jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (50 posts)

Death to America!

  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    What does this phrase mean and how should we combat those who chant it?


    What are we doing to combat the radical and extreme Muslim Jihadists in the Middle East?
    anything?
    at all?

    Wouldn't the Peaceful Muslims, Arabs and Jews appreciate it if we attempted to combat this force?

    (And it wouldn't take long …!)

    1. Credence2 profile image87
      Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Looks like ISIS is making enemies of their own of regional powers due to unwarranted executions. They may well contribute to their own undoing, without too much effort on our part. If the global community can come together on this, this organization can be crushed.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        <"If the global community can come together on this, this organization can be crushed."> C2
                                                           
        <"Bombing them back to the stone age or sending in ground troops hasn't worked.">DH


        - how can the global community unite?
        Do what?
        ...led by whom?

      2. rhamson profile image76
        rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        "If the global community can come together on this, this organization can be crushed."

        This confuses me as well. If they are eating themselves up, what could we as outsiders and fundamentally offensive to them possibly do to help?

        1. Credence2 profile image87
          Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          To KH and Rhamson

          If ISIS managed to continue to make enemies, perhaps if the West could provide some weapons and funding to affronted regional powers The regional neighbors could do the job of military confrontation on the spot and more effectively than we could.  Then, dealing with the West will be the least of ISIS's problems. When Everybody has a stake in being rid of these folks it is just like a potluck,  let all the guests bring a different 'dish' to that end.

          1. rhamson profile image76
            rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            ISIS is an extension of the Sunni/Shiite civil war that has been trying to happen since the Brits cut up the Ottoman Empire. Iraq was a combined area that housed many of these people. Overthrowing Saddam was the opening these groups were looking for. The US supported Saddam until he had aspirations of including Kuwait in his list of conquests.

            We need to let them beat each other up until they have either had enough or reached some sort of peace. These happenings allow the Arab saying of "enemy of my enemy is my friend" to become more than just a saying. Iraq and Iran had a war with each other recently that estimates say killed a million plus people. Now they are working together to defeat ISIS. We and the rest of the world need to butt out and let them figure it out for themselves.

            When they have figured it out we will have the people in the middle east who can make an agreement with the rest of the world.

            1. Credence2 profile image87
              Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I am all for that 'let's let them beat themselves up within their own playground'. The U.S. would not fare well in an ultimate plan to confront Russia, for instance, if we were indiscriminately beheading CANADIANS and Mexicans in our own backyard? Making enemies of potential allies or at least neutrals is not a wise course. That is what ISIS in its devout madness is doing. They keep this up and they will participate in their own undoing.

              1. Phil Perez profile image81
                Phil Perezposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Great response, Credence2!

                It seems like the Canadian and American governments probably have realized this, and therefore, do not take immediate action!

                1. Credence2 profile image87
                  Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Thanks, PHIL. Thinking about this principle, Hitler would have fared a lot better in his Third Reich if he had taken the time to apply it a bit more. If he had focused on Russia being careful not to antagonize the West, at least at the beginning he could have attained the primary goal of his ascension to power. I knew that neither Churchill nor Roosevelt were terribly fond of Joe Stalin and his Bolsheviks, and would never involve war weary populations yearning for neutrality to save Russia.

            2. profile image60
              retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              1400 years of conflict over the legitimacy of the Prophet and his heirs is hardly a modern event. It has boiled away beneath the surface since the days of the First Caliph Abu Bakr.

              1. rhamson profile image76
                rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Recent events including the Ottoman Empires defeat is what has set up this civil war we keep interfering with. Yes since the death of Mohammed and struggle for a new Caliphate the tensions have been wars in some instances and some unity in others, recent events of western destabilization of the region has brought very quickly to a head.

                1. profile image60
                  retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  It has far less to do with the destabilization of a region full of warring tribesmen whose mutual hate was held at bay by the Turks, than the stupid liberal notions of idiots like Woodrow Wilson and David Lloyd George. Treating members of a 7th century culture as if they were merely quarreling European Foreign Ministers is the greatest cause of strife in the WHOLE world today. If the post-World War Utopians had left the Arabs to remain backward and traded horses for oil leases instead of foolishly believing that Islam was just another religion there would be far fewer problems today.

                  The end of the Ottoman Empire led to the reforms of Attaturk and a brief moment when there was hope for a Muslim country. The rise of wealthy, Arab primitives as the heads of OIL empires eventually propelled radical Islamists to the leadership of most of the Muslim Middle East and Asia Minor putting an end to all that modernity and turning toward democratic reforms.

                  It is not a problem of the West destabilizing. It is a delusion of Western liberalism that Islam is not antithetical to actual progress and the modern world.

                  1. rhamson profile image76
                    rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I agree with a lot of what you say. But the lure of oil which is what is the basis of the dollar kind of trumps any other questions about stabilizing the region and allowing democratic forms of government establish themselves. We overthrew Iran replacing a democratic government. We overthrew Hussein  and threw the region into a Sunni Shia playground for open rebellion aided by the other country we destroyed in the region. It is funny how you blame liberals when both overthrown actions were implemented by Republican Presidents.

              2. Writer Fox profile image79
                Writer Foxposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                You are absolutely right about this.  Abu Bakr, the father of one of Muhammad's 13 wives, was only a caliph for less than two years.  The history of Islam, from the beginning, is a history of war and conquest against one city after another.  It was about power and wealth more than it was about religion and it always has been.

                People whose sense of history only goes back to the Ottoman Empire have no real sense of the history of Islam.

    2. Disappearinghead profile image85
      Disappearingheadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      It's the result of unintended consequences. If your foreign policy is to remove a middle eastern government you don't like and leave a power vacuum, or apply harsh economic sanctions to another that has tight control over its own people, then expect to become unpopular.

      There seems to be no turning back from where we've gotten to with the jihadists. Bombing them back to the stone age or sending in ground troops hasn't worked. About all we can do is support the moderates and as far as possible foster a marginalisation of the the jihadists. The atrocities we see are little different from those conducted by the church in previous centuries. Give young people an education, foster free thinking, free access to the Internet and popular culture would go a long way.

      1. Phil Perez profile image81
        Phil Perezposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Think about it. America is ambiguous. You don't know what they mean when they say, "death to America."

        There's no reason to "combat" against anyone. Will I come over to your house and start breaking things until you conform to my ideals, Kathryn? No. If you mean combat in an ambiguous way as well, then I apologize for the assumption.

        But anyways, just because it's a chant doesn't mean anyone will follow through with what they say. Furthermore, if you're referring to the Middle East (mainly because of their extreme belief in religion) then what matters is not to eradicate their people but dissolve their ideas!

        They're afraid of our secularism on this side of the world. They do not understand it and believe it is necessary to use intimidation to see how strong our belief is to secularism, enough to die for it potential. They're just trying a method to learn about us in the most efficient and quickest way possible. Killing.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, perhaps death to American ways, influence, evils... which we pretty much put up with or even glorify.

          Such as, our movies, our dress, our permissiveness, our decadence, our lack of reverence in general, our arrogance, our bossiness, our intrusiveness, our gullibility, our excessive freedom, our drug trade (Do radical Islamists take drugs… like opium and hash, I wonder????) our music... yikes!

          HOWEVER, If WE die then WHAT (do they envision) will take our place
            Hmmm….Freedom vs Tyranny…

          They need to think a little harder, in my opinion…
          - we just need BOUNDARIES… like The Ten Commandments and the self discipline to follow them.
          .
          Its a simple matter really…
          You radical Islamists need to go easy…
          Can't we discuss the issue?
          ...in the spirit of The Golden Rule?

          1. Phil Perez profile image81
            Phil Perezposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            If we die, it gives extremists less chances to learn and expand their cognition. It is definitely tyrant if we die and extremists live on (the ones set on their ways and only their ways).

            I agree, we should use pacifistic means to resolve the issue. They envision a narrow minded view of life. While they unknowingly cannot argue for their own beliefs. That is why they feel compelled to eliminate us so there are less ideas going around.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Really?
              You make it sound so innocent!

              They are over there chanting "Death to America."
                 I think they mean it and they feel very justified in saying it.
              Maybe if we promise to follow the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule a little better...

              LIKE THEY ARE (following them)???

              1. Phil Perez profile image81
                Phil Perezposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                If they really believed in their ideologies they wouldn't feel threatened by secularism or by "America."

                They can feel whatever they please, but the reasoning is flawed in terms of confidence of belief. Which they do not have much...

                It's a competition of passion of belief. That's all it is. They're using their tactics, we have ours.

                Life is like a chess game.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes but, Phil, they are beheading innocent people and breeding their evil insidious culture at an alarming rate. They are recruiting others, even some sadly misled Americans.
                    They are being fed, groomed, trained and provided for … some will say by US!
                  So, what is this chess game about?

                  1. Phil Perez profile image81
                    Phil Perezposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    If you give them what they want, you conform to their evil wrongdoings. That means what you believe in isn't really what you believe in. Obviously we must find a way to stop them without harming them because then, we're no better than them.

                    We MUST find a way to co-exist with their beliefs and vice-versa.

                    Their mindset is, "reduce the population, and you reduce the problems."
                    They understand they cannot control ideas, but they feel they can influence one if they understand fear is a greater control method than cooperating with "our side."

                    Nobody is innocent. We are all part of a problem in life. Just because they don't take initiative like ISIS or activists does not mean they are not a part of what is going on.

                    Going on a religious example (to help you understand my point better) God shall punish them, if you truly believe in your resolve and understand God's will, you shouldn't be afraid of death because you will be rewarded in Heaven and they will not.

                    Even the example of Socrates going to prison. He was tried and had a chance to escape but did not because then it would imply that he agreed with the jurors in sentencing him. He died believing in his ideas.

                    The point is, we shouldn't just "sit back" while they take action, we should take action, but morally better actions in order for co-existence to be a reality.

                    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
                      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                      <"Obviously we must find a way to stop them without harming them because then, we're no better than them.">

                      I disagree.
                       

                      We need to step in to save the world.

                      I hate war, but we can help to eradicate this influence while it is still minor.
                      However, I am afraid the problem is not so simple. This solution will never be executed because it is counter to what the globalists are after.
                      I don't know what else to think.

      2. jeremiahshittu profile image60
        jeremiahshittuposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        In my own opinion, this ISIS group is not fighting for the Islamic world, but for their selfish interests because Islam is said to be a religion of peace and not of war. So let both Christians, Muslims and other peaceful religions who believe in the supremacy of God come together and wipe these monsters out of the surface of the earth. The earlier the better.

        1. rhamson profile image76
          rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Your premise sounds good on paper but the reality is that all religions are governments at their best and cliche clubs at their worst. No religion will relinquish their grip long enough to allow a peace as you propose. Culturally we all differ and wish to remain in our comfort zones inflexible to change and especially religiosly. So what can be done. With corporations and banking pushing for globalization they don't want to slow a bit as profits will interrupt THEIR bottom line. The US is driven towards capitalism as a world religion, if you will, that is proposed as what is best for the rest of the world. Unfortunately we are finding unbridled capitalism is hard to deal with. Therefore it is a hard sell to the rest of the world.

        2. Credence2 profile image87
          Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          In addition to what RH says, so many of the world's religions while not as violent are just as corrupt and may not be the ideal model to use to discredit ISIS. We still seem to have a great deal of war for a world filled with advocates of the 'proper religion' one that advocates peace and the supremacy of God. The thousands of religions and their sects have far too many squabbles amongst themselves to have a great deal of moral authority over an ISIS.

          1. rhamson profile image76
            rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Here, here!

        3. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          <"So let both Christians, Muslims and other peaceful religions who believe in the supremacy of God come together and wipe these monsters out of the surface of the earth. The earlier the better.>
          - this makes a lot of sense to me…on first sight.
          But, you said peaceful… how can "peaceful religions" do such a thing as "wipe them out?"
          Drop bombs on the major headquarters??

    3. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

      "Jihadists claim that the only correct form of governance is the Caliphate, led by a Caliph. No one is clear on who the caliph should be or how one gains the title. The Caliphate is ruled by shari'a law, in both public and private life, with no popular elections or legislature. The land governed by this Caliphate includes any area that has ever been subjected Islamic law, which includes all of Russia, China, parts of France, Spain, plus all of the Middle East. The Caliphate's foreign policy is eternal jihad.

      In traditional Islam, da'wa means the original call to Islam from Muhammad. Today, it means to engage in missionary work to convert unbelievers or simply to lead a pious life and hope that this attracts converts.

      Jihadists believe that da'wa must be given anew to convince other Muslims to become jihadists against the apostate rulers, the occupiers, and the unbelieving world. If you do not answer the call, you can be justly killed.

      Jihadism's main war is with other Muslims. Ideologically, it says that da'wa is used to convert other Muslims. Politically, it aims to create a Caliphate and implement Islamic law. This requires overthrowing apostate regimes. Militarily, it says that true believers must fight Muslims who actively oppose jihadism or support the unbelievers. This means attacking liberal and secular Muslims, Sufis, Shi'a and others.

      There is then a war being fought over what is authentic Islam. The moderates are losing. The Jihadists proselytize and moderates do not, so they are being shouted and intimidated off the stage."

      http://web.mit.edu/SSP/seminars/wed_arc … abeck.html

    4. maxoxam41 profile image77
      maxoxam41posted 2 years ago

      What is America doing worldwide? This sentence is the result of our governmental wrongdoings. Who elected them? Who reelects them? Third World War is looming because our neocons don't want to face the blame of our collapsing economy. And still, people are pondering, am I going to vote for Clinton or Bush???? Didn't you get it yet or are you (people) that ignorant? When are we going to face the reality? When it will be too late?

    5. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

      "When it will be too late?"

      This question from you surprises me, Max.

    6. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

      Keep in mind:
      Wars are prevented by making it too dangerous for others to attack you.

      According to Alexander Hamilton, a nation despised for its weakness "forfeits even the privilege of being neutral."

      In short, weakness does not produce peace but subjugation.

      1. Phil Perez profile image81
        Phil Perezposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Incorrect. What about suicide bombers? What do they have to lose? Absolutely nothing. Danger doesn't exist, people create that in their minds.

        I told you, Kathryn. The way to do it is alter and adapt an idea. That's all. It's not easy but it is not impossible.

      2. rhamson profile image76
        rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        "In short, weakness does not produce peace but subjugation."

        Define weakness with regard to the topic.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I only know some people in the Middle East are chanting "Death to America!"  Who is instigating this chanting? What force?
          Iranian Govt.?
          The extreme Islamists?
          Our Govt.?
          Russia?
          China?
          Aliens?
          Globalists?
          LOL!
          It would help to know the above to answer your question.

          But, the concept should be understood:
          "...weakness does not produce peace but subjugation."
          I find this to be true in my own little life!
          If I don't stand up for myself, who will?
          I have discovered this answer:

                                                                   N O   O N E

          1. Credence2 profile image87
            Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Why are we so concerned about what people chant? This certainly is not the first time that opposers of AMERICAN foreign policy chant. I am more concerned about the capacity militarily to  follow up on their chants.  If you are refering to 'Weakness' relative to ISIS, no one advocates weakness, just a little common sense and prudence to disarm an enemy in the most effective way. As we have seen with this kind of warfare in the past, conventional shoot em up tactics have limited value.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              "disarm an enemy in the most effective way."
              How?

              1. Credence2 profile image87
                Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                KH, I mentioned many possibilities in my previous posts on this thread.

                Let the enemies that ISIS makes in the region take the lead in their destruction. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan among other regional states take issue with ISIS and its tactics. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, let the surrogates with the ultimate same goal as we have do the dirty work and keep AMERICA's heavy hand and sticky fingers away from what could be called an internecine squabble. ISIS zealousness, reckless and indiscriminate violence will rally everyone to its destruction, so let them all do what they do best. Isn't smarter to destroy an enemy without the sacrifice of AMERICAN blood or treasure?

                1. rhamson profile image76
                  rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I could not agree more.

          2. rhamson profile image76
            rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Walking away from this cluster flop is hardly weakness. When Bin Laden bombed the WTC I felt it imperative we chase him down wherever he was hiding. That should have been the end of it. It was Bin Ladens intent to weaken our financial might with the toppeling of the WTC. Two unfunded wars have taken place and a huge reccesion at the end of Bushs term certainly appeared. I don't see how our position of strength has helped us over there. We need to let them fight it out among themselves. Let them be weakened by their own aggression and fears. Maybe after that is done we shall see a weary group weakened by war and loss look for a little peace. Remember after war comes rebuilding. That is something we have much strength in.

    7. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago
    8. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

      Repeating:
      Weakness does not produce peace...
      but subjugation.

      Subjugation: "bring under domination or control, esp. by conquest." Dictionary

    9. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

      So "disarm" them by allowing them to fight it out to the end and it will end.


      Anyways,  If we drop a bomb, they'll drop a bomb and on it goes.


      What if Planet Earth had a real threat? Would we ever unite against a force of alien ships come to take over the world? Would we then look at each other as allies instead of enemies?

      This was a question President Reagan asked.

    10. offornagoro king profile image59
      offornagoro kingposted 2 years ago

      To Kathryn l hill. Are u really sure that wars are prevented like that . making it too dangerous for others to attack .I don't really believe . you can make peace rule over war

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Oh, you may be interested in the New Religion!
        http://hubpages.com/forum/post/edit/2723169
        We need a name for it. Let us know if you can think of a good name for it.
        I am thinking the Religion of Concrete Peace.
        RCP for short.

        1. Phil Perez profile image81
          Phil Perezposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Haha, I swear, Kathryn. You make the Atheists' arguments so much stronger by saying this. I had a good laugh at this.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, It will probably become known as "Recipe for Peace." (The word "religion" is not well-tolerated.)
            There is no stopping it, you know.
            Sit back and enjoy! big_smile

     
    working