When we vilify our enemies

I would like to share three quotes.

Woodrow Wilson #1 -


Martin Luther King


Woodrow Wilson #2 - We must be neutral in thought, not only deed

Living in America, I have to live surrounded by people who ignorantly villianize our supposed enemies. Hamas, ISIS, Iran, Russia, ect.
There is genuine fear, without any empathy for the individuals behind the entities. This leads to even more ignorance. Many Americans truly believe that if we do not stop ISIS, they will come over here and murder everyone we love. This kind of thought promotes violence. It doesn't help stop it.

Now I'm going to sound corny for a second, but love and understanding truly is the best way to turn an enemy into a friend. I encourage people to look at their enemies in a different light.

Blackflag: True. I remember a recent Israeli election being won based on similar fears.

Blackflag: This might work for some enemies. Europe has loved to show understanding to Russia as they slowly eat the Ukraine

But an enemy like ISIS which is literally trying to bring about Armageddon (they think this is the final Caliphate they're building before the end times). They don't care about love or compassion obviously. I don't think we need to destroy them quite yet but they're not someone we need to show sympathy to.

If you give some people, groups, nations, an inch they're going to take a mile and a half. I just hope you're prepared for that if you would choose this approach.

*cough Chamberlain cough*

Chamberlain
Chamberlain was just a bad negotiator.

They don't care about love or compassion obviously. I don't think we need to destroy them quite yet but they're not someone we need to show sympathy to.
That isn't true. Believe it or not, Daesh is composed of humans. Humans which have families, ideals, and feelings. Not showing empathy, and promoting their destruction, is what turned them to violence in the first place. Many of these war bands would not be so powerful if they were not driven to violence by nations like the United States and United Kingdom, whom invaded their homeland.

It is all about perspective. You could choose to view Daesh as a bunch of lunatics intent on destroying everything in sight, and you would certainly be wrong, or you can choose to view Daesh as a cause composed of passionate people fighting for something you view as misguided. Appeal to their passion and reason, which I know they have, and you might actually produce something other than death. Maybe we do need to start showing sympathy to our enemies.

You know what they say...

I feel like our buddies at Naqeshny have it established




The main difference between words and bullets, is that you have to let words hurt you.

Blackflag: I like that quote.

However, how do we show sympathy for a group that killed ~200 people this week in brutal attacks on civilians? Say "we understand you're frustrated, that's why we're going to allow you to rampage across the Middle East until you get the Caliphate you feel you deserve?" I just don't understand how this mechanism is going to work is all.

TowerOfBabel: However, how do we show sympathy for a group that killed ~200 people this week in brutal attacks on civilians?
It is really quite easy actually. It is called forgiveness and understanding. Something Jesus preached.

Say "we understand you're frustrated, that's why we're going to allow you to rampage across the Middle East until you get the Caliphate you feel you deserve?" I just don't understand how this mechanism is going to work is all.
Let's fight it, but with something other than violence. Violence on our part is what made them violent in the first place. Non-combatant deaths are on our hands as a nation. Learning from history will prevent us from indirectly killing more non-combatants in the future. Sure, radical elements do exist on the fringes, but when dealing with a group like Daesh, it is best to target the weakest links.

The only way to defeat an ideal is by using persuasion. For every so called "terrorist" whose killed in retaliation, there will be 3 more non-combatants slaughtered as a result. We would be pulling a trigger on non-combatants by using violence. It would just take longer for the metaphorical wounds to kill them.

Blackflag: We can forgive them I understand that. But they're not after the US. They say they are but they're trying to secure territory and influence in the Middle East. That's their primary goal.

The US can forgive them all they want but then the Caliphate will form. Just letting you know.

TowerOfBabel: The US can forgive them all they want but then the Caliphate will form. Just letting you know.
It isn't the "US" who needs to forgive them. It is everybody. We must not only forgive them, but understand their action at well.
Do you not agree that words are the best way to resolve conflict? Violence, to my understanding, only causes retaliation. Retaliation only results in more violence, which consequently leads to even more deaths. Combatants and non-combatants alike.

Blackflag: I think that words work to a point but I don't think they can solve every conflict. Most? Sure. All? No.
Words can't quell irrational people. Or unkempt aggression. Or lust for territory and power.

Also, everybody doesn't share the Christian norm or ideals of forgiveness and love. So asking everyone to subscribe to that is a little far fetched in and of itself.

TowerOfBabel: Also, everybody doesn't share the Christian norm or ideals of forgiveness and love. So asking everyone to subscribe to that is a little far fetched in and of itself.
Do you agree that these are the ideals that everyone should subscribe to?

Blackflag: I think that it would be ideal if people did yes.

And I know you're going to say that in order to get others to subscribe, we must subscribe first and be an example.

TowerOfBabel: Words can't quell irrational people. Or unkempt aggression. Or lust for territory and power.
Sorry, forgot this quote. Do you think there is a reason behind the aggression and lust for power? The fact that you used the word "lust" proves my point.
Appealing to that lust is the best way to quell these people. I have to disagree that they are irrational though. Rather the opposite.
We need to realize that people have different rationalizations, and killing each other unnecessarily for holding different beliefs isn't a solution.

To that point, what do you think we should do?

TowerOfBabel: I think that it would be ideal if people did yes.

And I know you're going to say that in order to get others to subscribe, we must subscribe first and be an example.
I was going to say something else, but would I be wrong for saying that? It seems like you might of reached an impasse.
It happens to everyone. Moving forward we must decide whether to accept the revelation or become ignorant to it. Then we definitely wouldn't be any better than Daesh.

Blackflag: I think that it would be ideal if people did yes.

And I know you're going to say that in order to get others to subscribe, we must subscribe first and be an example.

TowerOfBabel: Before you ask, this is a cache problem

Blackflag: Right now I think we should do nothing about it. Honestly, let the region hash it out on their own. No one has let them do that in centuries.

TowerOfBabel: Right now I think we should do nothing about it. Honestly, let the region hash it out on their own. No one has let them do that in centuries.
That is the liberal argument. Courtesy of Bill Maher himself. Letting them hash it out isn't a bad idea, but supplying the right words and beliefs to the appropriate causes wouldn't hurt.

Blackflag: Right now I think we should do nothing about it. Honestly, let the region hash it out on their own. No one has let them do that in centuries.

Blackflag: But they hate our words and beliefs. They'd never listen.