ISIS has the same threat level for USA as the KKK does for Africa.

[WelshBloke]

Is there a downside to ISIS killing people in Muslim Countries? Let them keep killing Muslims till the Muslims start fighting back. Let them all kill each other. We can sell arms to both sides.

Well you end up with a winner that's battle hardened, well armed, has nothing left to lose and hates the rest of the world.

Nothing could possibly go wrong.

 

[Blanky]

ISIS is no meaningful threat for America, never was, never will be. The sheep are always on the lookout for wolves, though, to justify being kept under master's boot.

ISIS are a bunch of yahoos without educations or means who are fucking around in third world countries. If you really believe the US is susceptible to a tiny group of uneducated third world clowns you don't have much faith in the US at all.

A single terrorist or a few can do anything anywhere. No country is immune. But in terms of any meaningful, long-term significant threat to the US no terror group on the planet is. You're more likely to be killed in a car crash or die of cancer than even be within a hundred miles of a terrorist event in your life time.

 

[WelshBloke]

... You're more likely to be killed in a car crash or die of cancer than even be within a hundred miles of a terrorist event in your life time.

I think that the point is that we want to keep it like that.

Western nations aren't immune to terrorism. There's nothing special about the US that makes it safer.

 

[5150Joker]

ISIS is no meaningful threat for America, never was, never will be. The sheep are always on the lookout for wolves, though, to justify being kept under master's boot.

ISIS are a bunch of yahoos without educations or means who are fucking around in third world countries. If you really believe the US is susceptible to a tiny group of uneducated third world clowns you don't have much faith in the US at all.

A single terrorist or a few can do anything anywhere. No country is immune. But in terms of any meaningful, long-term significant threat to the US no terror group on the planet is. You're more likely to be killed in a car crash or die of cancer than even be within a hundred miles of a terrorist event in your life time.

It's not about ISIS or their ideology as much as it is to make sure the world oil market isn't disrupted by them. Just remember, in politics it's always about the $$$$$$$$

 

[Jaskalas]

a ground attack on the us?

bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahaaha.

unless mexico is an isis base good fucking luck.

19 men with box cutters did a considerable amount of damage.

You're still stupid enough to think conventional ground army...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think that the point is that we want to keep it like that.

Western nations aren't immune to terrorism. There's nothing special about the US that makes it safer.

Imagine that there's a small fire in the corner of your home. You can get out the fire extinguisher.

or.

You can call up the news, make a big speech about how dangerous fire is and commit to ridding the community of household hazards. You spend a fortune on hiring people to go into other communities where they aren't wanted but you don't care about any of that. Kick the door in.

or,

You could get out the fire extinguisher. This is the option we didn't choose.

 

[WelshBloke]

Imagine that there's a small fire in the corner of your home. You can get out the fire extinguisher.

or.

You can call up the news, make a big speech about how dangerous fire is and commit to ridding the community of household hazards. You spend a fortune on hiring people to go into other communities where they aren't wanted but you don't care about any of that. Kick the door in.

or,

You could get out the fire extinguisher. This is the option we didn't choose.

But in this situation the fire is in the adjoining house and they don't want us to come in, and the guy who's trying to put out the fire there is just sort of waving a dish cloth at it while the other guys there are playing with fireworks. And we need to get the health and safety people to sign off on who's had fire training before we give anyone a fire extinguisher plus they still won't open the door to let us in.

 

[fskimospy]

Imagine that there's a small fire in the corner of your home. You can get out the fire extinguisher.

or.

You can call up the news, make a big speech about how dangerous fire is and commit to ridding the community of household hazards. You spend a fortune on hiring people to go into other communities where they aren't wanted but you don't care about any of that. Kick the door in.

or,

You could get out the fire extinguisher. This is the option we didn't choose.

Can you explain what "getting out the fire extinguisher" would be in this situation?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Can you explain what "getting out the fire extinguisher" would be in this situation?

ISIS is not an organization which can be easily defeated by less than full scale force and even then I'm not sure how successful it would be. Instead of pretending that we'll make the world safe from terrorism yet again by invading Syria and boasting how great we are don't politicize actions dramatically and promising that we'll do this and won't do that because that's a fools game. One never knows what will be necessary. Concentrate on making life generally miserable and not make deposing Assad a priority. "Get Saddam" and "Get Assad"? Neither make sense. Focus on priorities and the top two would be to aid when there is imminent danger and focus of ISIS leadership fully. Keep quiet and prosecute when the opportunities arise. But above shut up with the nonsense rhetoric. Get in, strike, get out, and don't telegraph what we will and won't do.

 

[fskimospy]

ISIS is not an organization which can be easily defeated by less than full scale force and even then I'm not sure how successful it would be. Instead of pretending that we'll make the world safe from terrorism yet again by invading Syria and boasting how great we are don't politicize actions dramatically and promising that we'll do this and won't do that because that's a fools game. One never knows what will be necessary. Concentrate on making life generally miserable and not make deposing Assad a priority. "Get Saddam" and "Get Assad"? Neither make sense. Focus on priorities and the top two would be to aid when there is imminent danger and focus of ISIS leadership fully. Keep quiet and prosecute when the opportunities arise. But above shut up with the nonsense rhetoric. Get in, strike, get out, and don't telegraph what we will and won't do.

We aren't invading Syria. Any reports to that have been quickly dismissed, and rightly so.

Furthermore, telegraphing our intentions is probably the most important part of the strategy that we have, outside of the actual bombing. This is a political battle as much as a military one.

So far with a fairly small effort we have removed threats to both Iraq and Iraqi Kurdistan, the latter being the best and most stable ally we have in the region. Seems like things are going quite well so far.

 

[WelshBloke]

ISIS is not an organization which can be easily defeated by less than full scale force and even then I'm not sure how successful it would be. Instead of pretending that we'll make the world safe from terrorism yet again by invading Syria and boasting how great we are don't politicize actions dramatically and promising that we'll do this and won't do that because that's a fools game. One never knows what will be necessary. Concentrate on making life generally miserable and not make deposing Assad a priority. "Get Saddam" and "Get Assad"? Neither make sense. Focus on priorities and the top two would be to aid when there is imminent danger and focus of ISIS leadership fully. Keep quiet and prosecute when the opportunities arise. But above shut up with the nonsense rhetoric. Get in, strike, get out, and don't telegraph what we will and won't do.

I'm not sure that running bombing raids in Iraq without telling the Iraqis or the American people would go down well.

 

[Blanky]

I think that the point is that we want to keep it like that.

Western nations aren't immune to terrorism. There's nothing special about the US that makes it safer.

There is. It's a continent away. ISIS profliferates in backwards parts of the world without real governments, and uneducated masses that are sympathetic due to Islamic ideology.

 

[WelshBloke]

There is. It's a continent away. ISIS profliferates in backwards parts of the world without real governments, and uneducated masses that are sympathetic due to Islamic ideology.

ISIS also has a massive funding structure and recruits from pretty much everywhere. It has access to a good supply of modern weapons and is trying to set up its own sovereign state (which without the West's opposition it would have probably succeeded in).

To say that they are no threat because of distance is just daft. Yes, no one is saying that they would cause the downfall of any Western countries but they could quite easily become a proper pain in the ass.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm not sure that running bombing raids in Iraq without telling the Iraqis or the American people would go down well.

I didn't say that we should keep what we are doing a secret. If we're bombing then we ought to know.

Perhaps this will make my point clearer.

Imagine there's a group of extremely dangerous felons hold up in a building.

The police announce over a bullhorn "This is the police- Come out with your hands up or else we're not coming in."


Now whether they decide to go in and attempt to capture or not is irrelevant. The perps are unsure just what the response is, well except they don't have to worry about police breaking down the door. Don't ever ever tell your enemy what you are prepared NOT to do.

 

[WelshBloke]

I didn't say that we should keep what we are doing a secret. If we're bombing then we ought to know.

Perhaps this will make my point clearer.

Imagine there's a group of extremely dangerous felons hold up in a building.

The police announce over a bullhorn "This is the police- Come out with your hands up or else we're not coming in."


Now whether they decide to go in and attempt to capture or not is irrelevant. The perps are unsure just what the response is, well except they don't have to worry about police breaking down the door. Don't ever ever tell your enemy what you are prepared NOT to do.

There's a certain level of difference in the way that you can treat criminals that are in an area in which you have legal control over and military acts in foreign countries.

The politicians need to keep not only their own people on side but also the politicians in the countries that they want to act in on side. You can't do that without giving out some assurances about what you'll do.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

There's a certain level of difference in the way that you can treat criminals that are in an area in which you have legal control over and military acts in foreign countries.

The politicians need to keep not only their own people on side but also the politicians in the countries that they want to act in on side. You can't do that without giving out some assurances about what you'll do.

Like "I'm drawing a red line and we'll go after him.."? If not for Putin and Assad pulling our fat out of the fire we'd have had to go in and if you recall Obama was not above bullying Congress to get the go ahead.

There's a difference between giving assurances to our side and giving them to ISIS, which is effectively what we did. A good statesman should be able to give reassurances to our people without handing a large part of the overall plan to the enemy and a diplomat should be able to privately assure our allies and other parties in the region. Instead we have people who grab the microphone and pose for the cameras. We've apparently lost the ability to function at as high a level as we did not many decades ago. We were able to avoid nuclear war by clever application of sound principles while Khrushchev pounded the table. Now we take off our shoes and bang whatever comes to hand. As someone who lived through the cold war it's apparent that we've devolved into soundbites and photo ops. That's not good.

 

[JimmiG]

They're a much bigger threat to Europe, partly because we're closer geographically, but more importantly because they already have a European invasion army in place.

In the last decades, millions of Muslims have immigrated to Europe as "asylum seekers". Now that they have their European passports and citizenship and have collected enough money off welfare, state-sponsored mosques etc, they're going back to their home countries to join ISIS. Right now they're taking the fight there, but in the long term they have their sights set on Europe.

While not all of them were radical islamists when they arrived in Europe, they have been converted and radicalized during their time here. Islamist leaders in Muslim dominated districts of European cities have declared Jihad against the host country. By keeping the districts off-limits to police and security workers (by torching cars and throwing rocks, home-made bombs etc. at police who try to enter), they've been able to indoctrinate their followers without interference. In many such muslim-dominated districts, Shariah law is in place, and popular support for ISIS is over 80%, higher than in Gaza.