It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Nigel Farage tells Fox News there are no-go zones for non-Muslims in France
CNN apologizes for 'no-go zones' segments
It's sad that you allow rhetoric in your media like it is a requirement instead of striving to minimize it...
It sounds like excuses to you because you are putting words in my mouth.
In fact, after I told you that you were wrong, we should have stopped talking about this yet you continue to call me a liar.
Killing thousands of people? What about the cartels killing thousands of people?
Until you admit that I'm not making excuses for ISIS, yes.
Do the cartels not import drugs into your country? Because I'd bet that they do.
So? It's not like their attacks will destablize any governments. Just another crime.
How are you going to do this without creating new terrorists in the process?
No, it's a feud. It may be deeply ingrained, but a feud it is.
Sure the topic is proving that ISIS more than a regional threat. You've failed to do that.
Preemptive war... The strategy of chicken hawks. Hit them before they hit us. Just fuels the endless cycle of violence in our world. It would be nice to try peace for once...
originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
Are you sure ?
ISIS Mercenary Admits Getting Funds from US
Dutch Politician Has Secret Evidence Which Shows Turkey Delivered Weapons To Syrian Jihadists
Why they would they lie about playing a part in funding or creating such groups?
Ron Paul, Hillary Clinton & George Galloway are just 3 members of parliament expressing the same view.
Taliban had several meetings with US officials prior to becoming the boogey men, 1 of those were at the white house if I recall. There is a photo of it someone online.
originally posted by: neo96
The Taliban movement traces its origin to the Pakistani-trained mujahideen in northern Pakistan, during the Soviet war in Afghanistan
originally posted by: nullafides
Cool, thank you for saying that
It is funny how we place emotions even onto typed words on a screen, isn't it ?
I'm glad you stated this. Clarification is always an evil necessity. Sometimes it's nowhere near the easiest thing to actually state your thoughts, and far easier to throw up words as a defense instead.
I believe this is the crux of what I was wanting to get to. Words are powerful. As powerful, IMHO, as a loaded gun. And they lay as dormant as one, too. Ready for the right ignition point to set them off.
This is why am of the camp (one wherein I am probably alone that with the behavior of those such as ISIS, I *personally* would work (if it were my appropriateness to do so) to simply reply to the action and not bring in more emotion. Please don't get me wrong, I am not looking to insinuate that you are doing this intentionally. Nor am I looking to insult, not even in the slightest.
Let's say this were to happen to a loved one of mine. Beheaded. Well, I would personally look to not exact revenge, but to (pardon the pun) make a statement with my response. One that would be appropriate in tone, but also enough to drive the point home. The point I would be looking to drive home is, Do Not Look To Do This AGAIN. Period. It will not be tolerated on my part.
Does that make sense ? Please don't read anything pedantic into that, I am actually thinking out loud via the forum with that question. It's almost more of a question to myself than to anyone else, really.
I hope this reads as I intend it to come across, but I respectfully disagree. If we are creating more terrorists, as I *feel* is the modern day trend in oppositional thought (and that is the best way I can come up with phrasing it, at the moment), I wonder what else could possibly be done?
I for one am actively working towards a full acceptance of Buddhist beliefs and philosophy. Whereas I have been a (devout) agnostic all my life and raised to focus my thoughts on respect of others beliefs, I find more and more of my beliefs being a mirror of those that Buddha taught. A huge issue I have with the teachings though, is that of pacifism. I firmly believe that there should BE peace. But, it is an ideal. It is not the norm. In my opinion, that is. We are a violent race. We've proven it time and time again. And here I go again using the term "we", I hope you can infer my reason in using that word. I believe, have been taught, and have learned, that there are times when others will behave violently towards you and the ones you love. I feel that the appropriate response to this is one of defense.
Fair enough, I see your point.
KS, thank you for this discussion, I appreciate the opportunity
Unfortunately, given emotional injection, I do not feel discussions such as this are at all common. Here on ATS, or otherwise.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Eh... You need a label even when you are dealing with the actions. How else are you going to distinguish between the people that need punishing versus the innocents?
I also agree that defense is an acceptable form of violence, but attacking the Middle East to kill terrorists isn't defense. It is an act of unilateral aggression. Why are all the thousands of Muslims that we blow up that AREN'T terrorists acceptable losses for our war on terror; but a terrorist blows up a store, kills 3 or 4 people and it becomes a HUGE travesty?
Your welcome, I always try to minimize my emotional responses to people on these forums. All of my opinions are thought out logically after reviewing evidence from different sources with a healthy application of my BS detector (this is why I am good with definitions, because I know how to spot the rhetoric and wording that you are talking about in the first half of your post). It makes me unpopular though.
originally posted by: Freeborn
What on earth has Nigel Farage and no-go zones, real or not, got to do with IS, their perceived threat and the alleged irresponsible reporting of them by MSM and other news outlets?
Its not a question of what rhetoric I allow - I have no control at all over that.
I recognise that very few news outlets are completely free from rhetoric of one sort of another - I use my own judgement and experience to try and see through the rhetoric, recognise and analyse the facts and then form a considered opinion the best I can.
That's all any of us can do.
Yet again though, you dodge direct questions that I have asked of you.
You say reporting has been 'irresponsible' - show me how and exactly how would you have news agencies report events in the region?
The point is, it sounds like excuses to some, including myself.
Show me where I called you a liar.
Yet again, as much as you may wish it to be, this thread is not about 'the cartels' - its about IS.
To be honest, I understand your concerns about 'the cartels' etc and if I was an American living in America I think I'd probably share your concerns - but this thread is about IS and the threat etc that THEY pose.
I asked if you were calling me a liar when you said that you didn't believe that I whole heartedly agreed with your statement that there "are evils in both systems".
I've never suggested that 'western' society is perfect for the simple reason I don't think it is - far from it.
But that is a discussion for another thread.
Not at present - but there's the obvious risk of disruption and backlash to increased terrorist activity.
And I very much doubt you'd dismiss it as 'just another crime' if you or any of your loved one's were caught up in such a terrorist attack.
Obliterate IS and you automatically nullify their attraction.
Yet another casual dismissal of something I get the impression you don't fully understand the extent and nature of.
Even if that's true, which it may well be, why then do you insist on repeatedly bringing 'the cartels' into the discussion?
Are you deliberately seeking to derail the thread for some reason?
Or do you simply want to push your own personal agenda regardless of the topic under discussion?
More than an element of truth in that statement and normally I'd tend to agree with you - but do you honestly think IS are the type to appease and negotiate with?
They are particularly brutal and fanatical - sorry, me personally I'd rather us NOT take a chance with them.
You asked about misreporting.
I don't allow rhetoric in ANY of my news and I still am able to take news in from a large source of information. You know how I do that? I trained myself to detect BS.
I don't know maybe tone down the "WE ARE ALL GOING TO BE DOOMED BY THE MUSLIMS!" rhetoric a bit.
Maybe acknowledge that ISIS is just a regional threat with no real possibility of expanding beyond the Middle East;
You call me a liar when you doubt my words.
I don't care what it looks like to you,....
.....if I tell you I'm not making excuses.....
Oh I understand how important the feud is to the Muslim world. I've seen it in action while deployed in Iraq and I've discussed it with Muslims that I work with. A feud is a feud though. If you believe it is worse than a feud, what would you call it? Rivalry?
Yeah, I don't want to take a chance disturbing that hornet's nest either. Ignore them like we do all the Mexicans dying at the cartels' hands. The public will forget they were even a problem if the media stops reporting on them.