You are viewing our Forum Archives. To view or take place in current topics click here.
#31. Posted:
Tywin
  • Tutorial King
Status: Offline
Joined: Jun 06, 201113Year Member
Posts: 12,347
Reputation Power: 632
Status: Offline
Joined: Jun 06, 201113Year Member
Posts: 12,347
Reputation Power: 632
-GoldCoast- wrote Dude the US seriously did not care about Rwanda..
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
I have also watched and studied about the genocide, And they could of helped but they choose not too.


The Guardian is shamelessly bias and they even say so in their description.
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
#32. Posted:
FlutterPleb
  • Powerhouse
Status: Offline
Joined: Jan 12, 20159Year Member
Posts: 460
Reputation Power: 21
Status: Offline
Joined: Jan 12, 20159Year Member
Posts: 460
Reputation Power: 21
Idk how people could ignore other people in need...
#33. Posted:
ProfessorNobody
  • Blind Luck
Status: Offline
Joined: Nov 07, 201211Year Member
Posts: 3,732
Reputation Power: 362
Status: Offline
Joined: Nov 07, 201211Year Member
Posts: 3,732
Reputation Power: 362
Lavish wrote
Woodkid wrote The collateral damage is needless in this case though because there are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world.
Even if only half of them started to support reform it would easily overwhelm the extremist minority.
Like I said, this wouldn't be an instantaneous change, but I think it would provide longer lasting peace than just 10 years.


Do you see this reform you speak of happening anytime in the near future?


A reform takes time, so while it would be happening, the change would be very gradual.
So, yes and no.
If you asked me when I think we would see Islamic terrorism near enough eradicated by it, probably in 100-200 years.

I think the lasting peace gained by that would be worth more than the periodic peace we gain from bombing them, but I guess that's down to individual opinion.

I suppose it comes down to whether or not more civilians would be killed by bombings if we continue them, or more civilians killed by Islamic terrorism in the next 100 years if bombings ceased and reforms began.


I've actually changed my opinion on this quite drastically since I posted what I said above.
Professor Robert Pape at Chicago University studied every suicide terrorist attack between 1980 and 2005, which was 315 cases, and came to the conclusion that there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic extremism. He said that they instead had a secular goal to remove military powers from their perceived homelands.

"At bottom, suicide terrorism is a strategy for national liberation from foreign military occupation by a democratic state."

So while I don't think that bombing works, my reform Islam solution almost certainly wouldn't work.
In truth, I really don't know what we could do to make ISIS stop.


Last edited by ProfessorNobody ; edited 1 time in total
#34. Posted:
The-Monstrosity
  • Resident Elite
Status: Offline
Joined: Dec 28, 201310Year Member
Posts: 219
Reputation Power: 8
Status: Offline
Joined: Dec 28, 201310Year Member
Posts: 219
Reputation Power: 8
tbh i hate terrorism, religion is fine, but in some cases its used as a weapan,wtf. ISIS is the main problem atm, they hacked into military shit and found all the people in the army's addresses and there names, phone numbers etc... WW3 is on the way...
Jump to:
You are viewing our Forum Archives. To view or take place in current topics click here.