Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANON xx)
    Haha - wow justifying your close-minded opinion and your education or lack thereof on a Student Forum.
    You make me laugh
    He said I was uneducated and didn't have a good or influential job. I was pointing out how he was completely off.

    I don't see the problem with that
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alain22)
    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?
    Stop people following radical Islam.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pleasantri)
    Stop people following radical Islam.
    I agree. But how? We're too closely tied with Saudi Arabia.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D3LLI5)
    Throwing around buzzwords like fascism without actually understanding what they mean does not constitute a reason against stopping the worship of Islam. Policies should be made off their own merits not because 'it might be [[inaccurately]] labelled fascist".

    1. Stopping people believing in Islam cannot be done in a flash, granted, but re-education and moulding young minds while at school will statistically contribute to a reduction. Throwing around terms like the Streisand effect without understanding them properly is not an argument either, the same argument you just made there could be used to justify legalising murder, since banning it will apparently just make people want to do it more.

    2. Strong borders also includes a strong group focused on finding, fining and deporting illegal immigrants. Such methods of illegal immigration you mention can also be prevented by proper administration.

    3. Integration involves changing your cultural values to fit the values of the host country. An example of this is not wearing the burka but it would also include such things as having fewer children, actually interacting with natives, speaking English, having loyalty to the country etc etc

    4. A strong foreign policy is a general term, it involves such things as direct military action, accepting human losses, taking a pragmatic approach, saying no to countries who disagree with you etc. The current foreign policy of European states is by those metrics not strong.

    5. There's a reason it's always filled with Islamic extremists. Get rid of Islam and they might actually stand a chance of developing civilized democracies.

    6. Homegrown terrorism is a direct result of multiculturalism, allowing people to live in parallel societies within your country, detesting everything about it, leads to such attacks
    You sound like a Nazi. I'm sure your great Cambridge education would've educated you about the Nazi's strategy to plant the seed of hatred and anti-Semitism from a young age. Your first point says that "re-education and moulding young minds while at school will statistically contribute to a reduction" in Islam. Guess what?
    The Nazis did the same thing. Brainwashed young children into hating the Jews from such a young age that their adult life was dominated by it, effectively securing their allegiance to the Nazis.
    People like you promote hate and it's disgusting.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANON xx)
    Wow,you really are so contradictory. So it apparently isn't barbaric when the West bombs the Middle East - typical double standards.
    Islam is perfection - Muslims aren't.
    Understand the difference, you close-minded prick
    The West bombs the middle east to kill the terrorists. The terrorists bomb the west to kill innocent civilians. If you can't see how the west has the moral superiority here then you are mentally impaired.

    Islam is absolutely not perfect, the scriptures are filled with disgusting teachings and laughable fairytales such as flying horses. The fact you think something is completely perfect shows you lack the mental capacity to critically analyse ideologies, yet you call me closed-minded.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    So far no realistic credible solutions. This is why the world has been drifting towards an ever increasing liberal world over the past 100 years.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D3LLI5)
    The West bombs the middle east to kill the terrorists. The terrorists bomb the west to kill innocent civilians. If you can't see how the west has the moral superiority here then you are mentally impaired.
    Western intervention has led to far more innocent deaths in the middle east than terrorism from islamists.

    Looking at purely the purpose you may convince yourself that the west is morally superior but the stats dont lie.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANON xx)
    You sound like a Nazi. I'm sure your great Cambridge education would've educated you about the Nazi's strategy to plant the seed of hatred and anti-Semitism from a young age. Your first point says that "re-education and moulding young minds while at school will statistically contribute to a reduction" in Islam. Guess what?
    The Nazis did the same thing. Brainwashed young children into hating the Jews from such a young age that their adult life was dominated by it, effectively securing their allegiance to the Nazis.
    People like you promote hate and it's disgusting.
    When did I ever mention encouraging hate?

    The people we would be re-educating and moulding are the people who would otherwise become muslims. It's not about teaching people to hate muslims, rather discouraging them from becoming muslims.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alain22)
    I agree. But how? We're too closely tied with Saudi Arabia.
    I agree we need to end diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia (regardless of the cost)

    I don't see that as a reason to engage with terrorists in other areas.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alain22)
    So far no realistic credible solutions. This is why the world has been drifting towards an ever increasing liberal world over the past 100 years.
    after look at the first solution proposed to you, you simply just discarded it without giving any evidence why so that first solution still holds because you haven't disproved it

    you pretty much have just ignored a perfectly good solution and just dismissed it without evidence

    so what can be asserted without evidence(you claim that it's not an intelligent solution) can also be dismissed without evidence
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alain22)
    Again, it's impractical. Also this thread is for realistic solutions that can pass through the house of commons not right wing crap.
    Sorry, I was actually being sarcastic
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by will'o'wisp2)
    after look at the first solution proposed to you, you simply just discarded it without giving any evidence why so that first solution still holds because you haven't disproved it

    you pretty much have just ignored a perfectly good solution and just dismissed it without evidence

    so what can be asserted without evidence(you claim that it's not an intelligent solution) can also be dismissed without evidence
    Incorrect. I refuted it thoroughly.

    Also it's not something realistic to implement.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alain22)
    Western intervention has led to far more innocent deaths in the middle east than terrorism from islamists.

    Looking at purely the purpose you may convince yourself that the west is morally superior but the stats dont lie.
    And your point is? The west is more powerful and capable of waging war than islamists, hence there are more military actions by the west, and since military actions have collateral damage, more civilians are injured by western military action than international terrorism. You're intentionally looking at statistics in a completely naive and ignorant way.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D3LLI5)
    And your point is? The west is more powerful and capable of waging war than islamists, hence there are more military actions by the west, and since military actions have collateral damage, more civilians are injured by western military action than international terrorism. You're intentionally looking at statistics in a completely naive and ignorant way.
    Except that you're claiming moral superiority. If we've killed more innocents than they have, how can you possibly conclude that we have the moral superiority? We don't.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alain22)
    Incorrect. I refuted it thoroughly.

    Also it's not something realistic to implement.

    (Original post by alain22)
    As expected no intelligent solution. This is why you people reside on the internet as opposed to going to good unis or having a good influential job.

    Next.

    (Original post by D3LLI5)
    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.
    im sure your refute here definitely points out the flaws in this solution

    i've just read your reply to ^solution guy up there and all i can see from an argument standpoint is idiocy from you solution guy has reasonable solutions
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by will'o'wisp2)
    im sure your refute here definitely points out the flaws in this solution

    i've just read your reply to ^solution guy up there and all i can see from an argument standpoint is idiocy from you solution guy has reasonable solutions
    Keep looking through the thread.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alain22)
    1. you haven't explained why the streisand effect does not apply here.

    2. And how will that work? where will the money come from?

    3. An authoritarian approach is simply not feasible

    4. Good. And then when the next al qaeda comes and blows up another two of our skyscrapers we'll accept those losses too.

    5. How do you get rid of an idea though? It's impossible.

    None of your solutions are really realistic and have a chance of being accepted and passed through as law. You pretend like it'll work but you seem to ignore the ramifications that'll come with it. Again, it's lazy thinking. You believe that doing one thing will go smoothly and that'll be the only way it goes.
    1. because nobody is saying Islam doesn't exist or conspiring to prevent people believing in it. The government would be completely open and clear about the fact that it is a disgusting ideology and that it is bad that people subscribe to such views.

    2. It's not difficult to work out, you're being intentionally stupid now. It also will hardly be prohibitively expensive, we already have state funded education.

    3. So now your argument is to just label it as 'unfeasible' rather than present an argument. Seems like you don't have one.

    4. 9/11 happened before the war on terror. The whole idea was that al-qaeda was able to pull it off because they had a base from which to organise, train and disseminate propaganda. Strong foreign policy prevents these groups from establishing anywhere, making it less likely that there will be another 9/11.

    5. You can reduce the numbers of people believing in the idea. It's really not that hard to understand. People don't believe in greek gods anymore, hence it's obviously not impossible for people to stop believing in islam.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alain22)
    Except that you're claiming moral superiority. If we've killed more innocents than they have, how can you possibly conclude that we have the moral superiority? We don't.
    Ok so imagine someone walks into a school assembly and blows themself up, killing 200 kids. Total innocent people dead = 200

    Now we have guards posted on the doors, unfortunately they shoot 5 kids every time they shoot a terrorist trying to blow the kids up.

    You suddenly learn that 300 terrorists are going to blow up 300 school assemblies.

    Looking back at what just one terrorist managed, you decide to post the guards and accept the collateral damage. Total innocent dead = 1500, total innocent saved = 58500.

    Looking just at the number of innocents killed, you would say the terrorists are the morally superior people here.

    Do you see how ignorant and small minded your superficial understanding of statistics is?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D3LLI5)
    1. because nobody is saying Islam doesn't exist or conspiring to prevent people believing in it. The government would be completely open and clear about the fact that it is a disgusting ideology and that it is bad that people subscribe to such views.

    2. It's not difficult to work out, you're being intentionally stupid now. It also will hardly be prohibitively expensive, we already have state funded education.

    3. So now your argument is to just label it as 'unfeasible' rather than present an argument. Seems like you don't have one.

    4. 9/11 happened before the war on terror. The whole idea was that al-qaeda was able to pull it off because they had a base from which to organise, train and disseminate propaganda. Strong foreign policy prevents these groups from establishing anywhere, making it less likely that there will be another 9/11.

    5. You can reduce the numbers of people believing in the idea. It's really not that hard to understand. People don't believe in greek gods anymore, hence it's obviously not impossible for people to stop believing in islam.
    1. The streisand effect occurs exactly as a result of that you retard. Do you think muslims will go "Oh look the govt says my religion is evil im going to stop practising".

    2. Again, more retard drivel from you.

    3. It's unrealistic. Never gonna happen like any of what you dream of.

    4. You keep saying terrorism cant happen to such a scale. All these policies will just give the more pretext to attack,

    You're a complete retard, typical compsci recluse loner. Not even sure why I bothered with you, your solutions are unrealistic and you seem to have this belief that no unintended consequences will occur as a result.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D3LLI5)
    Ok so imagine someone walks into a school assembly and blows themself up, killing 200 kids. Total innocent people dead = 200

    Now we have guards posted on the doors, unfortunately they shoot 5 kids every time they shoot a terrorist trying to blow the kids up.

    You suddenly learn that 300 terrorists are going to blow up 300 school assemblies.

    Looking back at what just one terrorist managed, you decide to post the guards and accept the collateral damage. Total innocent dead = 1500, total innocent saved = 58500.

    Looking just at the number of innocents killed, you would say the terrorists are the morally superior people here.

    Do you see how ignorant and small minded your superficial understanding of statistics is?
    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.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 8, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.