But, source? You said that we know they have millions of followers - which we don't at all. You're guessing that.
Poll: How should the world deal with ISIS ?
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Just because the US has set the precedent for foreign excursions into the Middle East, doesn't mean they should perpetuate it just because others have learned from them - be it the Russians, Chinese or whomever.
The US sets the tempo of geopolitics, if they set a course for a balanced approach that actually respects indigenous people/culture/resources then others will have no choice but to follow suit
There is a cycle of violence at work that no 'better mouse trap' can remedy. There are no bombs to bomb people into alignment/agreement/submission. The cycle only has a chance of improving if not altogether ending if there is mutual respect, not colonial power doing what they've historically done and then somehow being surprised by the consequences
In the long run, do you think more or less acts like this are going to occur when there is a significant portion of the middle east controlled by such a group? People from the UK have been so enamoured to it they've moved their entire family over there. Apparently bright teenage girls have gone over to become wives. People in this very terror attack were French nationals that had been to Syria, and I'm guessing it wasn't to admire the ancient ruins. Having a command and control centre benefits any cell out there, not sure how this can be argued.
I don't imagine anyone is seriously suggesting eliminating ISIS is going to stop any terror attack ever happening again. There's a pretty solid chance there'll be a lot less, though.
If video games has taught anything about history it's that Russian soldiers in the middle east are highly susceptible to balloons and cardboard boxes so I doubt they would offer a alot
The US set a precedent? Are you sure about that? Or are you ignoring a fair bit of history?
You're living in the past Barca, ascribing yesterday's motives to today's world. No one wants to colonise Syria or Iraq, or steal their resources. The people suffering most from Isis are Syrians and Iraqis, and if Isis fully establish themselves the misery will only spread. Sure the west wants to help without getting harmed themselves, not unnaturally, but if Syrians and Iraqis suddenly agreed ceasefires and peace then the west would be extremely happy to stay well out of it. Personally I wouldn't move without UN instructions, which is terribly hard-hearted, but I think for the best in the long run.
Sounds abit like Americsn Exceptionalism and again ignores history both current and ancient that shows nations act in their own perceived interest regardless of what other nations are doing. The idea that just because the U.S. does something every other nation will is quite funny and something I would expect from a Tea Party member.
I think the number would stay exactly the same, given that radical Islamist ideology would remain undamaged on the Internet - boosted, in fact, by visuals of "Crusader" forces in the Middle East yet again. We can't drone-strike ideas, and that was the primary ingredient in the attack we just saw. Not people, and not weapons - ideas.
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I don't see the necessity for command and control centres in physically terrorist-held territory, either. A safehouse would do as well. As I've said, I think the logistical support necessary for an attack of this nature - weapon training and such - is overstated. They haven't seemed to have needed physical territory before.
After 14 years of utter failure in Afghanistan and Iraq post 9/11, and so many more before that, I kinda want to try out the idea of getting the feck out of the Middle East, Afghanistan, North/East Africa AND Israel. Maybe it's time to let them deal with their own mess. Let whoever want to emigrate from the West and go and fight do that. Spend the money saved on finding an alternative to oil and save the planet along the way.
It might sound a bit harsh based on the concept of humanitarian intervention, protection of minorities etc (which I believe in). But no one really gave a shit about Taliban's ISIL'esque mass executions of Afghanistan's minorities and extermination of whole villages in the late 90s. Rohingyas in Burma, genocidal tendencies in the Central African Republic, Darfur, Congo, the list goes on.
An intervention must be massive, probably a million plus soldiers, and everyone have to be willing to look at it as a 50-year project at least. I'm still not sure it would work out great even if you had some Gandhi'esque leader to take charge and unite everyone.
It might sound a bit harsh based on the concept of humanitarian intervention, protection of minorities etc (which I believe in). But no one really gave a shit about Taliban's ISIL'esque mass executions of Afghanistan's minorities and extermination of whole villages in the late 90s. Rohingyas in Burma, genocidal tendencies in the Central African Republic, Darfur, Congo, the list goes on.
An intervention must be massive, probably a million plus soldiers, and everyone have to be willing to look at it as a 50-year project at least. I'm still not sure it would work out great even if you had some Gandhi'esque leader to take charge and unite everyone.
I suppose it's just coincidental then that attacks in the name of ISIS have occurred since they gained large swathes of territory. And that the largest terrorist attack in recent memory occurred when Al Qaeda had free reign alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan. And this is without considering the attacks in other middle-eastern states, as we saw recently in Lebanon, which I'm certain are much easier to pull off when ISIS control nearby land and have plenty of resources to pull it off.
I also imagine that they're a far greater recruiting tool than internet videos alone, as demonstrated by my earlier examples.
Attacks have only started in the name of ISIS ever since they've become a serious player and therefore come to people's knowledge. Imagine that. Let's ponder that amazing coincidence. Let's also consider how amazing it is that the largest terrorist attack ever came when we were least prepared for it.
I'm going to say this again. This attack needed the following:
1. A few radicalized Frenchmen (Whether they're actually returnees from IS territory we don't know, but they don't need to be. They could easily have been radicalized and trained at home)
2. A few weapons, apparently available from the Balkan underworld from reports
3. A Twitter account
4. Bombs, which I admit require some degree of sophistication to obtain.
What part of that needed ISIS to control physical territory to accomplish? You point out that we ousted AQ from Afghanistan. That sure stopped the AQ-inspired terrorism.
Last edited:
This is bollocks. The attack needed a lot more than that.
From a pure logistical point of view, look at that car smuggling weapons and explosives that was stopped by pure chance in Bavaria on the way to Paris last week. The authorities said it was a really professional smuggling operation with the weapons hidden in the bodywork of the vehicle. It's not easy to coordinate the sourcing and transportation of heavy assault weapons, suicide vests, vehicles and other explosives within Europe.
But more than that, the expertise involved is primarily on the human side of things. Finding and vetting 8 people willing to kill innocent people and themselves can't be easy. All you need is one of them to turn or give the cell away in some way and the game's over. Add into this the fact that a lot of the people who would be willing to join such a cell will already be on the security services radar... which brings in a whole lot more complexity around communication and coordination.
This attack was clearly extremely well planned and executed. This isn't the work of a few madmen with a couple of guns.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
The Soviet Union had an 'excursion' into the Middle East too you know, history teaches us that the great powers of the world have always fought for the various resources, trade routes and domination of that part of the world. I'm not saying I agree with this.
The point of my post about leaving the region to Russia/China is that to do so would be naive and it's not going to happen.
What has happened to Syria and Iraq is a cathastrophe, one the West has been complicit in. But left unsolved that cathastrophe will only be the start of a wider implosion in Turkey and further afield.
There is no simple solution this crackpot Islamist movement. But those things that will form part of the solution will be hard for many westerners to stomach. And yes, it will involve finally calling these religious nuts out; including a very real stance against aspects of Islam that modern societies simply shouldn't countenance.
True. It needed a hell of lot of work. But it didn't need a terrorist-controlled homeland. If not, why was AQ able to pull off the Charlie Hebdo attacks - assault weapons, radicalized homegrown Frenchmen - exactly the same ingredients?
Let's be clear about this - I have no objection to wiping ISIS off the map and staying the long haul, IF its militarily feasible. But we need to be clear about why we're doing it. If it's just for our physical safety here at home, we're rushing into a huge decision out of fear.
Ed: I feel like this is 2003 and we're discussing a war on terror all over again. We can't defeat "terror", folks. We've tried.
As far as I'm aware the perpetrators of the attack on Charlie Hebdo travelled to Al-Qaeda territory in Yemen to train.
But yes, terrorists don't necessarily need to receive training and logistical support from abroad, but it seems to be the case in the vast majority of cases of Islamic terrorism.
Of course not Mike, don't forget they needed a twitter account too.
Doing a quick Wiki tells me you're right, they did.
But again, it's not necessary. The kind of guy who would travel to terrorist-held territory to train for an attack on us is crazy. Crazy enough to attack us anyway in the alternate universe where that territory doesn't exist. A assault rifle is a more user-friendly thing that most people believe. If that wasn't true American shooters wouldn't be capable of doing what they do.
What an amazing twat you are.
I daresay many on here agree recently
That's the take home message you got? That I suggested the country that has been around for fewer than most started all the violence in history?
Like Messi says, only way forward is peace
Let me put it this way. More than half the Caf believes we should now send a large military force into Iraq and Syria and wipe ISIS out, then stay and rebuild for the long term and prevent any similarly radical groups seizing the territory. If you asked the Caf this poll one week ago you'd have been told where to go.
So what's made the Caf think this, is clearly the Paris attack. It's clearly the fear that if we hit them first, then they can't hit us back.
In which case I would like someone to explain how that is different from 2003 and how we will succeed where Bush failed.
So what's made the Caf think this, is clearly the Paris attack. It's clearly the fear that if we hit them first, then they can't hit us back.
In which case I would like someone to explain how that is different from 2003 and how we will succeed where Bush failed.
Think most would look for combination of options 2 and 4. The important reason many not choosing 4 would the differences that exist between the local states themselves.
Do you think our enemy wants peace?
Well most are going for 2. Right now it's 55+%, possibly as you say there's more nuance in that group though.
I'm not saying 2 is impossible, or that it can't be done if we don't have neocon idiots running the show. I'm saying we've seen this film before, and I'm curious how the screenwriters are going to make the alternate ending work.
@naturalized I think you're looking at the wrong comparison in the Iraq war. Surely the correct comparison is the invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11 and the gradual eroding of Al-Qaeda's capabilities?
We have to learn from those mistakes. With the recent Blair-Bush email revelations it's blindingly obvious that very little thought or care was put into reformation once the dust had settled. The plan was 100% along the lines of "get rid of that despot, anything will be better than him". We now are fully aware that the easy job is clearing out the tyrants, the hard work is what comes after.
The Middle-East is not ready yet for democracy as long as the Sunni-Shia conflict stays such a significant problem there.
The majority of people would find repulsive the measures governments would need to take to end this. There is no reasoning with these people once they have been radicalized and there is little to no chance of rehabilitation so it's pointless and unnecessarily costly to attempt to bring them to trial, once a person travels to Syria to fight for IS the Law should allow the state to revoke his citizenship automatically and give it the right to eliminate him as they would any other enemy of the state. The inner city neighbourhoods where the people most vulnerable to radicalization reside need greater monitoring and the Law ought to be amended to set the bar/burden of proof lower to allow incarceration/execution/deportation/citizenship invocation possible on suspected terrorists and those who aide and harbor them.
People spreading hate speech and radicalizing these youths are alsp doing it staying in your countries. Enact laws to silence them the feck up and deport them if need be. People need to know that actions like these have very unpleasant consequences.
People spreading hate speech and radicalizing these youths are alsp doing it staying in your countries. Enact laws to silence them the feck up and deport them if need be. People need to know that actions like these have very unpleasant consequences.
Well, 2 explicitly states destroy, hold and rebuild. So I'm questioning how that would work, and not create an even bigger clusterfeck.
But yes, in the context of the discussion we were previously having, Afghanistan is the better comparator. Even then I'm struggling to see that we've achieved very much with attacking it - they've split up, metastatized, and they seem to be doing just fine at pulling off attacks, though. As you say, Charlie Hebdo was primarily an AQ job. I'd also point out that in a world without ISIS stealing their thunder they would be doing even better than they currently are, by the way. Which proves my point. "Terror" is not Nazi Germany which can be defeated, ticker-tape parade, and we come home. It finds a way, a new name, a new organization, whatever.
We can't do worse. But I don't see how we're going to do much better, I mean, specifically how. Possibly I'm pessimistic though.
I can't believe I sound like Michael fecking Moore. I'm further right than anybody in this thread.
Last edited:
Of course, but that doesn't mean we just give up and let them have their merry way. If we are doomed to fight them for decades, then so be it. But we do have to fight our enemies when they keep attacking us.
I agree. It may be subjective but there's a tone to some of the posts that I'm reading that suggests the democratic world has lost. It hasn't, we are debating how much force to use, the best way to use it, and what the outcomes may be. There is no outcome where the democratic world falls to islamism, none.
Holding areas for those rounded up. guilty until proven innocent at this time I'm afraid.
Same time we need to take rapid action militarily over there. Severe air strikes where they are concentrated while moving ground troops.
all nations need to be involved. Surround and move in.
Remove the Virus.
Same time we need to take rapid action militarily over there. Severe air strikes where they are concentrated while moving ground troops.
all nations need to be involved. Surround and move in.
Remove the Virus.
If that's the way I'm coming across then I can only apologize for being unclear and causing all this misunderstanding, which I understand better now.
Radical Islam cannot be allowed to defeat anything. And it won't. They could perform Paris-level attacks every day of the week in every capital of the free world and they still won't have won. Their shitty little ideology and their fruitcake caliphate will be consigned to the dustbin of history while our societies live on. The democratic world has never lost before to totalitarian ideologies and we're not going to start with these two-bit goat lovers.
But strength is not solely measured in the tonnage of bombs we can fling at people and the square acreage we can turn to glass. There is strength in wisdom. And there is strength in forbearance. George Bush lacked that strength.
I am not inherently against war. Nothing would make me happier than if we really annihilated these guys in a storm of lead (and as a reservist in the army of a troop-contributing nation to ISAF I dare say that could potentially end up involving a little more skin in the game for me than most.) But if we make that decision, that's a huge decision, and one we need to make calmly, coldly and rationally, on the basis of the collective considered wisdom of our military experts - not on the basis of fear and anger. I really don't believe we can say we're there yet.
Radical Islam cannot be allowed to defeat anything. And it won't. They could perform Paris-level attacks every day of the week in every capital of the free world and they still won't have won. Their shitty little ideology and their fruitcake caliphate will be consigned to the dustbin of history while our societies live on. The democratic world has never lost before to totalitarian ideologies and we're not going to start with these two-bit goat lovers.
But strength is not solely measured in the tonnage of bombs we can fling at people and the square acreage we can turn to glass. There is strength in wisdom. And there is strength in forbearance. George Bush lacked that strength.
I am not inherently against war. Nothing would make me happier than if we really annihilated these guys in a storm of lead (and as a reservist in the army of a troop-contributing nation to ISAF I dare say that could potentially end up involving a little more skin in the game for me than most.) But if we make that decision, that's a huge decision, and one we need to make calmly, coldly and rationally, on the basis of the collective considered wisdom of our military experts - not on the basis of fear and anger. I really don't believe we can say we're there yet.
Last edited:
The fact that these people (isis) are willing to end their life without even considering it just shows what we are dealing with. They are never going to change their view on life and non believers.
The more I think about it the more I am in favour of just going in and obliterating them from all corners. However as always there are innocent civilians to take into account who do not deserve to be caught up in the crossfire.
An operation involving the world's major powers must be able to defeat isis.
It is so much easier said than done though.
The more I think about it the more I am in favour of just going in and obliterating them from all corners. However as always there are innocent civilians to take into account who do not deserve to be caught up in the crossfire.
An operation involving the world's major powers must be able to defeat isis.
It is so much easier said than done though.
I took it exactly the words you used. Perhaps don't post such silly claims rather than try to claim someone is misunderstanding. If I remember right you once tried to blame the US for the North Korean government also, your obey eagerness to blame the US for everything leads to such silliness.
Lot of good that will do.
why is that a bad idea?
Because it will achieve nothing.