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

[Blackjack200]

lets have lots of liberal "hash tag" symbolism..that will teach em.

Yeah, vapid social media bullshit is definitely something liberals have a monopoly on.

 

[MongGrel]

I think there is a degree of truth to this but it is bit over-simplified. We used "bullets and bombs" to defeat the Nazis during WWII. Indeed, it didn't kill the "idea" of fascism and Nazism. There are still people on the planet who believe in it to this day. However, the bullets and bombs did severely restrict the ability of adherents of this idea to dominate, threaten, and kill others.

The thing about ISIS which is very different from other terrorist groups we have fought in the past is that there is a large number of them concentrated in a specific geographical region right now. This presents an opportunity to eliminate a large chunk of them and reduce the threat from this "idea" in the long run.

Pretty much this, I'm not going to over elaborate.

 

[1prophet]

Education. Jobs. Some degree of prosperity.

yep

You mean education and prosperity like Ben Carson?

 

[SMOGZINN]

I think there is a degree of truth to this but it is bit over-simplified. We used "bullets and bombs" to defeat the Nazis during WWII. Indeed, it didn't kill the "idea" of fascism and Nazism. There are still people on the planet who believe in it to this day. However, the bullets and bombs did severely restrict the ability of adherents of this idea to dominate, threaten, and kill others.

Nazisism was an idea worth killing for, but ultimatly not an idea worth dying for. That is how we won that war. We killed enough of them that they decided it was not worth continuing the fight. No matter how many ISIS members we kill they are never going to feel that it is not worth fighting for. You can't kill this idea by killing the people that believe it because they believe it is worth not just killing for but dying for. Kill them and it just convinces others that the idea has value.

The thing about ISIS which is very different from other terrorist groups we have fought in the past is that there is a large number of them concentrated in a specific geographical region right now. This presents an opportunity to eliminate a large chunk of them and reduce the threat from this "idea" in the long run.

No, it reduces the threat of it in the short run. In the long run you have just made the threat worse. They will simply spread out and attack in smaller groups against easier targets. Following that, to keep using our guns and bombs to fight this leaves us the only option of taking away more liberties so we can harden those targets and find the smaller groups. Eventually this way their idology defeats ours. The more we win battles the more we lose the war.

 

[bshole]

Secularlism from the inside.

 

[woolfe9998]

Nazisism was an idea worth killing for, but ultimatly not an idea worth dying for. That is how we won that war. We killed enough of them that they decided it was not worth continuing the fight. No matter how many ISIS members we kill they are never going to feel that it is not worth fighting for. You can't kill this idea by killing the people that believe it because they believe it is worth not just killing for but dying for. Kill them and it just convinces others that the idea has value.



No, it reduces the threat of it in the short run. In the long run you have just made the threat worse. They will simply spread out and attack in smaller groups against easier targets. Following that, to keep using our guns and bombs to fight this leaves us the only option of taking away more liberties so we can harden those targets and find the smaller groups. Eventually this way their idology defeats ours. The more we win battles the more we lose the war.

Yeah, I don't fully agree with all those assumptions. But even if true, you are overlooking the fact that with ISIS controlling this territory, they have access to resources which are vastly beyond what AQ or any other jihadist group has ever had. So even if literally every one of them we kill gets replaced by another - which IMO is not necessarily a valid assumption - you have achieved something very important security wise by denying them these resources.

This is a very different situation than we have faced int he past because these terrorists have their own state now. The local armies don't seem to have the ability to defeat them. With no US or coalition military power, they will continue to expand their territory. Which in the long run makes a confrontation with the US inevitable, if for no other reason that we can't allow radical jihadists to control a large chunk of the world's oil supply which could cause a global recession. In my view, pulling out right now is just kicking the can down the road.

 

[bshole]

Yeah, I don't fully agree with all those assumptions. But even if true, you are overlooking the fact that with ISIS controlling this territory, they have access to resources which are vastly beyond what AQ or any other jihadist group has ever had. So even if literally every one of them we kill gets replaced by another - which IMO is not necessarily a valid assumption - you have achieved something very important security wise by denying them these resources.

I agree with that. It appears that every one of them we kill get replaced by 10 or so. Since America began killing them, they have grown in power to the point where they can now hold wide swathes of territory in the Middle East. Perhaps if we attack again in force, they can take over the whole of the Middle East. The problem is that people of the Middle East support sharia law and theocracy. What does America gain by denying them that?

 

[Atreus21]

Just watched this last night.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/rise-of-isis/

Unless I'm mistaken, the roots of ISIS lie in the remnants of Al Qaeda in Iraq and the Baathists, whose membership was decimated up until the pullout. Several events served to fuel their resurgence, namely the civil war in Syria and the Al-Maliki extreme crackdown on all things Sunni.

It's a bit out of date, October of last year.

 

[CitizenKain]

I cordially invite you to debate my claim with facts of your own.

Rather than merely saying I'm 'stupid', show me I'm wrong with a compelling and factual argument. Show everyone that the liberal side is NOT crying for unquestioning tolerance of islam and to never analyze (let alone question) its teachings.

As soon as you post something factual go ahead and let us know, it will be the first.

 

[K1052]

Well since they are already with us it's unlikely that we'll be able to eliminate them totally. Taliban? Still around. AQ? Still around. ISIS? Probably will still be around. This simply isn't a problem that we can kill our way out of without means that the vast majority of people would consider objectionable. So I think the question is how do we manage not to create the next iteration of extremism?

I'm thinking a more practical answer revolves around why we are in the region to begin with picking winners and losers out of overall terrible regimes/factions that help create these situations that are greatly exacerbated by our interventions.

 

[flexy]

>>
that there is a large number of them concentrated in a specific geographical region right now.
>>

WUT?

Syria, Lebanon, Morocco, Jordan, Iraq, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon ...

Not exactly what I'd call "concentrated". Yes, bomb Raqqa/Syria. Wipe it off the Earth. So what? You think this will destroy ISIS? They're basically all over the ME and not exactly tightly organized.

How one rightfully pointed out, this shit today happens over social media before anything else.

Since I just saw something about "Anonymous", them "declaring war on ISIS", wiping out ISIS is pretty much like going against Anonymous. Or "all radical Americans" or whatever. It's more vague and fuzzy than anything. This is NOT a war you win by bombarding a city like Baghdad over a weekend, this is an entirely different level of war.

And even if you theoretically bomb the entire ME "to shit"...what about the 25% of Muslims, say, that are in France?

 

[Blackjack200]

Well since they are already with us it's unlikely that we'll be able to eliminate them totally. Taliban? Still around. AQ? Still around. ISIS? Probably will still be around. This simply isn't a problem that we can kill our way out of without means that the vast majority of people would consider objectionable. So I think the question is how do we manage not to create the next iteration of extremism?

I'm thinking a more practical answer revolves around why we are in the region to begin with picking winners and losers out of overall terrible regimes/factions that help create these situations that are greatly exacerbated by our interventions.

Exactly. The extremists in that region will probably never moderate. They will die extremists. In killing them you create more extremists.

To minimize the attacks we'd have to eliminate our presence there, and that's just not something we're willing to do. So we should be honest with ourselves that a couple of hundred casualties every few years is the price of pursuing our interests aroud the globe.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Bacon. Share bacon with them. Let them enjoy the glory of pork, share our beers with them, allow them to bask in the majesty of liquor, then, through glory and majesty, they will repent.

 

[Blackjack200]

As soon as you post something factual go ahead and let us know, it will be the first.

Complete shitbird:

Awww... did I hurt your feelings by insulting your poli-sci degree with a minor in 'wymmyns issues'?

"Hey guys, argue with facts!!!"

lol.

 

[yllus]

Ah...nice quote just C/P from CNN:

"You might be able to suppress them militarily, or you might be able to cut off some of their lines, but you can't suppress the key message they're spreading."

My point.

The message that Daesh is spreading isn't actually all that attractive. There's some tiny percentage of the dumb, deluded or disturbed that flock to a place where sex slavery is commonplace and you get a fair chance at cutting off an unbeliever's head, but the utterly vast majority of people in the territory controlled by Daesh are only there because that's where they live.

Exactly. The extremists in that region will probably never moderate. They will die extremists. In killing them you create more extremists.

To minimize the attacks we'd have to eliminate our presence there, and that's just not something we're willing to do. So we should be honest with ourselves that a couple of hundred casualties every few years is the price of pursuing our interests around the globe.

I think this is also the most reasonable action - we'll never have perfect peace, but that is the tradeoff to being involved in the Middle East (or holding the ideals we do if you consider that to be the reason).

 

[MongGrel]

No matter how many ISIS members we kill they are never going to feel that it is not worth fighting for. You can't kill this idea by killing the people that believe it because they believe it is worth not just killing for but dying for. Kill them and it just convinces others that the idea has value.

I'll tip toe around this one a bit and just comment that if the people supporting that viewpoint are not there to support it, it lowers the threat considerably.

 

[MongGrel]

The message that Daesh is spreading isn't actually all that attractive. There's some tiny percentage of the dumb, deluded or disturbed that flock to a place where sex slavery is commonplace and you get a fair chance at cutting off an unbeliever's head, but the utterly vast majority of people in the territory controlled by Daesh are only there because that's where they live.

Actually it is more like a large portion of the population living in Daesh controlled areas being raised to be extremists.

The Islamic State (Full Length)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUjHb4C7b94

It has only been a few years now of course, but similar societies have used the same tactics in the past when a large percentage of the population were forced to comply and just go with it.

 

[blankslate]

Just watched this last night.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/rise-of-isis/

Unless I'm mistaken, the roots of ISIS lie in the remnants of Al Qaeda in Iraq and the Baathists, whose membership was decimated up until the pullout. Several events served to fuel their resurgence, namely the civil war in Syria and the Al-Maliki extreme crackdown on all things Sunni.

It's a bit out of date, October of last year.

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).

Remember we had U.N. inspectors running around in Iraq since late 2002 right up to a week or so before the invasion looking for WMD and not really finding anything more than old chemical weapons.

The China shop wasn't broken on President Obama's watch... it was broken on President Bush's watch.
Al-Qaeda being able to do anything in Iraq was Bin Laden's wet dream until the Bush Administration did him a favor by removing Saddam Hussein

It's not for no reason that President G.H.W. Bush had less than flattering words for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney; they served his son badly.

Perhaps without such incompetent asses in President G.W. Bush's Administration advising him, the president may have conducted the operations in the Middle East in such a way that ISIS might not have grown to the influential Middle Eastern organization that it is today.


_______________

 

[Oyeve]

Nuke from orbit, blame russia, start from scratch.

 

[blankslate]

Imagine how much horsePOWA radioactive gasoline would produce for internal combustion engines!


______________

 

[Oyeve]

Imagine how much horsePOWA radioactive gasoline would produce for internal combustion engines!


______________

We could play Fall out 4 for real!

 

[woolfe9998]

I agree with that. It appears that every one of them we kill get replaced by 10 or so. Since America began killing them, they have grown in power to the point where they can now hold wide swathes of territory in the Middle East. Perhaps if we attack again in force, they can take over the whole of the Middle East. The problem is that people of the Middle East support sharia law and theocracy. What does America gain by denying them that?

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.

 

[sm625]

Well, since "Dont arm them, dont drone strike them, dont otherwise provoke them" is clearly not 'mercan enough, I have a more acceptable solution. Pick two dozen Islamic cities and write them down on pieces of paper. Place those pieces of paper in a hat. Tell all the muzzies that the next time one of these events occurs, one name will be drawn out of the hat. That city will be removed from map by way of Mr H-bomb.


WAY over the line.

Perknose
Forum Director

 

[SMOGZINN]

Well, since "Dont arm them, dont drone strike them, dont otherwise provoke them" is clearly not 'mercan enough, I have a more acceptable solution. Pick two dozen Islamic cities and write them down on pieces of paper. Place those pieces of paper in a hat. Tell all the muzzies that the next time one of these events occurs, one name will be drawn out of the hat. That city will be removed from map by way of Mr H-bomb.

Sure, and maybe they will do the same thing for American Cities. I mean it is not like Americans (or at least vaguely white Christians, I mean we are not being overly specific here) don't commit atrocities. I’m sure someone will lend them the nukes. Putin has not been too happy with us or them recently. Heck, for a few billion dollars I'm sure Halliburton would be happy to sell them one.

 

[boomerang]

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).

Remember we had U.N. inspectors running around in Iraq since late 2002 right up to a week or so before the invasion looking for WMD and not really finding anything more than old chemical weapons.

The China shop wasn't broken on President Obama's watch... it was broken on President Bush's watch.
Al-Qaeda being able to do anything in Iraq was Bin Laden's wet dream until the Bush Administration did him a favor by removing Saddam Hussein

It's not for no reason that President G.H.W. Bush had less than flattering words for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney; they served his son badly.

Perhaps without such incompetent asses in President G.W. Bush's Administration advising him, the president may have conducted the operations in the Middle East in such a way that ISIS might not have grown to the influential Middle Eastern organization that it is today.


_______________

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.

I expect the POTUS to do the job in front of him despite any and all shit he's got heaped on his plate from any previous administration. It's not even remotely too much to ask because he ran for the office knowing that shit was on that plate. In the case of the namby-pamby we've got right now that would be twice. He decided he wanted a second round. He's seven years in. Seven years of hiding under the desk. 430 days to go. We'll get to see how much more he can drag his feet because he's afraid of offending people.

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.