|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
How can you say "ISIS controlled territories" and not grasp that the strength of the organization, their ability to conduct attacks in Europe, is fundamentally connected to controlling an area the size of a country? Do you consider Al-Qaeda has become more or less of a threat after the assassinations of its leadership and it being stamped out of territories where it enjoyed a safe haven?
Dude, the last attacks (incidentally the worst in a long time) were self-radicalized groups. They weren't recruited by ISIS. They weren't funded by ISIS. If ISIS would've been destroyed a year ago, these attacks STILL would've happened, because there's no connection other than resonating with the ideology of ISIS and thinking that Sharia Law > all, djihad etc.
Islamic fundamentalism is NOTHING that you can bomb. And frankly, you're an idiot if you think so. Apart from the obvious fact that we already have the next terror-group in the pipes - or do you think that remaining ISIS members and/or self radicalized cells wouldn't flock around al nusra when ISIS is gone?
|
On February 07 2016 11:57 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2016 11:55 Nyxisto wrote:On February 07 2016 11:40 cLutZ wrote:On February 07 2016 11:27 m4ini wrote:
Sigh, because obviously, "overwhelming air power" will help destroying a "philosophy".
Cute btw that he still thinks that carpet bombing is not indiscriminate. Either he knows and he's lying, or he doesn't know what carpet bombing actually is. Worked on Nazism no? Its all rhetorical nonsense on ISIS by all 9 still running though. The only viable options are 1) Completely disengage; 2) What is essentially assassinations ala the Bin Laden raid, just more often; or 3) Total destruction via airpower and artillery plus ground occupation with over 200k troops ala Dresden. Its a nasty truth, but post WWII wars 100% support this, basically, all or nothing approach. What worked on Nazism was rolling tanks into the Reichstag (and the Soviets actually won that war, despite Hollywood's bet efforts to suggest the opposite), and the second World war wasn't asymmetric warfare to say the least. Apart from the obvious problem that while national socialism as a form of government died out, nazi ideology certainly didn't. Not even close. Why someone would assume it would be different against something that you can't "remove", is simply beyond me.
It didn't die out in the sense of "there literally is no Nazi any more on German soil", but it did die out in the sense that Germany now has a strong civil society like the UK or France and isn't dominated by Nazi ideology any more. So you definitely can defeat these ideologies, you just have to put tremendous amounts of resources into it. I do think though that the Western nations aren't the ones to do that in the Middle-East. The neighboring nations and the people themselves need to do it, which is a problem given how unstable the region as a whole is.
|
On February 07 2016 12:14 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2016 11:57 m4ini wrote:On February 07 2016 11:55 Nyxisto wrote:On February 07 2016 11:40 cLutZ wrote:On February 07 2016 11:27 m4ini wrote:
Sigh, because obviously, "overwhelming air power" will help destroying a "philosophy".
Cute btw that he still thinks that carpet bombing is not indiscriminate. Either he knows and he's lying, or he doesn't know what carpet bombing actually is. Worked on Nazism no? Its all rhetorical nonsense on ISIS by all 9 still running though. The only viable options are 1) Completely disengage; 2) What is essentially assassinations ala the Bin Laden raid, just more often; or 3) Total destruction via airpower and artillery plus ground occupation with over 200k troops ala Dresden. Its a nasty truth, but post WWII wars 100% support this, basically, all or nothing approach. What worked on Nazism was rolling tanks into the Reichstag (and the Soviets actually won that war, despite Hollywood's bet efforts to suggest the opposite), and the second World war wasn't asymmetric warfare to say the least. Apart from the obvious problem that while national socialism as a form of government died out, nazi ideology certainly didn't. Not even close. Why someone would assume it would be different against something that you can't "remove", is simply beyond me. It didn't die out in the sense of "there literally is no Nazi any more on German soil", but it did die out in the sense that Germany now has a strong civil society like the UK or France and isn't dominated by Nazi ideology any more. So you definitely can defeat these ideologies, you just have to put tremendous amounts of resources into it.
Wanna bet you have more neo-nazis on the planet than radicalized muslims? They certainly are "brandmarkt" (like, uhm.. "outcast"?) - but so are terrorists by actual, proper muslims.
The difference being that nazis in general don't blow themselves up if they disagree with your values. We (or they, if you want) bombed the nazis to hell, good. Now 70odd years later, you have 20 year old neo-nazis.
I don't understand the thinking process of a person who's arguing that this wouldn't happen with much more radical group like djihadists, islamic fundamentalists etc.
edit: especially because that bombing thing? That is pretty much instrumentalized by radicals. Look at the US election, what terms they use etc, to fool lesser educated americans - how easy do you think it is to win an actual under- or even uneducated person for your djihad-cause?
The middle east has to sort itself out. Only muslims can defeat ISIS. That's what i think.
|
On February 07 2016 12:14 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2016 11:57 m4ini wrote:On February 07 2016 11:55 Nyxisto wrote:On February 07 2016 11:40 cLutZ wrote:On February 07 2016 11:27 m4ini wrote:
Sigh, because obviously, "overwhelming air power" will help destroying a "philosophy".
Cute btw that he still thinks that carpet bombing is not indiscriminate. Either he knows and he's lying, or he doesn't know what carpet bombing actually is. Worked on Nazism no? Its all rhetorical nonsense on ISIS by all 9 still running though. The only viable options are 1) Completely disengage; 2) What is essentially assassinations ala the Bin Laden raid, just more often; or 3) Total destruction via airpower and artillery plus ground occupation with over 200k troops ala Dresden. Its a nasty truth, but post WWII wars 100% support this, basically, all or nothing approach. What worked on Nazism was rolling tanks into the Reichstag (and the Soviets actually won that war, despite Hollywood's bet efforts to suggest the opposite), and the second World war wasn't asymmetric warfare to say the least. Apart from the obvious problem that while national socialism as a form of government died out, nazi ideology certainly didn't. Not even close. Why someone would assume it would be different against something that you can't "remove", is simply beyond me. It didn't die out in the sense of "there literally is no Nazi any more on German soil", but it did die out in the sense that Germany now has a strong civil society like the UK or France and isn't dominated by Nazi ideology any more. So you definitely can defeat these ideologies, you just have to put tremendous amounts of resources into it. I do think though that the Western nations aren't the ones to do that in the Middle-East. The neighboring nations and the people themselves need to do it, which is a problem given how unstable the region as a whole is.
My second 10/10/of the night. Also bravo for your earlier recognition of Russia being the ones that bled the Germans.
|
I think we can all agree that half ass wars are the worse option, by far.
|
On February 07 2016 12:21 GoTuNk! wrote:
I think we can all agree that half ass wars are the worse option, by far.
I don't think a war from our side is any option at all. Neither direct nor proxy, like in the 80s.
My second 10/10/of the night. Also bravo for your earlier recognition of Russia being the ones that bled the Germans.
That's pretty much the general consensus everywhere but in the US and UK, as a sidenote.
|
Cruz's bald spot is distracting me.
|
Has everyone already given up on the debate?
On February 07 2016 12:23 xDaunt wrote:
Cruz's bald spot is distracting me.
I feel like that's a yes
|
Cruz's answers have actually been good, but he's more subdued this time, so it won't help him.
Also, I don't think he knows the mic picks up that little tap on the table that he does.
|
Unrelated, in any debate, was there a question about what those guys (dems or reps) want to do in regards to police brutality and manipulation?
|
On February 07 2016 12:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Has everyone already given up on the debate? I feel like that's a yes
Enjoying it.
|
On February 07 2016 12:09 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +How can you say "ISIS controlled territories" and not grasp that the strength of the organization, their ability to conduct attacks in Europe, is fundamentally connected to controlling an area the size of a country? Do you consider Al-Qaeda has become more or less of a threat after the assassinations of its leadership and it being stamped out of territories where it enjoyed a safe haven?
Dude, the last attacks (incidentally the worst in a long time) were self-radicalized groups. They weren't recruited by ISIS. They weren't funded by ISIS. If ISIS would've been destroyed a year ago, these attacks STILL would've happened, because there's no connection other than resonating with the ideology of ISIS and thinking that Sharia Law > all, djihad etc. Islamic fundamentalism is NOTHING that you can bomb. And frankly, you're an idiot if you think so. Apart from the obvious fact that we already have the next terror-group in the pipes - or do you think that remaining ISIS members and/or self radicalized cells wouldn't flock around al nusra when ISIS is gone?
By self-radicalized, you mean that of their own volition, they gave their allegiance to a terrorist organization?
Saying that you "cannot bomb an ideology," as I often hear, is vacuous as you can't "do" anything to an ideology as such. This may be why you overlooked what I said about Nazism, because you seem to be selectively ignoring the fact that since the war in Europe ended, Nazism has had almost no effect on society.
|
|
|
On February 07 2016 12:25 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2016 12:09 m4ini wrote:How can you say "ISIS controlled territories" and not grasp that the strength of the organization, their ability to conduct attacks in Europe, is fundamentally connected to controlling an area the size of a country? Do you consider Al-Qaeda has become more or less of a threat after the assassinations of its leadership and it being stamped out of territories where it enjoyed a safe haven?
Dude, the last attacks (incidentally the worst in a long time) were self-radicalized groups. They weren't recruited by ISIS. They weren't funded by ISIS. If ISIS would've been destroyed a year ago, these attacks STILL would've happened, because there's no connection other than resonating with the ideology of ISIS and thinking that Sharia Law > all, djihad etc. Islamic fundamentalism is NOTHING that you can bomb. And frankly, you're an idiot if you think so. Apart from the obvious fact that we already have the next terror-group in the pipes - or do you think that remaining ISIS members and/or self radicalized cells wouldn't flock around al nusra when ISIS is gone? By self-radicalized, you mean that of their own volition, they gave their allegiance to a terrorist organization? Saying that you "cannot bomb an ideology," as I often hear, is vacuous as you can't "do" anything to an ideology as such. This may be why you overlooked what I said about Nazism, because you seem to be selectively ignoring the fact that since the war in Europe ended, Nazism has had almost no effect on society.
Again. You want to compare Nazism to religious fundamentalism? How many suicide-nazis have you seen in history after WW2?
Right. Now have a hard think as to why that's different. You will have a very big problem if you have as many radicalized muslims as you have neo-nazis.
And no, i never said "you can't do anything against an ideology". I said "WE can't do anything against that.". Spot the difference.
|
I mean obviously every country has given up tremendous amounts of lives in WW2 but the Eastern Front was just on a different scale. The Russians lost 20 million people, at the time that was like every fifth or six citizen. It's a little weird how the focus over the decades has shifted away from that side of the war towards the Western front especially in popular media, film etc..
|
On February 07 2016 12:28 Nyxisto wrote:I mean obviously every country has given up tremendous amounts of lives in WW2 but the Eastern Front was just on a different scale. The Russians lost 20 million people, at the time that was like every fifth or six citizen. It's a little weird how the focus over the decades has shifted away from that side of the war towards the Western front especially in popular media, film etc..
It's because us Westerners made all the movies and wrote the books, but Russia became the USSR... they lost the culture war in addition to the Cold War after WW2
EDIT: to be clear I am completely agreeing with you
|
On February 07 2016 12:28 Nyxisto wrote:I mean obviously every country has given up tremendous amounts of lives in WW2 but the Eastern Front was just on a different scale. The Russians lost 20 million people, at the time that was like every fifth or six citizen. It's a little weird how the focus over the decades has shifted away from that side of the war towards the Western front especially in popular media, film etc..
Doesn't really seem weird that media produced in predominately western nations will focus on the western front or try to make it more important. Especially with the tension that existed between the west/east after WWII.
|
On February 07 2016 12:27 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2016 12:25 oBlade wrote:On February 07 2016 12:09 m4ini wrote:How can you say "ISIS controlled territories" and not grasp that the strength of the organization, their ability to conduct attacks in Europe, is fundamentally connected to controlling an area the size of a country? Do you consider Al-Qaeda has become more or less of a threat after the assassinations of its leadership and it being stamped out of territories where it enjoyed a safe haven?
Dude, the last attacks (incidentally the worst in a long time) were self-radicalized groups. They weren't recruited by ISIS. They weren't funded by ISIS. If ISIS would've been destroyed a year ago, these attacks STILL would've happened, because there's no connection other than resonating with the ideology of ISIS and thinking that Sharia Law > all, djihad etc. Islamic fundamentalism is NOTHING that you can bomb. And frankly, you're an idiot if you think so. Apart from the obvious fact that we already have the next terror-group in the pipes - or do you think that remaining ISIS members and/or self radicalized cells wouldn't flock around al nusra when ISIS is gone? By self-radicalized, you mean that of their own volition, they gave their allegiance to a terrorist organization? Saying that you "cannot bomb an ideology," as I often hear, is vacuous as you can't "do" anything to an ideology as such. This may be why you overlooked what I said about Nazism, because you seem to be selectively ignoring the fact that since the war in Europe ended, Nazism has had almost no effect on society. Again. You want to compare Nazism to religious fundamentalism? How many suicide-nazis have you seen in history after WW2? Right. Now have a hard think as to why that's different. You will have a very big problem if you have as many radicalized muslims as you have neo-nazis. And no, i never said "you can't do anything against an ideology". I said "WE can't do anything against that.". Spot the difference.
I don't see many Nazis at all, which is why I consider your claim that there are more neo-Nazis than radical Muslims in the world to be dubious.
|
On February 07 2016 12:32 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2016 12:27 m4ini wrote:On February 07 2016 12:25 oBlade wrote:On February 07 2016 12:09 m4ini wrote:How can you say "ISIS controlled territories" and not grasp that the strength of the organization, their ability to conduct attacks in Europe, is fundamentally connected to controlling an area the size of a country? Do you consider Al-Qaeda has become more or less of a threat after the assassinations of its leadership and it being stamped out of territories where it enjoyed a safe haven?
Dude, the last attacks (incidentally the worst in a long time) were self-radicalized groups. They weren't recruited by ISIS. They weren't funded by ISIS. If ISIS would've been destroyed a year ago, these attacks STILL would've happened, because there's no connection other than resonating with the ideology of ISIS and thinking that Sharia Law > all, djihad etc. Islamic fundamentalism is NOTHING that you can bomb. And frankly, you're an idiot if you think so. Apart from the obvious fact that we already have the next terror-group in the pipes - or do you think that remaining ISIS members and/or self radicalized cells wouldn't flock around al nusra when ISIS is gone? By self-radicalized, you mean that of their own volition, they gave their allegiance to a terrorist organization? Saying that you "cannot bomb an ideology," as I often hear, is vacuous as you can't "do" anything to an ideology as such. This may be why you overlooked what I said about Nazism, because you seem to be selectively ignoring the fact that since the war in Europe ended, Nazism has had almost no effect on society. Again. You want to compare Nazism to religious fundamentalism? How many suicide-nazis have you seen in history after WW2? Right. Now have a hard think as to why that's different. You will have a very big problem if you have as many radicalized muslims as you have neo-nazis. And no, i never said "you can't do anything against an ideology". I said "WE can't do anything against that.". Spot the difference. I don't see many Nazis at all, which is why I consider your claim that there are more neo-Nazis than radical Muslims in the world to be dubious.
5600 in germany alone (and that's not including other right-wing-extremists, just people that are registered as neo-nazi). You know, the country that is widely considered as the nowadays least nazi-friendly country.
On the other hand, you didn't see "many" Nazis - how many terrorists have you seen then? Do they even exist? Because i bet you have never seen a single one.
http://www.netz-gegen-nazis.de/artikel/verfassungsschutzbericht-2014-zahlen-daten-fakten-10459
And that's from the "Verfassungsschutz", Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution. And that's NOT including the ones that are not "registered".
|
closing time thank goodness. this one was a slog for me.
Kasich: generic closing, came across as reasoned but didn't really differentiate himself. Very Jeb-ish honestly B
Christie: okay ending, destroyed Rubio, had a solid debate A-
Bush: closing statement in line with the rest: a pretty solid debate, definitely held his own against the Donald and faced his fears B+
Carson: forgettable until the moderators bring him back in. his "i'm still here" seems more to convince himself he's still there C
Rubio: he got lucky that Christie laid off him after the start, but he's gonna get PTSD every time he sees a fat man C+
Cruz: god i hate the man, but he did alright i guess B
Trump: alright, probably took a little more dirt than he needed to but losing to Bush and getting booed gets him a B
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
