Here we are, like everyone, lamenting the tragedy in France. Yet, there are a few among us who appear to believe these atrocities were justified because OH MY GOD there is injustice in our world.
Honestly, I can't follow the logic. Is there any time in any or our lives where the natural and accepted reaction would be to strap a bomb to our bodies and blow up innocent civilians? I've been treated injustly. I have never thought that violence was the appropriate response. Why the free ride here?
Here is what I think. We are at war with ISIS. The enemy is not the traditional one that plays by the rules of the Geneva Convention.
They must compensate for their disadvantage of not having expensive military ordinance nor standing armies
We should have learned from Vietnam that having the most materiel does not necessarily mean that you win, hands down.
ISIS is using the resources that it has to bring confusion, demorilization and discomfort to the enemy, and that is US.
I have conversed with other learned posters here and have come to the conclusion that this terrorist group is so intolerant and vicious that it must be destroyed. They are going to use the tools in their arsenal to wreak havok among us, so be prepared.
The West may well be complicit in a lot of the problems in the region building up over a half century over oil reserves.
ISIS advocates a form of devout Islamic extremism, or so they say. Are the relatively moderate leaders of the Middle East nations that play ball with the West to exchange security for petroleum suspect as sellouts in the eyes of the most devout?
I am not an expert, but I doubt that the West is totally innocent. This ISIS may well be a monster of our own creation.
I doubt anyone could argue effectively that the West is innocent nor does the West play by the Geneva convention when it doesn't suit their fancy either. And, I think the lack of a standing army is indicative of the fact that they don't control enough land to draft a standing army and their ideology is so out there that they can't garner a volunteer army large enough to be called standing.
ISIS, through terror, may be bringing discomfort to their enemy but I find it much more demoralizing to have what should be moderate, intelligent and compassionate voices from the West pandering to them as if in fear that if they don't we will see more of this barbarism.
I just think that there are those among us who don't bother to think for themselves. They think that denouncing terrorism is OK as long as that terrorism did not begin in a radical Islamic state. As if they believe that denouncing it is somehow anti Muslim. There are Muslim majority nations which don't finance terror. There are plenty of them which don't export terror.
What happened in France does not warrant an attempt to justify the actions of the perpetrators, an attempt to reason with them or a meet and greet to let everyone be friends. To imply otherwise means, to me, that one does support international terror. I find that stance as heinous as the acts perpetrated on French soil recently.
Edit. One other thought. This could be why we have such a refugee crisis at the moment. Citizens living in those areas know and agree that the barbarism must be stopped. They can't, but they know someone who cares about humanity who has the ability to do so will try. They are fleeing to ensure that the civilian casualties which are an unfortunate by product of war will not be as high as they would have been had they remained.
Recogninizing the true nature of your enemy is not pandering. As I have said in other threads, ISIS is as much an idea as a physical force.
No one is excusing these people and their atrocities. They must be destroyed and it must be done with more than just tough talk and angry sentiment. You cant destroy an idea with an Army, we are all going to have to be smarter than this.
I've never been an advocate of military intervention, and I do agree that we are fighting an idea. However, there are lines of decency that should not be crossed and, once crossed, should be stood against firmly. Terror imported into peaceful societies is one of those lines.
I do agree that we have to find the root cause that is appealing to members of peaceful societies and determine what draws them from here, to there, to wreak havoc there and/or bring it back here. But, there have always been those among us who are prone to violence and given an outlet as organizations such as ISIS I believe the draw is strong.
But, I think all good people throughout the world should, no matter how much they may sympathize with stated objectives, agree that some lines never be crossed and, when they are, unanimously declare them to be crimes against humanity. But, the sanctity of human life does appear to be of little consequence to many within these organizations. Refusal to acknowledge the sanctity of life causes me to have little ability to sympathize with what those committing barbarous acts attempt to identify as root causes for their actions. Because if we agree that they are justified in some ways, if we bow to it and cheerfully allow those who commit barbarous acts to have sway over populations, then we have to hear about atrocities committed within the borders of those countries. Genocides, chemical weapons used against civilians and such. Those who will do that to their own people will export these tactics and we are better off fighting terror than allowing terrorist mentalities some semblance of legitimacy so they can grow and have the time and means to create standing armies.
by paarsurrey5 years ago
Mick Menous wrote:Now I do know for a fact that it was Christianity that did start The Crusades, Witch Hunting, and The Inquisition which resulted in the deaths of so many people, but that was a VERY LONG time...
by Emile R21 months ago
There's two sayings. No good deed goes unrewarded and no good deed goes unpunished. I don't have evidence that either is true.I handed a homeless woman money on the way home from work yesterday and I got to thinking...
by rhamson7 years ago
The latest investigation into the tactics employed by the CIA in obtaining valuable information is a volatile issue. Is it one we should pursue?
by cooldad3 years ago
Now that we all have had time to reflect, was the United States war on terrorism valid?Or, did our instant gratification culutre, react to quickly based on emotion and fear?I think American people are easily led by fear...
by Leslie McCowen5 years ago
"Before 9/11 there were 7 countries without Rothschild central banks;Afganistan, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Iran, Sudan and Cuba. I note a definite pattern here.Afganistan: invaded (now central bank)Iraq: invaded...
by KyleBear5 years ago
I've been advocating against death penalty since the beginning of time. Here are reasons why I believe it should be abolished.Please do feel free to share your views here too. This thread is about communicating and...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.