what would be the best way to eliminate isis/al queda

[Atreus21]

It's also worth noting that Saddam Hussein as secular dictator kept a lockdown on religious assholes... he was the dick that was fucking the religious fanatics in Iraq, until someone took him out... and left a vacuum for the religiously fanatical organizations to rush into Iraq and start causing chaos.

So yeah blame Obama for withdrawing troops if you want; but if you don't blame Bush for removing the person who was keeping them from acting up in the first place for flimsy (at the time then ultimately wrong) evidence of a Nuclear WMD program then you're being disingenuous (or uninformed at best).

I don't wholly blame either Bush or Obama for being unable to exactly predict the future.

I'm just interested in understanding ISIS' origins.

 

[blankslate]

I don't wholly blame either Bush or Obama for being unable to exactly predict the future.

I'm just interested in understanding ISIS' origins.

ISIS spawned in part from Al-Qaeda in Iraq and I'm sure you're aware that Al-Qaeda in Iraq quite possibly wouldn't have happened if we contained Saddam Hussein (a strategy that was working with the U.N. inspectors in the area despite what Cheney and CondaLiar Rice were saying), instead of taking him out leaving an opening that allowed religious extremists to rush in.

Despite your assertion it's not about precognition it's about not fucking up the situation more than necessary. For example why start shit in Iraq unnecessarily while Bin Laden was still alive.

Kill Bin Laden, then deal with Saddam was a possible option that wouldn't have opened two fronts in the M.E. That's not precognition or monday morning quarterbacking that what a leader who wasn't getting fucked up advice from the likes of Cheney or Rumsfeld might have considered doing.



________________

 

[blankslate]

So I'll blame Obama all I want and I'm not going to bring Bush into the equation even once. The past can't be changed but the future can certainly be effected. But it takes a leader to do so. It's been a while since I've seen one.

You mean you'll be a partisan hack. I'll blame Bush for turning Iraq into a cesspool that spawned the virulent ISIS and I'll blame Obama for his past (present?) support for overthrowing the president of Syria even though many of his opponents have ties with ISIS. Additionally Assad was also like Saddam Hussein not a particularly religious person who wanted to keep religious fanatics from stirring up shit in his country.

Obama needs to also rethink some aspects of his strategy. His continuation of the drone strike program which while resulting in the deaths of terrorists unfortunately kills bystanders and may create more terrorists down the line than have been killed.

Obama's job in front of him is to get Iran, Saudi Arabia and the other nations who are in the area to step in and deal with the issue of ISIS with the U.S. providing only the support that is necessary. Like satellite intelligence and possibly air support, and on occasion when there are Western Hostages ground action by special forces. Right now the U.S. cannot just withdraw all support because it was the U.S. policies in the first decade of this century that turned the M.E. into a situation that is FUBAR.

Right now it's not certain if Obama will fail in the Middle East as spectacularly as Bush did. It's quite possible given the mess he was left to clean up.

Your refusal to even consider Bush's contributions to the situation means that you are a person who wants the U.S. to continue to blunder around blind, deaf and dumb in the area despite the warning by a top U.S. general who served in the area that doing so is unwise.

Whether you want to admit it or not; or are just too blind to realize... you weren't looking at a leader when you saw President W. Bush on television either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w06I6_aTuHc&t=97m19s

I'm not sure America has made the effort that it needs to, to understand what it is we just went through. The really key part is not how to do these operations.
The thing to understand is why are the people we are fighting doing what they are doing. Why is the enemy the enemy? If you don't understand why they're doing it, it's very difficult to stop them.
We don't speak the language enough, we don't understand the culture enough. We haven't taken the time to... to not be blind deaf and dumb in the areas of the world that matter to us.

 

[soulcougher73]

A Islam bomb that sniffs out if you are a follower of Islam then it kills you....

 

[flexy]

It isn't our attacking the terrorists that is causing them to grow. It is our occupying Islamic countries for a decade or more. There is a difference.

I USED to think that too, but not anymore.

Even with us withdrawn from the Middle East and even with Israel hypothetically out of the picture, ISIS won't sit happily and idly in their caliphate and then peace and happiness will reign. Nope.

Because it needs only one of them shouting that Islam must spread all across Europe, and that's reason enough for them to suicide bomb whatever Western country/city. And we KNOW one of their goals is the spreading of Islam.

We know they see "Rome" and basically all Western civilization as enemies and we know they're irrational/radical and we know they think Islam must spread everywhere. Means..what happens IN THE M.E. is (basically) not even that relevant, with our occupation or without.

** Now see reality...with Israel. You know what happens if our "occupation" would stop. With us out of the picture (hypothetically spoken), their next goal will be the destruction of Israel..and/or whatever other "infidels" ANYWHERE in the ME, every non-muslim.

 

[JSt0rm]

I still think we should carpet bomb them with pornography.

 

[JSt0rm]

let them see the benefits of a western civilization in terms they can understand.

 

[woolfe9998]

I USED to think that too, but not anymore.

Even with us withdrawn from the Middle East and even with Israel hypothetically out of the picture, ISIS won't sit happily and idly in their caliphate and then peace and happiness will reign. Nope.

Because it needs only one of them shouting that Islam must spread all across Europe, and that's reason enough for them to suicide bomb whatever Western country/city. And we KNOW one of their goals is the spreading of Islam.

We know they see "Rome" and basically all Western civilization as enemies and we know they're irrational/radical and we know they think Islam must spread everywhere. Means..what happens IN THE M.E. is (basically) not even that relevant, with our occupation or without.

** Now see reality...with Israel. You know what happens if our "occupation" would stop. With us out of the picture (hypothetically spoken), their next goal will be the destruction of Israel..and/or whatever other "infidels" ANYWHERE in the ME, every non-muslim.

We don't disagree that jihadists have an ideology which includes spreading Islam throughout Europe and the rest of the world. And this ideology is controlling for those who choose to join and/or affiliate with these groups. However, I'm not convinced the ideology is always the reason they join. Some do join because they are angry about something specific. For example, when we were in Iraq, we sometimes accidentally killed civilians and family members of those civilians would often then join the insurgents.

This is the point of those who don't want us to use our military against ISIS - they say that doing so will piss off people who are probably already radicalized to a point and cause them to become actual terrorists. I agree with their general premise - that some who join do so out of anger over specific actions and policies. I just don't think that us going in with a mission of destroying ISIS, accomplishing it, then leaving, is going to cause that.

ISIS is hated by almost everyone in the middle east apart from ISIS itself. If we were to go in with a ground force, sure the arabs and Iranians would complain, but I doubt it would cause significant numbers of people to become terrorists unless we either a) inflict a massive amount of civilian casualties and/or b) we stick around occupying their countries and trying to impose our form of government and way of life on them. That is the stuff that pisses them off. Not so much that we kill terrorists who are victimizing them more than than anyone else.

 

[Zorkorist]

We've already gone in with weapons, teeth bared, didn't work.

What has never been tried is to pit master against slave, and cutoff the rich Arab nations, and ask them to take responsibility for their Muslim Brethren.

Oil, is less than $2 per gallon where I live, due to American ingenuity and fracking.

So, yea, Saudi Arabia... watcha got for me?! I got nothing for you.

-John

 

[disappoint]

I still think we should carpet bomb them with pornography.

Porn magazines with bacon bookmarks.

 

[werepossum]

My first inclination is carpet bombing. My second is to cut them off utterly. No trade, no immigration, no travel period. When a nation goes full rogue like with Afghanistan or ISIS, destroy every airport, seaport, railway exiting. Kill anyone and anything trying to get out. Unfortunately while most of the people leaving Islamic nations are good people, they export a culture which wil not assimilate and will set up Molanbeeks in every country which gets a significant Muslim population.

 

[K1052]

My first inclination is carpet bombing. My second is to cut them off utterly. No trade, no immigration, no travel period. When a nation goes full rogue like with Afghanistan or ISIS, destroy every airport, seaport, railway exiting. Kill anyone and anything trying to get out. Unfortunately while most of the people leaving Islamic nations are good people, they export a culture which wil not assimilate and will set up Molanbeeks in every country which gets a significant Muslim population.

Just to be clear it seems like you're advocating the murder of potentially millions of innocent people. Also, in case anybody hasn't noticed, war provides the most fertile breeding ground for this type of extremism. Creating more war makes more jihadis. We need a fundamental rethinking of our strategy/goals.

 

[TheSlamma]

Just to be clear it seems like you're advocating the murder of potentially millions of innocent people. Also, in case anybody hasn't noticed, war provides the most fertile breeding ground for this type of extremism. Creating more war makes more jihadis. We need a fundamental rethinking of our strategy/goals.

Okay so we got the "Current thing we are doing isn't working" established

Now comes the hard part.. how do we take a group of people who are still living by 13th century religious rules and get them to the 21st century?

Trust me, if I had a lamp and 3 wishes, I would ask for weapons that instead of spreading Napalm would spread chemical enlightenment. Let me show you the definition of enlightenment I am talking about.

a European intellectual movement of the late 17th and 18th centuries emphasizing reason and individualism rather than tradition. It was heavily influenced by 17th-century philosophers such as Descartes, Locke, and Newton

Since that ain't happening, what do we do? not trying to challenge you, I just am ready for us to move into the solutions phase. I don't think open arms is going to convert them from wanting to revert to Sharia law which stands for every gain we have made in the last 300 years.

 

[K1052]

Okay so we got the "Current thing we are doing isn't working" established

Now comes the hard part.. how do we take a group of people who are still living by 13th century religious rules and get them to the 21st century?

Trust me, if I had a lamp and 3 wishes, I would ask for weapons that instead of spreading Napalm would spread chemical enlightenment. Let me show you the definition of enlightenment I am talking about.

a European intellectual movement of the late 17th and 18th centuries emphasizing reason and individualism rather than tradition. It was heavily influenced by 17th-century philosophers such as Descartes, Locke, and Newton

Since that ain't happening, what do we do?

I think the "what do we do" part comes after we define our reason for being there in the first place and what national interests it serves. From my perspective I can't see much besides an economic foundation rooted in access (for us and Europe) to oil. As technology progresses and US access to domestic resources improves I find this a less and less compelling reason to meddle so deeply in ME affairs.

 

[TheSlamma]

I think the "what do we do" part comes after we define our reason for being there in the first place and what national interests it serves. From my perspective I can't see much besides an economic foundation rooted in access (for us and Europe) to oil. As technology progresses and US access to domestic resources improves I find this a less and less compelling reason to meddle so deeply in ME affairs.

I agree with if we left we would see a lot of this solved also.. what my pessimistic side says is that Americans have a drug addiction to fossil fuels and I mean that to the extent that I had a drug addicted parent, denial or admittance to addiction didn't matter, they still wanted those drugs either way no matter what it caused/cost.

Americans are still skeptical about electric cars even though we had them pre-WW2, we are also in a sad state where we don't do the big projects to get this infrastructure in place we used to see under FDR, Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy to support those onshore energies.

 

[FrankRamiro]

We don't disagree that jihadists have an ideology which includes spreading Islam throughout Europe and the rest of the world. And this ideology is controlling for those who choose to join and/or affiliate with these groups. However, I'm not convinced the ideology is always the reason they join. Some do join because they are angry about something specific. For example, when we were in Iraq, we sometimes accidentally killed civilians and family members of those civilians would often then join the insurgents.

This is the point of those who don't want us to use our military against ISIS - they say that doing so will piss off people who are probably already radicalized to a point and cause them to become actual terrorists. I agree with their general premise - that some who join do so out of anger over specific actions and policies. I just don't think that us going in with a mission of destroying ISIS, accomplishing it, then leaving, is going to cause that.

ISIS is hated by almost everyone in the middle east apart from ISIS itself. If we were to go in with a ground force, sure the arabs and Iranians would complain, but I doubt it would cause significant numbers of people to become terrorists unless we either a) inflict a massive amount of civilian casualties and/or b) we stick around occupying their countries and trying to impose our form of government and way of life on them. That is the stuff that pisses them off. Not so much that we kill terrorists who are victimizing them more than than anyone else.

Most of these guys that join these terrorist organizations are completely drug additive scam bags losers in their own countries,and they lack of funds to acquire these drugs then go to these Terrorist groups where there is abundant Drugs and money, so for these losers it's paradise,and after a while of so much drug abuse,they get brain washed and then they don't mind to go out and kill anybody and blow them-self up.
Some folks say their motivation is to go to Allah's paradise,my ass,these guys are not religious,they just regular folks with a heavy drug sickness,and are not in their right mind, which these Muslin terrorist org. take advantage of.

 

[K1052]

I agree with if we left we would see a lot of this solved also.. what my pessimistic side says is that Americans have a drug addiction to fossil fuels and I mean that to the extent that I had a drug addicted parent, denial or admittance to addiction didn't matter, they still wanted those drugs either way no matter what it caused/cost.

Americans are still skeptical about electric cars even though we had them pre-WW2, we are also in a sad state where we don't do the big projects to get this infrastructure in place we used to see under FDR, Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy to support those onshore energies.

At this point I think American skepticism of hybrid and electric vehicles is falling pretty quickly. There will always be holdouts just because it's different. From a technological perspective there are few barriers now to widespread adoption. Costs will fall even further soon as economies of scale increase via LG/Samsung/Tesla who are all building out enormous new production facilities.

It would be relatively simple to push public transit/municipal/commercial fleets into natural gas solutions via incentives since they aren't well suited to pure electric and already rely on centralized infrastructure. Some of that is already happening.

 

[yllus]

I don't wholly blame either Bush or Obama for being unable to exactly predict the future.

I'm just interested in understanding ISIS' origins.

ISIS was Al Qaeda In Iraq before Al Qaeda found their methods too harsh and told them to stop using their name. ISIS on its own then meandered until Iraq's ex-officer corps, virtually barred from employment in their own country, got on board and are now running things despite not being all that religious.

 

[yllus]

The blame game is a fun game. It's done here pretty much constantly. Here's something I know for certain. Bush can't change one fucking thing - nothing. But Obama is the head honcho in the White House right now and he's calling the shots. He's already doing his usual bit. The Paris massacre, he's termed it "a setback" while doubling down on his determination to bring in refugee's that numerous people high up in government say we have no effective means to screen with any degree of confidence.

Obama's a good man for staying firm on bringing in refugees. I haven't looked too fondly on most of his years for his non-prosecution of Wall Street and the terrible privacy violations, but it's good to see him not stooping to collective punishment of brown-skinned people because of the incidents of one day.

 

[zinfamous]

I thought I've been pretty clear that the targets should be ISIS and Al Queda. So, yes, wherever they are would be my response. That doesn't mean "anywhere there's Muslims."

Oh, but it does.

 

[Blue_Max]

Complete shitbird:
"Hey guys, argue with facts!!!"
lol.

I haven't seen you guys put up any yet, so time to ante up. Here's a petition your bleeding heart can sign.

https://www.change.org/p/petition-in-favour-of-welcoming-syrian-refugees-to-canada?utm_source=action_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=442890&alert_id=WODWRfqTxs_DUSg7Z9rXvhyr7zVOoxNNE4wngNgNNRvBSj%2F8F221tO0W7NSyYKCm4TNrpCg624S

Just the simplest and easiest to start with - liberal whiners BEGGING for 'innocent' refugees to come on over! Bring your friends!

"These human beings are attempting to flee a senseless and nameless violence, all they want is security for themselves and their loved ones. This is what we want to offer them.

Love is greater than fear. " (emphasis on the bullshit added.)

...this is despite countless videos of Refugees Behaving Badly (there's a TV series waiting to happen!)

I need to find the videos of hundreds and hundreds of healthy young men storming city walls and rioting, but after 5 minutes of this they focus on the ONE woman with children who saw the camera, came up to it, then started screaming as loud and long as she could. And this is all the liberals could focus on after that. "That poor woman... we have to help all these poor refugees!"


Your turn. Got anything on liberals doing anything other than blind acceptance?

 

[Blue_Max]

Obama's a good man for staying firm on bringing in refugees. I haven't looked too fondly on most of his years for his non-prosecution of Wall Street and the terrible privacy violations, but it's good to see him not stooping to collective punishment of brown-skinned people because of the incidents of one day.

One. Day.

Really?

*sigh*

 

[CitizenKain]

I haven't seen you guys put up any yet, so time to ante up. Here's a petition your bleeding heart can sign.

https://www.change.org/p/petition-in-favour-of-welcoming-syrian-refugees-to-canada?utm_source=action_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=442890&alert_id=WODWRfqTxs_DUSg7Z9rXvhyr7zVOoxNNE4wngNgNNRvBSj%2F8F221tO0W7NSyYKCm4TNrpCg624S

Just the simplest and easiest to start with - liberal whiners BEGGING for 'innocent' refugees to come on over! Bring your friends!

"These human beings are attempting to flee a senseless and nameless violence, all they want is security for themselves and their loved ones. This is what we want to offer them.

Love is greater than fear. " (emphasis on the bullshit added.)

...this is despite countless videos of Refugees Behaving Badly (there's a TV series waiting to happen!)

I need to find the videos of hundreds and hundreds of healthy young men storming city walls and rioting, but after 5 minutes of this they focus on the ONE woman with children who saw the camera, came up to it, then started screaming as loud and long as she could. And this is all the liberals could focus on after that. "That poor woman... we have to help all these poor refugees!"


Your turn. Got anything on liberals doing anything other than blind acceptance?

So like always, you've got nothing.

 

[TheSlamma]

A Islam bomb that sniffs out if you are a follower of Islam then it kills you....

Must be powered by Science and Logic then.

 

[Blue_Max]

So like always, you've got nothing.

...and like always, you utterly ignore anything put forth and just hurl out an insult for not simply 'falling into line'.

I suppose this only proves what most of us knew already - it's pretty much impossible to discuss anything with lib-warriors... nothing gets through that blind zealotry.

*sigh* Well, if anyone can provide sound, logical reasoning for me to have a different opinion, I'll pore it over.