World war 3

[The Grand Nudger]

Eradicating ISIS in that manner is likely to leave a vacuum for another organization to fill (and that's pretty much how ISIS got where they are to begin with) - and as a hellish bonus, it would be propaganda material for the the next round of jackasses (which, I have to add, may be so much like the current jackasses we don't even notice a regime change), don't you think?

[Zidneya]

Eradicating ISIS in that manner is likely to leave a vacuum for another organization to fill (and that's pretty much how ISIS got where they are to begin with) - and as a hellish bonus, it would be propaganda material for the the next round of jackasses (which, I have to add, may be so much like the current jackasses we don't even notice a regime change), don't you think?

Damns that's a good one Rhytm. I should have put on my list.

---

• And why should we change a Islamic genocide for an American one?Because when we say intervene you know how many blood will be spilled? By us. Remember our enemies at the end of the day are still humans.
  
• Or do you think that the ones who will die in that war will be only soldiers?
  
• Or that the conflict will be only on the battlefield?
  
• And you think that if a country were the majority are Christians(as America) suppress an Islamic country won't be misinterpreted as a religious dominance?
  
• Oh and let's not forget. That you assume that we can win that war because?
  

---

Actually it's so obvious that I feel a little silly for not thinking about it.

[Mr Greene]

Ok they're a terrorist organisation like the IRA. We had Northern Ireland clamped down with the sort of intel on individuals people in Britain couldn't imagine. Yet still the violence and killings went on.
The military really only served to inflame the situation, as unavoidable as it was.
Yes the main victims of the IRA were and are the catholics, but that doesn't really get us any further.
Ultimately what stopped the IRA was the drying up of funding from the US after Sept. 11. That brought Adams and Co. to the negotiating table.
You want to stop ISIS? Hit their funding.

[Anomalocaris]

You want to stop ISIS? Find out what would make the street Muslim think modern secular values and capitalistic economics will on the whole, all things considered, help them and their societies gain cohesion, comparative wealth, status, and above all influence in the world, rather than some nefarious tool that they, through experience, think would mainly avail the west in further divide and humiliate them, and can not help them adequately, while reducing their ability to cope with the means they do have at hand.

It is a matter of fact that for every western hostage killed, in their territory, I might add, the west kills hundred if not thousands of Muslims, in Muslim territory, directly. It is this asymmetry that highlights why they resort to disparate radical measures.

When a society is weak and backwards, and experience lengthy periods of humiliations and defeat in contest by ordinary means, it will eventually find some unexpected and seemingly radical means of striking back.

When seen in proper perspective, these radical means of retaliation are usually ineffective. Otherwise they would not have become the last resort for the defeated, but would have been the fIrst resort for everyone. But they are usually shocking and spectacular to the impressionable.

[Mister Agenda]

Interesting responses... my point wasn't to come up with a solution to the military strategy, more to get an agreement that there's a problem that needs dealing with? seems some of you don't think so?

If the Islamic state gets a foothold, then apart from riding roughshod over any middle east country in it's way, it is committing genocide. That must be enough for us to intervene? We're not talking about one individual dictator to remove for oil purposes. We're talking about protecting human life - there can be nothing more important surely?!

If a significant Islamic sharia state is formed, it can only embolden other borderline extreme muslims to act and press for change where they live...

The message needs to be that religious dominance is not welcome anywhere on this beautiful planet... surely?

The local powers are capable of handling the threat if we send the message that we won't come riding over the hill to intervene like we've always done before. They'll never be able to govern their own region if we never let them.

---

They are not looking to fight in their own arena, they want to take over the whole world !!!!

Everybody wants to rule the world.

---

ISIS is evidence that education is important (science, history and everything else)

With respect, what education?
At an early age, 2/3/4 they start reciting the quran. And as they go to prayer, they get preached at. You aren't going to change that...

It would be like asking my mum how tall she was in metres !

We changed it in Afganistan and Iran. They were socialist and communist-leaning countries who didn't go in for all that old-fashioned madrassa crap. Then we helped overthrow THOSE governments. Now we've got rampant fundamentalism.

Maybe we should look at how those countries once became so secular.

[Lemonvariable72]

In that case you need a missile shield that can stop a ICBM. Good luck with that.

Yeah thanks for a nothing post...!

You do understand that Pakistan has nuclear weapons right?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Yes the main victims of the IRA were and are the catholics,

Yeah, not so much.

Boru

[Zidneya]

Sorry I've been busy that's why I will reply you know.

Zidneya, unfortunately I don't have time to spend meticulously responding to the dozens of points you've made.

Then why did you started a thread?

I started to read you last post and realise where we differ... it seems that we both spot the IS genocide, but I think where we differ is on the appropriateness or the subtlety of the word genocide.

I don't want to hear what wikipedia says give me you example.

And in the sense of the word you are right to say that the US and the UN are committing genocide on IS.

But lets look at why both sides are committing genocide.

Yeah let's justify the blood shed that way we can say that when we does this is for the right reason.

IS are extreme muslims who want to enforce the caliphate, and create the true islam (in their eyes) in the land that they can take in the religious jihad. And the genocide is whatever it needs to be in order to get the sharia in place.

Don't get me wrong if one of them was here justifying their blood shel, I will question them as well.

Whereas, the UN (hopefully)

Some of the worst atrocities in this world were made by people with the best intentions. And that doesn't mean they were okay

will commit genocide (of the religious sort) and destroy the barbaric, parasitic, evil scum that call themselves IS,

You can't destroy evil, grow up.

so that all humans on this planet realise that we have a basis for human rights and liberty, and they will transcend all religions and politics.

Yeah because the idea of a dictatorship in a first world is so impossible.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

CIA Official Motto: Proudly Overthrowing Fidel Castro Since 1962.

Boru

Since March 1960, officially. Bay of pigs in early 1961 took time to prepare.

---

The countries that supply them with the military hardware are the real problems. If they didn't sell them arms they wouldn't have too much to fight with. Then throw in the various folks who supply them with money
and you have a real mess on your hands. Eliminate those groups and and it'll be a lot easier to take out the terrorists. Since the dummies in the CIA are always supplying bad guys with guns and money it might be a good idea to start with them.

The country that supplied their most fancy arms is the United States. We gave the humvees, armored personnel carriers, and the fabled since first gulf war, allegedly invincible, although in reality often blown up, M-1A1 main battle tank. We gave these to them out of the inventory of the US army through the trusty intermediary of the Iraqi army that we trained and whose skills in weapon transfer to inferior opponent under duress surpasses even those of the Italian army of WWII.

As to the majority of their meat and potato arms like rifles and anti-tank missiles, we didn't supply them out of our own inventory, but we encouraged others to when Hillary Clinton thought Assad was the worst thing there could possibly be in that part of the world.

The main problem with American foreign policy is that it's run by idiots.

The British and French caused the Middle East problems 100 years ago when they decided to overthrow the Ottoman Empire and carve up the region with funny lines on a map. The US contributed to the problem when FDR thought that he could bring democracy to the Arabs while fighting WWII but the scumbag ignored that fact that there was no real democracy in America.

The Arab leaders, excluding the dictators, want what they've always wanted, a strong unified led Arab theocracy based upon 7th Century Middle East desert-dwelling Arab cultural and religious ideas. It doesn't matter too much which group of the week brings it about as long as they get it. So the conflict will continue until they get it or until they are all killed off. So unless we are willing to kill all of them it's easier just to let them live in the 7th Century and cut all ties to them.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

IS are extreme muslims who want to enforce the caliphate, and create the true islam (in their eyes) in the land that they can take in the religious jihad. And the genocide is whatever it needs to be in order to get the sharia in place. Whereas, the UN (hopefully) will commit genocide (of the religious sort) and destroy the barbaric, parasitic, evil scum that call themselves IS

That a Western in the 21st century could espouse such an idea (and not see the problem in doing so) shouldn't surprise me, but it never ceases to horrify me.

Boru