy like that you might not kill as many terrorists, but you will be generating far less new terrorists. The goal is LESS overall terrorists, not MORE dead current ones.

A really good article by Ali Rivzi, an atheist with muslim roots:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-riz ... 59286.html

His contention is (and I agree with him) that the root causes of Islamic terrorism have nothing at all to do with Israel or the U.S. or any policy by any Western country in the last two centuries. It is a part and parcel of Islam. He quotes Thomas Jefferson (then ambassador to France) to SecState John Jay. Jefferson had been negotiating with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, Tripoli's envoy to London, in 1786, concerning the predations of the Barbary pirates.

The ambassador answered us that [their right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

Ali Rivzi says

That is before al Qaeda and the Taliban, before the creation of Israel or the Arab-Israeli conflict, before Khomeini, before Saudi Arabia, before drones, before most Americans even knew what jihad or Islam was, and, most importantly, well before the United States had engaged in a single military incursion overseas or even had an established foreign policy.

I don't agree with that. The Koran isn't that different from the Old Testament. The problem with Islam (and Judaism I think too), is that it doesn't have an overarching authority structure. Any loony can create doctrine however they see fit. Not so with Christianity, as the Poop and the English guy in a dress dictate what is doctrine. And the Poop and the other dude were seriously cut down in power by the western enlightenment. We need the muslim world to go through their own enlightenment. Basically we are starting to see that with the Arab Spring stuff. But they really need to work this out themselves. And I think there are enough young secularists that it might just happen. But I think oppression from the West and Israel probably plays a large part in hindering that process. You are hardly going to have time for enlightnment and secularism when drones are raining death all around you and your family.

This is my point. It makes no difference what policies we adopt. We could withdraw all U.S. troops from every country in the Mideast, drop all support for Israel, allow Iran to develop nukes, and put ourselves back into pre-WW I isolationism and it would make no difference, they're still going to come after us until we submit to Islam.

But this is the false dichotomy again. It's not a matter of killing everyone or alternatively doing absolutely nothing. It's about taking the old testament conservative moralising out of the equation from our side and start thinking smart instead of moralistically.

A South African guy I worked with for several years converted to Islam, basically because he could have 4 wives, treat them like shit and still be a respected member of the community. Hell, more than respected, honored. What he liked about it was whatever he told his wife to do she'd have to do, because "it's in the book". That's their grounding belief - it's in the fucking book.

It's also in the Christian book. It's just that the Pope and the other bloke have moderated that shit.

I'm not saying that the vast majority of muslims aren't peaceful people who want nothing to do with terrorism and just want to live their lives without interference. Just like the vast majority of Christians. However, I certainly blame Christianity for abortion clinic bombings, so I'd be less than honest not to blame Islam for the jihadis.

I've got no problem with blaming Islam. I do it all the time on my facebook feed (to the chagrin of some of my lefty mates). But collective punishment will never solve anything. Particularly in the case where you involve beliefs about an awesome afterlife.

[Seth]

It's not a matter of kowtowing to them or exterminating everyone. That's a false dichotomy. Just don't enact policies that will clearly create more terrorists. Best example of that is Iraq.

Again I agree. But what policies?

Don't invade Iraq.

Had to. Commitment to allies required it and then Saddam made it necessary to revisit the issue.

Don't invade Syria.

I'm good with that. We should just use stand-off weapons to kill the Islamic radicals...and anybody else who can't behave themselves like civilized persons.

Don't bomb weddings.

Shit happens. Clean up your own terrorist mess and we won't have to do it for you.

Don't blow up people just because they are in the vicinity of a terrorist.

Don't be in the vicinity of terrorists. Better yet, kill them yourselves so we don't have to.

Under a policy like that you might not kill as many terrorists, but you will be generating far less new terrorists.

That's "far fewer."

The goal is LESS overall terrorists, not MORE dead current ones.

No, the goal is to make all terrorists dead. Either the people who live with them can do it or we will do it for them, and any collateral damage that occurs happens because they failed to take action themselves. Unfortunate, but necessary.

And your "solution" is about as juvenile and ill-considered as any I've seen. It amounts to "don't do anything because somebody innocent might get hurt," which doesn't solve anything at all, it makes it worse.

His contention is (and I agree with him) that the root causes of Islamic terrorism have nothing at all to do with Israel or the U.S. or any policy by any Western country in the last two centuries. It is a part and parcel of Islam.

He's exactly right. This problem has been with us since 866, when that asswipe Mohammed decided to fuck the world up for the next several thousand years with his megalomaniacal pretensions.

Ali Rivzi says

That is before al Qaeda and the Taliban, before the creation of Israel or the Arab-Israeli conflict, before Khomeini, before Saudi Arabia, before drones, before most Americans even knew what jihad or Islam was, and, most importantly, well before the United States had engaged in a single military incursion overseas or even had an established foreign policy.

He's right. Some dipshit living in a cave convinced a bunch of other dipshits that he had God's ear and it's been downhill ever since. So what? That was then, this is now. Right now we just have to kill the radicals until there aren't any more.

You are hardly going to have time for enlightnment and secularism when drones are raining death all around you and your family.

I'd think that having that happen because you don't abjure violence and act to suppress those of your own religion who misuse your religion as a justification for mindless violence would cause a great and immediate enlightenment: Stop supporting Islamic violence and imperialism and kill those who perpetrate it.

This is my point. It makes no difference what policies we adopt. We could withdraw all U.S. troops from every country in the Mideast, drop all support for Israel, allow Iran to develop nukes, and put ourselves back into pre-WW I isolationism and it would make no difference, they're still going to come after us until we submit to Islam.

But this is the false dichotomy again. It's not a matter of killing everyone or alternatively doing absolutely nothing. It's about taking the old testament conservative moralising out of the equation from our side and start thinking smart instead of moralistically.

Huh? Dude, they want to kill us or enslave us. All of us. You and I and everyone else who is not a Muslim. There's no moralizing involved. It's kill or be enslaved, it's just that simple.

A South African guy I worked with for several years converted to Islam, basically because he could have 4 wives, treat them like shit and still be a respected member of the community. Hell, more than respected, honored. What he liked about it was whatever he told his wife to do she'd have to do, because "it's in the book". That's their grounding belief - it's in the fucking book.

It's also in the Christian book. It's just that the Pope and the other bloke have moderated that shit.

Right, and the radical Muslims refuse to moderate their shit, so we have to moderate them.

I'm not saying that the vast majority of muslims aren't peaceful people who want nothing to do with terrorism and just want to live their lives without interference. Just like the vast majority of Christians. However, I certainly blame Christianity for abortion clinic bombings, so I'd be less than honest not to blame Islam for the jihadis.

I've got no problem with blaming Islam. I do it all the time on my facebook feed (to the chagrin of some of my lefty mates). But collective punishment will never solve anything. Particularly in the case where you involve beliefs about an awesome afterlife.

Until "peaceful" Islam takes on "radical Islam" and destroys it, I'm operating under the principle that if it looks like a duck, and it waddles like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

"Moderate Islam" is free to prove to me they aren't ducks at any time, but they'd damned well better get with the program because I'm going duck hunting.

[pErvinalia]

Seth, the adults are talking. Particularly, we are talking about the need to do away with irrational old testament conservative moralising. And right on cue you come in with some good ol irrational conservative moralising.

[Blind groper]

If the native people of North America had owned guns, bomb, and drones 200 years ago, there would be no living white people in the USA. That would be because the locals would have killed off all the terrorists.