To Lay Siege To ISIS Lands and Deport All Muslim Refugees - Morally Bankrupt or Common Sense? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14812484
Ever since the London Terrorist bombing at that kids concert in London, I've found myself feeling a desire to put a definitive and decisive end to this Radical Islamic Terror fad. Partly because I am a father of 3 young adolescent aliens, and partly for a number or other concerns I have. Not the least of which is that they openly profess a deep desire to blow shit up in my home.

The solution I find "workable" and "palatable" involves the "re-patriation" of the recent Muslim refugees, and the combined military of NATO laying siege to ISIS controlled lands.
It sounds rather brutal perhaps but, theoretically it could be executed with nary a bomb dropped.

So the question becomes:
Is it morally and/or ethically "acceptable" for The West to enact such a plan?
#14812528
Please Ignore @Suntzu, he seems to have no sense of morality and he is a holocaust denier.

Such a plan could be acceptable if it was voluntary. If you force refugees to go back home, that is just a plain bad idea, but if you gave them a choice along with starting/assisting international efforts to help develop the middle east such a plan is feasible. Once ISIS is defeated, launch a program that will invest in education, welfare, and so on in the middle east, making it a more pleasant place to live and decreasing the recruitment base/incentive of future terrorists.
#14812614
I have a feeling that if people have lived in refugee camps 1 or more years being vetted by prospective countries, then moved and been granted citizenship, they will be unlikely to want to return if there's any chance in hell ISIL isn't dead in the water.
#14812624
Buzz62 wrote:
So the question becomes:
Is it morally and/or ethically "acceptable" for The West to enact such a plan?



It depends on the tipping point. It all depends who is the nation and who is their leader. A nation that can vote for such man has no future.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... iroun.html

But sometimes it's historical process. During all the 30's the British still sought for appeasement. Seems right now we are still in the 30's
Last edited by noir on 08 Jun 2017 11:12, edited 1 time in total.
#14812629
Buzz62 wrote:the combined military of NATO laying siege to ISIS controlled lands.
It sounds rather brutal perhaps but, theoretically it could be executed with nary a bomb dropped.

On the face of it, this makes no sense. I think you need to explain what you mean before anyone can discuss it. How does a military 'siege' work without using weapons? Since bombs are already being dropped on ISIS, you appear to be calling for a de-escalation of the conflict.
#14812649
ISIS has land because of the west. To kill ISIS just stop attacking the forces that keep it from arising in the first place. Start by stopping the jihadist infusion into Syria. Stop training future ISIS recruits in Jordan. Quarantine Saudi Arabia. The west is being attacked because it wants to be. It upholds terrorist supporters, engineers Jihadists and lets them in through its borders.

So after disengaging from the ME, and quarantining KSA, hang every single western politician on earth, focusing on Europe and North America. Destroy the establishments.

Suddenly problem solved overnight.
#14812669
MememyselfandIJK wrote:Please Ignore @Suntzu, he seems to have no sense of morality and he is a holocaust denier.

Such a plan could be acceptable if it was voluntary. If you force refugees to go back home, that is just a plain bad idea, but if you gave them a choice along with starting/assisting international efforts to help develop the middle east such a plan is feasible. Once ISIS is defeated, launch a program that will invest in education, welfare, and so on in the middle east, making it a more pleasant place to live and decreasing the recruitment base/incentive of future terrorists.

That sort of negotiation would have to come after the overall plan is executed.
People on both sides of this issue need to first understand that this is no Obama-style "line in the sand" or whatever, but is already being executed and will continue to be executed until such time as there is a reasonable guarantee that organized aggressions are over.
I would have no problem negotiating this.
I do however believe that the Arab Muslim nations require strong leadership the likes of which we in the west would find...
Putin-like.
Saddam-like
Assad-like

Additional Thought:
@Igor Antunov
Dude...you have an amazing way of making rational statements, closely followed by fairly asinine ones.
#14812834
Buzz62 wrote:That sort of negotiation would have to come after the overall plan is executed.
People on both sides of this issue need to first understand that this is no Obama-style "line in the sand" or whatever, but is already being executed and will continue to be executed until such time as there is a reasonable guarantee that organized aggressions are over.
I would have no problem negotiating this.
I do however believe that the Arab Muslim nations require strong leadership the likes of which we in the west would find...
Putin-like.
Saddam-like
Assad-like


Of course. It makes no sense to offer reconstruction in an area that is still plagued with dictatorships and instability.

Suntzu wrote:Islam is a disease
All of religion is a disease and the only cure is rationality.
#14813099
MememyselfandIJK wrote:Of course. It makes no sense to offer reconstruction in an area that is still plagued with dictatorships and instability.

All of religion is a disease and the only cure is rationality.

OK the religion barb I agree with. Personally I'd like to see "The Dirty Three" reduced to a macabre bedtime story but... 8)

However to your first point, why not?
We "westerners" seem to have this notion that our democratic, free societies are something everyone "deserves" or should have. This has never made any sense to me. Why do you think Russia keeps producing strongly militaristic dictator-like leaders? Do you really think it's just a sad case of a thug usurping power?
Not every culture wants or needs western style values or politics.
We should come to grips with that.
#14813207
Buzz62 wrote:OK the religion barb I agree with. Personally I'd like to see "The Dirty Three" reduced to a macabre bedtime story but... However to your first point, why not?We "westerners" seem to have this notion that our democratic, free societies are something everyone "deserves" or should have. This has never made any sense to me. Why do you think Russia keeps producing strongly militaristic dictator-like leaders? Do you really think it's just a sad case of a thug usurping power?Not every culture wants or needs western style values or politics.We should come to grips with that.
Dictatorships are fine. Unpopular ones are not. nor is instability. The west does needs to learn that it can't push democracy on places that don't want it, but it can't just dump its people in the middle of an unpopular regime or a warzone.
#14813958
Maybe we're getting side-tracked.
The question is:
Is it morally and/or ethically "acceptable" for The West to enact such a plan?
The "plan" being to lay siege to ISIS held lands...perhaps more if needed.
It also involved the "herding" of pretty much all Muslim asylum seekers in Europe and the NATO nations, back to the country of origin with a piece of paper that simply says, "Application Denied."

I do realize the implications of executing such a plan, and find I even question myself?
Is that going too far? Is it "cold"?
What's "too far" when I can see them warning us that they are coming, and it's not gonna be a picnic?
Should the west really try to simply absorb the shock of a violent foreign element in order to satisfy our own sense of morality?
Especially when those who conduct this violent exhibition, are either actual citizens of our lands who have been "radicalized", or migrants who must have lied originally in order to gain any sort of admittance.
Is it dangerous to handcuff ourselves with such morality, in the face of a dangerous enemy who has introduced this Guerrilla warfare religious conflict?
How far do we go in order to protect?
#14814089
This is not one plan; it's two separate plans.

ISIS held territory is already "under siege" - look in the news for "Raqqa" and "Mosul", the 2 major cities they now hold. A plan about this needs to state how this will be done differently for it to be discussed.

Most of the asylum seekers in Europe did not come from land currently held by ISIS. So this is a different matter. As Buzz62 puts it, "herding" over a million people is not a simple matter. This involves the cooperation of the governments where you want your planes or ships onto which you have forced the people to receive them. This has been tried on a small scale with Turkey, but doing it with over a million will be far harder. The countries likely to cooperate on a small scale will point out they are just where the refugee camps are, and can't take hundreds of thousands. If the idea is to, say, establish a beachhead in Syria with military force, land the Syrian refugees there, and then run away, you have to consider how many would die when you've plonked hundreds of thousands down somewhere you were able to invade, which won't be able to support such a population (plus how may died in the military operation).

You have to decide how many deaths you're willing to cause so that you don't have any more refugees in your country. And also consider if this might count as genocide, the way the Turkish treatment of the Armenians did in World War One (forcing huge numbers of people into places unable to support them, in roughly the same area).
#14814120
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:This is not one plan; it's two separate plans.

OK fine...a program with 2 projects.

Prosthetic Conscience wrote:ISIS held territory is already "under siege" - look in the news for "Raqqa" and "Mosul", the 2 major cities they now hold. A plan about this needs to state how this will be done differently for it to be discussed.

Correction, it's under assault. However it's "assaulting" right back in the Philippines and Australia now I believe. I propose we stop attacking them, and just isolate them. Cut off from trade, travel, communications, food, medicine, everything. Order Iran, Syria, the Saudis and Iraqis to hold and prepare to form part of a link that will completely cut these lands off from everything. If they refuse, add them to the isolation area. Make it perfectly clear that this horse-shit ends now.
Of course, Russia and China would have to be in agreement and willing to participate.
And Egypt, Turkey and the like will try to smuggle in "humanitarian aid", which the force would have to repel as well. Yes...it would be ugly.

Prosthetic Conscience wrote:Most of the asylum seekers in Europe did not come from land currently held by ISIS. So this is a different matter. As Buzz62 puts it, "herding" over a million people is not a simple matter. This involves the cooperation of the governments where you want your planes or ships onto which you have forced the people to receive them. This has been tried on a small scale with Turkey, but doing it with over a million will be far harder. The countries likely to cooperate on a small scale will point out they are just where the refugee camps are, and can't take hundreds of thousands. If the idea is to, say, establish a beachhead in Syria with military force, land the Syrian refugees there, and then run away, you have to consider how many would die when you've plonked hundreds of thousands down somewhere you were able to invade, which won't be able to support such a population (plus how may died in the military operation).

You have to decide how many deaths you're willing to cause so that you don't have any more refugees in your country. And also consider if this might count as genocide, the way the Turkish treatment of the Armenians did in World War One (forcing huge numbers of people into places unable to support them, in roughly the same area).

As I said, I do understand the implications. Thousands would die.
That's sort of part of the question here, isn't it?
Could we stand to look at ourselves after doing it?
Or would we wallow in shame for having shut out and starved out so many, just to keep the worst of them from blowing up kids at a concert?
#14819874
Morally bankrupt or common sense? Neither: because both propositions are impractical and do not address the cause of the problem. Unfortunately, that cause is not agreed upon in the West. Its like Trump's travel ban, which is nothing more than keeping up the appearance of doing something. If Islamic terrorism is the problem, then there are so many legal possibilities for Muslim access to the US, as well as those already in the country.

Is any party going to make a sensible decision? No. Why? Because they all have different agendas. The so-called terrorist-militant-extremist-islamist-fundamentalists cite instructions in the Koran, Western subversion of Islamic morality, and support for the State of Israel. So called moderate Muslims cannot entirely disagree, which creates ambiguous allegiances in among Western Muslims. Some believe attacks on soft Western targets a justified, some may not. But the militant Islamist in Iran and Saud were happy to watch the West destroy Saddam, no mention of Western interference in Islam then, because they didn't like Saddam. Hypocrites being religious and nationalistic when it suits them.

In the West, the acceptance of military intervention in traditionally Islamic countries continues to feed the above Muslim perceptions. But that intervention cannot be assumed by the most devout democratic inclusivist to be entirely well meaning. George Bush rallied his support for the invasion of Iraq by citing the huge amounts of money to be made. Its a matter of public video record.

But then you have the intransigence and self-interest in the Iran-Arabian divide, both sides of whom are happy to see Islamic people die by the thousands to advance their own agendas. Anyone who believes this mess can be solved by a Western military presence would believe pigs can fly.

There is only one way forward and it is unclear, but it starts with a grass roots ant-war, anti- interventionist movement among Western voters. Would disengagement mean more bloodshed? Of course. Groups like the Taliban and other militias would butcher any group seen as complicit in the interventions, but that's the nature of human history.
#14820560
neopagan wrote:Morally bankrupt or common sense? Neither: because both propositions are impractical and do not address the cause of the problem. Unfortunately, that cause is not agreed upon in the West. Its like Trump's travel ban, which is nothing more than keeping up the appearance of doing something. If Islamic terrorism is the problem, then there are so many legal possibilities for Muslim access to the US, as well as those already in the country.

I think that Donny's ban is a prudent thing to do. It sends a clear message, if nothing else.
But the cause is obvious I think. Neo-con style capitalism and politics.
So ya...we caused this.

neopagan wrote:Is any party going to make a sensible decision? No. Why? Because they all have different agendas. The so-called terrorist-militant-extremist-islamist-fundamentalists cite instructions in the Koran, Western subversion of Islamic morality, and support for the State of Israel. So called moderate Muslims cannot entirely disagree, which creates ambiguous allegiances in among Western Muslims. Some believe attacks on soft Western targets a justified, some may not. But the militant Islamist in Iran and Saud were happy to watch the West destroy Saddam, no mention of Western interference in Islam then, because they didn't like Saddam. Hypocrites being religious and nationalistic when it suits them.

Which means that although the real numbers of "terrorists" in Europe may be small, they have the support of the majority of the Islamist refugees.
And ya...it does appear Iran and the Saudis are likely playing geopolitical games, using their religion when it suits them. This does need to be addressed...but how?

neopagan wrote:In the West, the acceptance of military intervention in traditionally Islamic countries continues to feed the above Muslim perceptions. But that intervention cannot be assumed by the most devout democratic inclusivist to be entirely well meaning. George Bush rallied his support for the invasion of Iraq by citing the huge amounts of money to be made. Its a matter of public video record.

But then you have the intransigence and self-interest in the Iran-Arabian divide, both sides of whom are happy to see Islamic people die by the thousands to advance their own agendas. Anyone who believes this mess can be solved by a Western military presence would believe pigs can fly.

There is only one way forward and it is unclear, but it starts with a grass roots ant-war, anti- interventionist movement among Western voters. Would disengagement mean more bloodshed? Of course. Groups like the Taliban and other militias would butcher any group seen as complicit in the interventions, but that's the nature of human history.

At what cost? Do we just sacrifice more of our kids until these freaks settle down?
How are you gonna justify that to the families of those lost and to be lost?

NO!
We have the means to repatriate all of the "refugees", and we have the means to encircle them all.
That includes the fuckin' Saudis and Iranians.
Nothing gets in and nothing goes out.
If they turn the desert into a lake of blood...so be it.
But I have a feeling that once they realize we ain't foolin' with this siege, they'll begin negotiating.
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would […]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]