Dear non-PC, red pilled internet right wing, what's your solution to terrorism?

Again, you can justify the deaths of innocents because of hypothetical scenarios that we dont even know how it will play out.

Maybe you can justify it, but my point is that you cant claim moral superiority you total moron.

So what is your solution to the problem that is reasonable and can bring genuine change?

Except for when you invade the middle east, leave a vacuum for terrorists to take over

Bin Laden notoriously said "You undermine our security, we undermine yours"

Well, the solution most liberals stick with is leaving the middle east alone and allow for the ideologies to die out.

You're saying that Muslims would bomb western countries for not accepting Islam?

Im done here. Think ive proven my point. Internet right wingers are all talk. They reside on the internet and dont have realistic pragmatic solutions.

You people seem keen on wasting your lives on internet arguments about Islam and its role in terrorism (which is mostly drivel)

So what is your solution to the problem that is reasonable and can bring genuine change?

Because as far as the rest of us are concerned, over the past 50 years the world has become a safer place and terrorist attacks have gone down. Except for when you invade the middle east, leave a vacuum for terrorists to take over and then a new radical group forms to spread terror against the nations that attacked it. Bin Laden notoriously said "You undermine our security, we undermine yours". Well, the solution most liberals stick with is leaving the middle east alone and allow for the ideologies to die out.

What do you have that's better?

ISIS has said exactly that. In Dabiq, they said something along the lines of, "We do not attack you because of what you do, but because of what you are. Even if you were to pull out of the Middle East, we would still attack you and we will continue to do so until you accept the truth of Islam"

If you seriously think the terrorists are morally superior in that situation then no amount of reasoning from me is going to help you change your mind. I would wish you well but I feel the world would be better off without people like you

Surely anything would be better than the current "muh multiculturalism" and "muh diversity!!!11!!!!"

If nothing gets changed, these attacks will tend to keep on occurring.

Terrorists aren't morally superior. Ofc not. Im talking about the middle east region as a whole.

cheap straw man really.

"Which is mostly drivel"
Islamism, born of vacuous and literalist Islam has loads to do with current terrorism, there is no point in denying this.

"Because as far [...] ideologies to die out."
Its here that we're faced with a dilemma:
1) Leave our military there, and maintain civil unrest in the middle east and grief at home but intervene and help our allies in the middle east, possibly bringing a more harmonious middle east in the future.
2) Remove our military there, and allow middle eastern countries to deal with it and sort themselves out, as you have proposed - turn a blind eye - the problem with this is that we dont know what could happen. Palestine could invade Israel or rev arg. The Syrian government is more likely to purge resistance as they dont have fear of US/UK military consequence and the IS would take a longer time to be liberated without intervention.
3) Liberate the IS territory, the official IS will be destroyed but its islamist ideological narrative of a caliphate paradise will be still very prevalent in radicalised muslims as ideologies never die and we would continue to have terrorist attacks.

There isnt a clear and sensible solution to Middle Eastern Ideological and Military conflict as of yet in terms of hard power. In terms of soft power, deradicalisation is the best we can hope for by exploiting vile verses of the Qu'ran like 24:2 and condemning them and perhaps even pushing for full Islamic reform and shunning of extremist preachers and Imams within Muslim communities.

-- A lib-right fella.

You just said they were

No doubt. And we do business with people who actively fund it.

What's going on is a proxy war. If it's as simple as "destroy IS" it would be too easy. There are many groups, all sharing the common idea of extremism but some want to kill westerners (IS).

However I think this is the most sensible solution here and i'd advocate for it. Start with releasing the report on Saudi arabia and its funding of terrorism.

Saudi Arabia funds Syrian Resistance.
Iran funds Syrian Military.
Qatar was accused of funding Syrian Military by Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain and Kuwait and Qatar has been embargoed by them.

In a sense, we are funding a pro-democracy movement in Syria but also feeding Saudi Wahhabism. I think though that releasing a report or cancelling trade with Saudi Arabia would be the wrong thing to do at the moment or near future. Saudi arabia's new king and princes seem to be pro-democracy or at least for reforming their laws so we could see a decline in saudi wahhabism due to further condemnation by them.

You people seem keen on wasting your lives on internet arguments about Islam and its role in terrorism (which is mostly drivel)

So what is your solution to the problem that is reasonable and can bring genuine change?

Because as far as the rest of us are concerned, over the past 50 years the world has become a safer place and terrorist attacks have gone down. Except for when you invade the middle east, leave a vacuum for terrorists to take over and then a new radical group forms to spread terror against the nations that attacked it. Bin Laden notoriously said "You undermine our security, we undermine yours". Well, the solution most liberals stick with is leaving the middle east alone and allow for the ideologies to die out.

What do you have that's better?

Yeah it's a complicated situation. I dont think trade should be cancelled however the report should be released. If the new kings and princes are pro reform then I dont think theyll mind. We simply cannot be kicked around by them anymore.

Big fan of Maajid Nawaz btw, great show on LBC

No.

you view innocent lives as collateral damage, insinuating that saving hypothetical western lives is a worthy sacrifice and claim to have moral superiority.

I'm a socialist (verging on communist in many ways). I despise Trump and the alt-right. I find their bigotry noxious, and their glib calls to discriminate against Muslims (for example, the Muslim ban) completely counterproductive.

But on the question of foreign and defence policy, many people would consider me fairly hawkish. It is not a 'right-wing' issue to be concerned about terrorism and to oppose what essentially amounts to a policy of surrender.



You are obviously confused. The 'War on Terror' started with 9/11. Bin Laden viciously and without provocation slaughtered 3,000 Americans. That was bound to result in greater American involvement in the Middle East, not less. In fact, if anything the US showed restraint in the 1990s, when Al-Qaeda bombed the Kenya/Tanzania embassies, the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole.

The US was not involved in Afghanistan in the 1990s, and it was in that period that the Taliban took over Afghanistan, and then invited Bin Laden and many other extremists to come to Afghanistan and open terrorist training camps. It was at these camps that Al-Qaeda, which formed a sort-of state within a state at the invitation of the Taliban, was able to plan and train-for the 9/11 attacks.

Following the slaughter of 3,000 Americans in a single morning, it is completely understandable and justifiable (and was the correct policy response) for the United States to invade Afghanistan in order to destroy the Al-Qaeda training camp network, kill or capture all Al-Qaeda members in the country and topple the Taliban regime which had given safe haven to international terrorists, resulting in horrific loss of life for America.



It's fascinating that you accept at face value the disingenuous words of a mass murderer. If Bin Laden was against the US being in the Middle East he wouldn't have carried out the 9/11 attacks.

Those who have even a passing familiarity with Al-Qaeda's history and ideology, and with what Bin Laden has said and written (including in private), know the fundamental goal of Al-Qaeda is to bring down the Middle Eastern governments (both secular, like Egypt, and religious/monarchical like Saudi Arabia) and impose a harsh Islamic dispensation.

In the mid-1990s Bin Laden realised these governments were too strong and they had too little support from the people. They called these MidEast governments the 'Near Enemy'. Bin Laden proposed that they should provoke the United States (which they called the 'Far Enemy) into invading the Middle East so that they can defeat it (like they did the Soviet Union). They concluded they would then be in a position to draw support from the people and overthrow these governments.

What Al-Qaeda did not count on was our far superior staying power, our constancy of purpose, our ability to leverage superior technology to defeat them over and over again.

And in any case, it seems like your strategy is basically predicated on, "What does Al-Qaeda want? Let's give it to them". Although even in doing that, you misunderstand what it is that Al-Qaeda actually wants.



I'm sorry but it's clear you have a shockingly poor general knowledge of recent history. The US was occupying no Middle Eastern countries when Al-Qaeda terrorists carried out the 9/11 attacks. It was those attacks that provoked the US to go into the Middle East.

You claim that if we leave, then it will just die out. That is completely contradicted by, I don't know, even a basic familiarity with recent Middle Eastern history. In 2007 and afterwards, the US implemented the 'surge' strategy in Iraq to destroy Al-Qaeda in Iraq's infrastructure and bring down the level of violence. By the time the US pulled out in 2011, the number of monthly deaths was reduced by 90% from its 2006 peak.

It was only after the US left (and thanks to the provocation of the hardline Shi'a government in Baghdad and the ungoverned spaces and opportunities created by the Syrian Civil War, in which the US was not involved at that time) that allowed AQI to become resurgent and then turn into ISIS, sweeping across Iraq and Syria and coming close to toppling the government in Baghdad.

If your theory were correct then that wouldn't have happened. But your theory is obviously not going to be correct if it's based on a very poor knowledge of history where you aren't even aware of the basic order of events (i.e. that 9/11 preceded the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq)

@D3LLI5

You're saying that Muslims would bomb western countries for not accepting Islam?

Stopping people following Islam, having strong borders to stop illegal migrants, completely stopping the idiotic concept of multiculturalism, having a migration policy that keeps migration levels at a sustainable rate to facilitate integration of migrants. A strong foreign policy focused on eradicating the most toxic forms of Islam to preempt random unwarranted attacks on the west such as 9/11.

Leaving the Middle East alone would lead to more 9/11s, since these toxic ideologies would have fertile breeding grounds and bases for operations against the west. The whole point of the war on terror was to ensure these groups had nowhere to establish themselves.