Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

ISIS @ 2014/09/11 01:11:24


Post by: SirSertile


Apparently, Obama's speech tonight was a giant slap in the face to ISIL. So apparently this is a definite declaration of war. What do you guys think? Any concerns?


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 01:16:48


Post by: sirlynchmob


SirSertile wrote:
Apparently, Obama's speech tonight was a giant slap in the face to ISIL. So apparently this is a definite declaration of war. What do you guys think? Any concerns?



Plenty of real ones, but let's keep it light.

when one of the countries you labeled as the new axis of evil is on your side, you might want to rethink your actions.

Just sayin.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 01:20:50


Post by: LoneLictor


sirlynchmob wrote:
SirSertile wrote:
Apparently, Obama's speech tonight was a giant slap in the face to ISIL. So apparently this is a definite declaration of war. What do you guys think? Any concerns?



Plenty of real ones, but let's keep it light.

when one of the countries you labeled as the new axis of evil is on your side, you might want to rethink your actions.

Just sayin.


Obama and Bush are different people. There are several subtle ways to tell, including the fact that Obama is a black democrat from Chicago, while Bush is a white republican from Texas.

And do you seriously think we should support ISIS just to spite Iran, or are you just trying to be snarky?


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 01:21:43


Post by: LordofHats


I would assume we'd consider Iraq becoming Taliban Afghanistan 2.0 to be a rather bad thing. Maybe should do something bout that, idk.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 01:37:57


Post by: sirlynchmob


 LoneLictor wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
SirSertile wrote:
Apparently, Obama's speech tonight was a giant slap in the face to ISIL. So apparently this is a definite declaration of war. What do you guys think? Any concerns?



Plenty of real ones, but let's keep it light.

when one of the countries you labeled as the new axis of evil is on your side, you might want to rethink your actions.

Just sayin.


Obama and Bush are different people. There are several subtle ways to tell, including the fact that Obama is a black democrat from Chicago, while Bush is a white republican from Texas.

And do you seriously think we should support ISIS just to spite Iran, or are you just trying to be snarky?


That seems to be the only difference between the two really, Obama and Bush are the same when it comes to waging wars, and spying.

You already supported ISIS, McCain sure seems buddy buddy with them. Had a nice photoshoot with them and everything.

I never said you should support ISIS, I said you need to rethink what you are about to do and think it through for once. come up with an exit strategy for a change. come up with a long term plan, not just bomb them and see what happens.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 01:49:02


Post by: Jihadin


McCain knew those individuals were to become part of ISIS a year later?!?!?


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 01:58:49


Post by: sirlynchmob


 Jihadin wrote:
McCain knew those individuals were to become part of ISIS a year later?!?!?


he was arguing 2 years ago that he wanted to arm ISIS:

http://lybio.net/busted-mccain-slips-up-and-reveals-us-wanted-to-arm-isis/news-politics/
Already the meeting in the White House, over two years ago, everyone in the national security team recommended arming Isis.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 02:14:12


Post by: Jihadin


sirlynchmob wrote:
 Jihadin wrote:
McCain knew those individuals were to become part of ISIS a year later?!?!?


he was arguing 2 years ago that he wanted to arm ISIS:

http://lybio.net/busted-mccain-slips-up-and-reveals-us-wanted-to-arm-isis/news-politics/
Already the meeting in the White House, over two years ago, everyone in the national security team recommended arming Isis.


So was Hillary Clinton


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 02:25:57


Post by: Hordini


You do realize there were other groups in Syria besides ISIS, right? The Free Syrian Army was a pretty significant force that was seeing some success, and was mostly a moderate, secular militia fighting against Assad. But since nobody did anything to support them, they saddled up with some of the more extremist groups in the country for lack of other allies. At this point they've actually fought against ISIS in some areas as well. It's not like the only two options were siding with ISIS or siding with Assad, there are more than two factions operating in Syria, and two years ago, ISIS wasn't yet the most powerful anti-Assad group.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 02:26:04


Post by: Vaktathi


Personally, despite having been very strongly against most of our military foreign actions for the last decade+ (I thought the Iraq war was a senseless tragedy built on a premise of lies and the Afghanistan conflict a mismanaged exercise in wasting lives and money) I have few problems with any military action against ISIS. These are people who genuinely deserve to die, and are, or intend to become (by their own admission), a threat anyone who isn't them.

That said, their videos probably have the best combat action footage I've ever seen.





ISIS @ 2014/09/11 02:34:58


Post by: whembly


Declare War Congress/Mr. President.

Otherwise... don't bother.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 02:37:32


Post by: Jihadin


Congress is now on the hook along with Obama on how ISIS gets crushed (or attempt to crush)

Those we're using as our "Boots on the Ground" I wonder how long they are going to resent the fact that we're using them as our proxy


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 02:38:52


Post by: Midnightdeathblade


No other way to stop them. And if they're targeting Americans, they should expect to get their asses kicked. Drones, Missiles, or Boots, either way they'll get whats coming to them.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 02:39:39


Post by: sirlynchmob


 Jihadin wrote:
Congress is now on the hook along with Obama on how ISIS gets crushed (or attempt to crush)

Those we're using as our "Boots on the Ground" I wonder how long they are going to resent the fact that we're using them as our proxy


Did congress vote on it already? that was amazingly fast.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 02:42:04


Post by: Jihadin


sirlynchmob wrote:
 Jihadin wrote:
Congress is now on the hook along with Obama on how ISIS gets crushed (or attempt to crush)

Those we're using as our "Boots on the Ground" I wonder how long they are going to resent the fact that we're using them as our proxy


Did congress vote on it already? that was amazingly fast.


Dem's and Repub's are going to vote "No"? Both sides of the aisle wanted escalation of force against ISIS.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 06:15:34


Post by: Malika2


I found it quite ironic that Obama called with the king of Saudi Arabia for advice on ISIS. But then again, if Obama wants to fight against guys who behead people for 'sorcery', destroy cultural heritage, and grant no rights to women, he might as well ask for advice from a guy who beheads people for 'sorcery', destroys cultural heritage, and grants no rights to women. Right?


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 08:42:16


Post by: Frankenberry


Two things:

One, this is bs.

Two, war. LoL. Right, because THAT'LL happen. Country had a chance at work thirteen years ago and they fething that up. This simply more crap that doesn't actually mean anything.

Note: The only these people understand is violence, not peace or talking, simply violence. Stop announcing what we're going to do on the news, call up Seal Team 6 and task them with annihilating these assclowns from existence.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 10:25:27


Post by: Malika2


On the other hand, war is indeed very lucrative. At the end it doesn't really matter who wins, as long as the fighting and spending continues.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 12:51:29


Post by: Frazzled


Not our fight. This is why they keep attacking us.

Stay out of it.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 12:58:45


Post by: Ahtman


 Frazzled wrote:
Not our fight. This is why they keep attacking us.

Stay out of it.


They'll keep attacking us either way, and they kill our citizens and allies while disrupting our trade, so it is a little our fight it just. It isn't as dramatic as flying planes into buildings, but we are under attack. I know isolationism seems like a simple answer but it rarely makes things better, and often makes it worse long term. The problem isn't usually that we shouldn't get involved but the extent and nature of that involvement, which is when things get tricky.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 13:09:46


Post by: Malika2


Hmm, maybe next year we'll give them new weapons when they're fighting some regime we're not too fond of...


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 13:10:09


Post by: gorgon


 LoneLictor wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
SirSertile wrote:
Apparently, Obama's speech tonight was a giant slap in the face to ISIL. So apparently this is a definite declaration of war. What do you guys think? Any concerns?



Plenty of real ones, but let's keep it light.

when one of the countries you labeled as the new axis of evil is on your side, you might want to rethink your actions.

Just sayin.


Obama and Bush are different people. There are several subtle ways to tell, including the fact that Obama is a black democrat from Chicago, while Bush is a white republican from Texas.


Canadians think we all look alike. To be fair, I keep confusing Wayne Gretzky with John Candy.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 13:10:56


Post by: Frazzled


Attacking them while our borders are open is an invitation to disaster. There are already reports of plans to cross from the South and launch attacks.

Sorry but Islamic terrorism has been occurring for a thousand years. Even the Ottomans had to deal with it.

What will happen is we will bomb them. The countries with skin in the game bordering them will continue to do...nothing.

Sorry I'm too old a bunny. I've seen this Tv show like four times already.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 13:12:55


Post by: gorgon


 Malika2 wrote:
I found it quite ironic that Obama called with the king of Saudi Arabia for advice on ISIS. But then again, if Obama wants to fight against guys who behead people for 'sorcery', destroy cultural heritage, and grant no rights to women, he might as well ask for advice from a guy who beheads people for 'sorcery', destroys cultural heritage, and grants no rights to women. Right?


It's almost as if political leaders engage in politics.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 13:15:23


Post by: Ahtman


Apparently SBS in Australia is delaying the launch of Season 2 of Danger 5 because of ISIS, so now we know the true cost of all this.

Spoiler:
Dear Fans of Danger 5,

It is with our deepest disappointment and sadness that we announce a decision has been made to delay the broadcast of Danger 5 Series 2 on SBS. This is due to unforeseen international news events and the recent ISIS actions and it’s felt in the current climate the series might not be received in the comedic spirit in which it was created.

Unfortunately this delay is completely out of our control and the entire team at Danger 5 and Dinosaur are truly devastated.

At this stage we're unaware of when Series 2 will air, but as soon as we do, you will be the first to know.

We hope that you will stick by us until this time as we do everything we can to show you what has taken the entire team thousands of hours of hard work, sweat and a few tears.

So, in the interest of making the anticipation unbearable, we will share with you (TONIGHT at 7.30pm Thursday 11 September AEST) the Official Trailer for Danger 5 Series 2.

We will be back to kill Hitler once and for all.

Love, the D5 team


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 13:20:49


Post by: motyak


 Ahtman wrote:
Apparently SBS in Australia is delaying the launch of Season 2 of Danger 5 because of ISIS, so now we know the true cost of all this.

Spoiler:
Dear Fans of Danger 5,

It is with our deepest disappointment and sadness that we announce a decision has been made to delay the broadcast of Danger 5 Series 2 on SBS. This is due to unforeseen international news events and the recent ISIS actions and it’s felt in the current climate the series might not be received in the comedic spirit in which it was created.

Unfortunately this delay is completely out of our control and the entire team at Danger 5 and Dinosaur are truly devastated.

At this stage we're unaware of when Series 2 will air, but as soon as we do, you will be the first to know.

We hope that you will stick by us until this time as we do everything we can to show you what has taken the entire team thousands of hours of hard work, sweat and a few tears.

So, in the interest of making the anticipation unbearable, we will share with you (TONIGHT at 7.30pm Thursday 11 September AEST) the Official Trailer for Danger 5 Series 2.

We will be back to kill Hitler once and for all.

Love, the D5 team


Holy gak this is a show?

"American GIs are being decimated by Nazi dinosaurs all over the Western front. Danger 5 heads to Belgium to investigate and has a series of close shaves with a trigger-happy Triceratops and a perverted Nazi Pterodactyl. Claire discovers that the dinosaurs have all been implanted with a mysterious type of crystal, native to Antarctica and Danger 5 embark on a journey to the South Pole. Antarctica proves to be a lost plateau of prehistoric wonder where Danger 5 encounter the bizarre Dr Josef Mengele and his sinister volcano base filled with Nazi dinosaur minions."

That's a synopsis of an episode. How have I not seen this.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 13:25:02


Post by: KalashnikovMarine


Did anyone else hear that noise? It sounded like a tired paper tiger trying to bypass a bunch of people on a hill, in order to attack a poisonous, angry octopus, while simultaneously drawing down the strength it its claws. It was a very frightening sound.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 13:25:20


Post by: Frazzled


Wo, now thats a TV show!


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 14:41:35


Post by: whembly


 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Did anyone else hear that noise? It sounded like a tired paper tiger trying to bypass a bunch of people on a hill, in order to attack a poisonous, angry octopus, while simultaneously drawing down the strength it its claws. It was a very frightening sound.

Heh... the hypocrisy is galling...

A) I'm waiting for Democrats to push Obama to get UN approval...

B) I'm waiting for an actual Declaration of War and/or Congressional Authorizations...

C) I'm waiting for Democrats to hammer Obama for "going at it alone", with his 9-nation coalition (Bush had 40+ nations)...

D) The schadenfreude is especially delicious.

*I don't mind "going to War to destroy ISIS"... I just want the following:
1) Have a real fething plan with clear objectives
2) What is "victory"?
3) What's the exit strategy?
4) Then, have Congress vote on it clearly.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 14:52:06


Post by: Malika2


 gorgon wrote:
 Malika2 wrote:
I found it quite ironic that Obama called with the king of Saudi Arabia for advice on ISIS. But then again, if Obama wants to fight against guys who behead people for 'sorcery', destroy cultural heritage, and grant no rights to women, he might as well ask for advice from a guy who beheads people for 'sorcery', destroys cultural heritage, and grants no rights to women. Right?


It's almost as if political leaders engage in politics.


Definitely, but then again, it makes you wonder how 'real' all of this becomes. The US wants to fight against a group that does all these horrible things by maintaining alliances with regimes that do exactly the same thing, which kinda shows that maybe all these horrible things aren't that relevant, it's only relevant who is the one carrying them out.

In other words: everything's fine kids, our leaders are playing their silly games again, don't take them too seriously please!


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 14:54:17


Post by: Easy E


 whembly wrote:
Declare War Congress/Mr. President.

Otherwise... don't bother.


How do you declare war against a non-state actor?

IDK


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Frazzled wrote:
Attacking them while our borders are open is an invitation to disaster. There are already reports of plans to cross from the South and launch attacks.

Sorry but Islamic terrorism has been occurring for a thousand years. Even the Ottomans had to deal with it.

What will happen is we will bomb them. The countries with skin in the game bordering them will continue to do...nothing.

Sorry I'm too old a bunny. I've seen this Tv show like four times already.


Fraz, I thought it was better to fight them overthere than fight them here?


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 15:17:46


Post by: Wilytank


This is a little old news, but it really sucks that the ISIS name is ruining certain non-related things. The band Isis has been getting a lot of unwanted press despite having split up four years ago. http://abcnews.go.com/US/isis-rock-band-mistaken-reviled-terrorist-group/story?id=25088363


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 15:34:27


Post by: Frazzled


 Easy E wrote:
 whembly wrote:
Declare War Congress/Mr. President.

Otherwise... don't bother.


How do you declare war against a non-state actor?

IDK


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Frazzled wrote:
Attacking them while our borders are open is an invitation to disaster. There are already reports of plans to cross from the South and launch attacks.

Sorry but Islamic terrorism has been occurring for a thousand years. Even the Ottomans had to deal with it.

What will happen is we will bomb them. The countries with skin in the game bordering them will continue to do...nothing.

Sorry I'm too old a bunny. I've seen this Tv show like four times already.


Fraz, I thought it was better to fight them overthere than fight them here?


No its better to have secure borders so we could care less. If its good enough for Switzerland its good enough for us.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 15:36:02


Post by: Malika2


 Wilytank wrote:
This is a little old news, but it really sucks that the ISIS name is ruining certain non-related things. The band Isis has been getting a lot of unwanted press despite having split up four years ago. http://abcnews.go.com/US/isis-rock-band-mistaken-reviled-terrorist-group/story?id=25088363




ISIS @ 2014/09/11 15:42:22


Post by: Dreadclaw69


 Easy E wrote:
 whembly wrote:
Declare War Congress/Mr. President.

Otherwise... don't bother.


How do you declare war against a non-state actor?

IDK

How was it done against Al-Qaeda?


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 16:02:13


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


 motyak wrote:
 Ahtman wrote:
Apparently SBS in Australia is delaying the launch of Season 2 of Danger 5 because of ISIS, so now we know the true cost of all this.

Spoiler:
Dear Fans of Danger 5,

It is with our deepest disappointment and sadness that we announce a decision has been made to delay the broadcast of Danger 5 Series 2 on SBS. This is due to unforeseen international news events and the recent ISIS actions and it’s felt in the current climate the series might not be received in the comedic spirit in which it was created.

Unfortunately this delay is completely out of our control and the entire team at Danger 5 and Dinosaur are truly devastated.

At this stage we're unaware of when Series 2 will air, but as soon as we do, you will be the first to know.

We hope that you will stick by us until this time as we do everything we can to show you what has taken the entire team thousands of hours of hard work, sweat and a few tears.

So, in the interest of making the anticipation unbearable, we will share with you (TONIGHT at 7.30pm Thursday 11 September AEST) the Official Trailer for Danger 5 Series 2.

We will be back to kill Hitler once and for all.

Love, the D5 team


Holy gak this is a show?

"American GIs are being decimated by Nazi dinosaurs all over the Western front. Danger 5 heads to Belgium to investigate and has a series of close shaves with a trigger-happy Triceratops and a perverted Nazi Pterodactyl. Claire discovers that the dinosaurs have all been implanted with a mysterious type of crystal, native to Antarctica and Danger 5 embark on a journey to the South Pole. Antarctica proves to be a lost plateau of prehistoric wonder where Danger 5 encounter the bizarre Dr Josef Mengele and his sinister volcano base filled with Nazi dinosaur minions."

That's a synopsis of an episode. How have I not seen this.


I don't know what I just read, but I do know that it sounds awesome


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 16:13:30


Post by: gorgon


 Wilytank wrote:
This is a little old news, but it really sucks that the ISIS name is ruining certain non-related things. The band Isis has been getting a lot of unwanted press despite having split up four years ago. http://abcnews.go.com/US/isis-rock-band-mistaken-reviled-terrorist-group/story?id=25088363


I suppose I'm dating myself for thinking of her.



She was quite the fox, though.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 16:14:47


Post by: Dreadclaw69


 whembly wrote:
 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Did anyone else hear that noise? It sounded like a tired paper tiger trying to bypass a bunch of people on a hill, in order to attack a poisonous, angry octopus, while simultaneously drawing down the strength it its claws. It was a very frightening sound.

Heh... the hypocrisy is galling...

A) I'm waiting for Democrats to push Obama to get UN approval...

B) I'm waiting for an actual Declaration of War and/or Congressional Authorizations...

C) I'm waiting for Democrats to hammer Obama for "going at it alone", with his 9-nation coalition (Bush had 40+ nations)...

D) The schadenfreude is especially delicious.

*I don't mind "going to War to destroy ISIS"... I just want the following:
1) Have a real fething plan with clear objectives
2) What is "victory"?
3) What's the exit strategy?
4) Then, have Congress vote on it clearly.

You might be waiting a long time



For what it is worth I'd like to see something that is quantifiable, and with clear objectives. We went into Afghanistan initially to deal with non-state actors, then the mission expanded beyond it's original scope.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 16:34:46


Post by: easysauce


the legality of bombing countries without their permission also comes to mind...

not sure why obama rejected syrias offer to help either, seems like getting the country where your attacks would land on the same page as you would be a good idea.



Nothing will ever be solved until we have marines drop podding in within minutes from low orbit every time someone sounds the "freedoooooooom" signal.



ISIS @ 2014/09/11 16:44:06


Post by: Wilytank


 gorgon wrote:
 Wilytank wrote:
This is a little old news, but it really sucks that the ISIS name is ruining certain non-related things. The band Isis has been getting a lot of unwanted press despite having split up four years ago. http://abcnews.go.com/US/isis-rock-band-mistaken-reviled-terrorist-group/story?id=25088363


I suppose I'm dating myself for thinking of her.

Spoiler:


She was quite the fox, though.


I have a friend who has named his pet cat Isis tell me that she (the cat) has been dealing with severe psychological stress due to all this and is currently on anti-depressants.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 16:48:53


Post by: Dreadclaw69


 easysauce wrote:
the legality of bombing countries without their permission also comes to mind...

not sure why obama rejected syrias offer to help either, seems like getting the country where your attacks would land on the same page as you would be a good idea.

After trying to work against Syria for months, castigating them for civilian casualties in the media, downplaying attacks by rebels, openly talking about assisting the rebels, and Russia's support of Syria (the same Russia causing trouble in Ukraine) makes any sort of cooperation a little bit tricky to handle.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 16:52:22


Post by: Frazzled


 easysauce wrote:
the legality of bombing countries without their permission also comes to mind...

not sure why obama rejected syrias offer to help either, seems like getting the country where your attacks would land on the same page as you would be a good idea.



Nothing will ever be solved until we have marines drop podding in within minutes from low orbit every time someone sounds the "freedoooooooom" signal.



Wait so we're bombing Syria without their consent to kill terrorists who are pledged to bring down the Syrian government? Can someone get me a play book?


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 16:56:01


Post by: Jihadin


I can see Syria Air Defense getting some shots in on ISI......wait....


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 17:06:43


Post by: Dreadclaw69


 Frazzled wrote:
Wait so we're bombing Syria without their consent to kill terrorists who are pledged to bring down the Syrian government? Can someone get me a play book?

Sure. It's from Alien v Predator; whoever wins we lose


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 17:15:57


Post by: squidhills


 Malika2 wrote:
 Wilytank wrote:
This is a little old news, but it really sucks that the ISIS name is ruining certain non-related things. The band Isis has been getting a lot of unwanted press despite having split up four years ago. http://abcnews.go.com/US/isis-rock-band-mistaken-reviled-terrorist-group/story?id=25088363




THIS. This is the reason that I want ISIS destroyed more than anything else. I want those fethers ground into dust, then I want the dust loaded onto a rocket and fired into the sun. I want all trace of them removed from Earth and I want their name erased from history. Because I spent $15 on a shirt with that logo on it three weeks ago and I haven't been able to wear it in public once, yet.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 17:32:44


Post by: Grey Templar


 easysauce wrote:
the legality of bombing countries without their permission also comes to mind...

not sure why obama rejected syrias offer to help either, seems like getting the country where your attacks would land on the same page as you would be a good idea.

Nothing will ever be solved until we have marines drop podding in within minutes from low orbit every time someone sounds the "freedoooooooom" signal.



You could argue that if a country has portions of its land being held by a hostile force it no longer has jurisdiction over that area. If you can't hold it, its no longer yours. It belongs to whoever is holding it.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 17:36:02


Post by: Jihadin


squidhills wrote:
 Malika2 wrote:
 Wilytank wrote:
This is a little old news, but it really sucks that the ISIS name is ruining certain non-related things. The band Isis has been getting a lot of unwanted press despite having split up four years ago. http://abcnews.go.com/US/isis-rock-band-mistaken-reviled-terrorist-group/story?id=25088363




THIS. This is the reason that I want ISIS destroyed more than anything else. I want those fethers ground into dust, then I want the dust loaded onto a rocket and fired into the sun. I want all trace of them removed from Earth and I want their name erased from history. Because I spent $15 on a shirt with that logo on it three weeks ago and I haven't been able to wear it in public once, yet.


ISIS been in the News longer then that.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 17:44:03


Post by: Ifurita


"Leading from the front" while promising no boots on the ground sounds an awful lot like "pushing from the back". Egyptian Vipers .... very dangerous ... you go first.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 17:47:26


Post by: Frazzled


 Grey Templar wrote:
 easysauce wrote:
the legality of bombing countries without their permission also comes to mind...

not sure why obama rejected syrias offer to help either, seems like getting the country where your attacks would land on the same page as you would be a good idea.

Nothing will ever be solved until we have marines drop podding in within minutes from low orbit every time someone sounds the "freedoooooooom" signal.



You could argue that if a country has portions of its land being held by a hostile force it no longer has jurisdiction over that area. If you can't hold it, its no longer yours. It belongs to whoever is holding it.


You could argue it until the SAMs start coming your way.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 17:47:56


Post by: whembly


I just can't stop laughing at Obama's insistence on claiming the Islamic State is not Islamic.



ISIS @ 2014/09/11 17:49:09


Post by: Hordini


 whembly wrote:
I just can't stop laughing at Obama's insistence on claiming the Islamic State is not Islamic.




I get what he was trying to say, the way he said it just didn't come out right.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 17:50:18


Post by: Dreadclaw69


So what does the first I in ISIS/ISIL stand for then?


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 17:52:05


Post by: Jihadin


"Iffy" maybe?


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 17:52:13


Post by: MrDwhitey


 Grey Templar wrote:
 easysauce wrote:
the legality of bombing countries without their permission also comes to mind...

not sure why obama rejected syrias offer to help either, seems like getting the country where your attacks would land on the same page as you would be a good idea.

Nothing will ever be solved until we have marines drop podding in within minutes from low orbit every time someone sounds the "freedoooooooom" signal.



You could argue that if a country has portions of its land being held by a hostile force it no longer has jurisdiction over that area. If you can't hold it, its no longer yours. It belongs to whoever is holding it.


Oh hi Putin.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 17:53:34


Post by: Hordini


 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So what does the first I in ISIS/ISIL stand for then?



Are you asking me, or Obama?


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 17:57:32


Post by: Jihadin


 Hordini wrote:
 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So what does the first I in ISIS/ISIL stand for then?



Are you asking me, or Obama?


Forgot to add Psaki in that


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 17:58:11


Post by: Grey Templar


 MrDwhitey wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
 easysauce wrote:
the legality of bombing countries without their permission also comes to mind...

not sure why obama rejected syrias offer to help either, seems like getting the country where your attacks would land on the same page as you would be a good idea.

Nothing will ever be solved until we have marines drop podding in within minutes from low orbit every time someone sounds the "freedoooooooom" signal.



You could argue that if a country has portions of its land being held by a hostile force it no longer has jurisdiction over that area. If you can't hold it, its no longer yours. It belongs to whoever is holding it.


Oh hi Putin.


I'm not saying its right. Just that you could make the argument.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 18:00:04


Post by: Hordini


 Jihadin wrote:
 Hordini wrote:
 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So what does the first I in ISIS/ISIL stand for then?



Are you asking me, or Obama?


Forgot to add Psaki in that



I'm not sure what you mean by that.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 18:03:34


Post by: whembly


 Hordini wrote:
 whembly wrote:
I just can't stop laughing at Obama's insistence on claiming the Islamic State is not Islamic.




I get what he was trying to say, the way he said it just didn't come out right.

Even then... I think it's a problematic concept.

I don't like the idea that Muslims are so easily excused for these horrible actors...

We always seem to rush to the podium to reassure the Muslim world that none of us think any ill of them for the army of psychopaths that keep marching out of their ranks. (Bush did this too)

I know we can't blame the Muslim world for everything these terrorist do...

Meh...

I go back to idea that if we're going to commit any forces (even if it's just droning), we need to have the full backing of Congress AND clear/concise objectives.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 18:05:09


Post by: Hordini


What good would it do to antagonize the majority of Muslims who aren't extremists?


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 18:10:07


Post by: Frazzled


And the backing out begins.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/battling-isis-britain-wont-rule-out-airstrikes-n200936

Turkey and Germany are not helping. You could have at least waited 24 hours to prove me right.

Inversely Syria and Iran are saying excluding us (especially when you're talking about bombing Syria) is a bad idea.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2752054/Iranian-Syrian-officials-slam-Obama-s-strategy-fighting-militants-shuns-support-mission-destroy-ISIS.html


Wow this is starting off so well.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 18:16:42


Post by: Hordini


 Frazzled wrote:
And the backing out begins.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/battling-isis-britain-wont-rule-out-airstrikes-n200936

Turkey and Germany are not helping. You could have at least waited 24 hours to prove me right.

Inversely Syria and Iran are saying excluding us (especially when you're talking about bombing Syria) is a bad idea.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2752054/Iranian-Syrian-officials-slam-Obama-s-strategy-fighting-militants-shuns-support-mission-destroy-ISIS.html


Wow this is starting off so well.



Germany wasn't asked to help, but it doesn't surprise me. They wouldn't have done anything.

I'm kind of surprised about Turkey though.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 18:17:11


Post by: Frazzled


http://www.mrctv.org/videos/us-war-isis-state-s-psaki-says-i-m-not-going-put-new-labels-it

Cute!


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 18:27:10


Post by: whembly


 Hordini wrote:
What good would it do to antagonize the majority of Muslims who aren't extremists?



By not stating at every chance that Islam is the Religion of Peace™ at every chance.

*shrug*

I'm kinda ambivalent anyways because it's literally "above my pay grade".

If those we elected thinks that's the best stance... then, so be it.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 18:34:37


Post by: Hordini


 whembly wrote:
 Hordini wrote:
What good would it do to antagonize the majority of Muslims who aren't extremists?



By not stating at every chance that Islam is the Religion of Peace™ at every chance.

*shrug*

I'm kinda ambivalent anyways because it's literally "above my pay grade".

If those we elected thinks that's the best stance... then, so be it.



I think part of the problem is, a large piece of the American population doesn't actually know anything about Islam, and our elected officials are trying to make it clear that fighting ISIS doesn't mean we're at war with Islam, or that ISIS represent views held by the majority of Muslims.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 19:02:21


Post by: Bran Dawri


 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So what does the first I in ISIS/ISIL stand for then?


Idiotic? Infamous? Impotent? Incontinent?

The possibilities are endless...


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 19:15:44


Post by: easysauce


 Hordini wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 Hordini wrote:
What good would it do to antagonize the majority of Muslims who aren't extremists?



By not stating at every chance that Islam is the Religion of Peace™ at every chance.

*shrug*

I'm kinda ambivalent anyways because it's literally "above my pay grade".

If those we elected thinks that's the best stance... then, so be it.



I think part of the problem is, a large piece of the American population doesn't actually know anything about Islam, and our elected officials are trying to make it clear that fighting ISIS doesn't mean we're at war with Islam, or that ISIS represent views held by the majority of Muslims.




Or, on the other side of the coin, perhaps many followers of islam dont realize how mysogenistic and backwards their belief system is.


Like it or not, there are enough muslims who believe in the ISIS type beleifs to take over a large part of the middle east, which is not an insignificant amount of people, nor is it the miniority. For every ISIS guy who takes up arms and is willing to kill/die for the islamic state, there are more "ISIS" people who adhere to that beleif but dont participate directly in the fighting.


Regardless of how the american population views islam, the fact is, none of the wars against islamic countries/groups were fought because the american people asked for it, nor would this change if everyone had the same knowledge of islam as they do say christianity.

Its a very small group of people, who damn well SHOULD know about islam, who are calling the shots.

Like it or not, the USA gets judged as a WHOLE on the actions of its leaders, and like it or not, ISIS has become one of, if not THE, dominant leader of the islamic world, and they will be judged on that.



ISIS @ 2014/09/11 19:24:08


Post by: Hordini


In the Islamic world as a whole, they are the minority. There are people living in IS territory who aren't pro-ISIS but don't have the capability of fighting back.

There are secular and more moderate militias in Syria who have fought against ISIS, to say nothing of Syrian government forces.

ISIS is in no way the dominant leader of the Islamic world. That doesn't mean they are not a threat, and a quickly growing one at that, but there are several actual countries that have a lot more influence than ISIS.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 19:34:54


Post by: easysauce


 Hordini wrote:
In the Islamic world as a whole, they are the minority. There are people living in IS territory who aren't pro-ISIS but don't have the capability of fighting back.

There are secular and more moderate militias in Syria who have fought against ISIS, to say nothing of Syrian government forces.

ISIS is in no way the dominant leader of the Islamic world. That doesn't mean they are not a threat, and a quickly growing one at that, but there are several actual countries that have a lot more influence than ISIS.


I think you are missing the point,

If ISIS was such a small part of the islamic community, it wouldnt have the huge footprint it does.

the fact that it can dominate the region, with no one other islamic group powerful enough to actually challenge them, let alone oust them from power,

does in fact make them the most powerful group.

if these other countries you speak of have so much influence, why have they not used it?

if ISIS isnt the strongest group in the region, then why are they in power at all? why have these "moderate majority muslim" groups not ousted them if they are such a majority?

that is the very thesis of power, the most powerful group, is in power, ISIS in in power, ergo the most powerful group.

yes there are islamic groups opposing them, the lack of sucess in opposing them means they are less powerfull/numerous, not more powerful/numerous as you assert.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 19:40:11


Post by: Frazzled


That is an interesting point.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 19:41:32


Post by: Easy E


 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So what does the first I in ISIS/ISIL stand for then?


It's pretty obvious tha he is trying to say these violent extremists don't represent all of Islam or even all of Sunni Islam and their actiosn are oppose to mainline Islamic teachings.

You can't alienate the Islamists that you want to fight the other Islamists.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 19:43:30


Post by: Platuan4th


 easysauce wrote:

if these other countries you speak of have so much influence, why have they not used it?


Honestly? Because they don't exactly like each other. They may seem like some united front against Israel or other common enemies, but thinking that the Middle Eastern countries are going to help each other with out a good solid reason as to how it benefits their country is showing a lack of understanding in their politics amongst each other.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 19:48:39


Post by: Hordini


 easysauce wrote:
 Hordini wrote:
In the Islamic world as a whole, they are the minority. There are people living in IS territory who aren't pro-ISIS but don't have the capability of fighting back.

There are secular and more moderate militias in Syria who have fought against ISIS, to say nothing of Syrian government forces.

ISIS is in no way the dominant leader of the Islamic world. That doesn't mean they are not a threat, and a quickly growing one at that, but there are several actual countries that have a lot more influence than ISIS.


I think you are missing the point,

If ISIS was such a small part of the islamic community, it wouldnt have the huge footprint it does.

the fact that it can dominate the region, with no one other islamic group powerful enough to actually challenge them, let alone oust them from power,

does in fact make them the most powerful group.

if these other countries you speak of have so much influence, why have they not used it?

if ISIS isnt the strongest group in the region, then why are they in power at all? why have these "moderate majority muslim" groups not ousted them if they are such a majority?

that is the very thesis of power, the most powerful group, is in power, ISIS in in power, ergo the most powerful group.

yes there are islamic groups opposing them, the lack of sucess in opposing them means they are less powerfull/numerous, not more powerful/numerous as you assert.




Iraq and Syria aren't the only countries in the region, and if we're talking about the Islamic world as a whole, ISIS' footprint is relatively small. The problem is the speed at which it is growing. The Islamic world is a lot more than just Iraq and Syria, and is a lot more diverse than many westerners seem to think.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 19:49:37


Post by: easysauce


 Platuan4th wrote:
 easysauce wrote:

if these other countries you speak of have so much influence, why have they not used it?


Honestly? Because they hate each other.


thats one theory, one very far to one side.
"we hate you, so much so, that we wont help you get rid of our common enemy"

another more theory being,

lots of these countries hate ISIS less then they hate what they perceive to be "western puppet" regiemes.


Given that the people in the area have been polarized to the extreme by decades, spanning multiple generations, of the west bombing the feth out of their countries (well intentioned or not, it doesnt matter), or at best peacfully controlling them, Im not suprised one bit that support for things like ISIS is so high.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 19:51:43


Post by: Hordini


You realize that ISIS got a large number of its fighters by breaking them out of prisons in Iraq and Syria, right?


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 19:53:03


Post by: Grey Templar


 easysauce wrote:
 Hordini wrote:
In the Islamic world as a whole, they are the minority. There are people living in IS territory who aren't pro-ISIS but don't have the capability of fighting back.

There are secular and more moderate militias in Syria who have fought against ISIS, to say nothing of Syrian government forces.

ISIS is in no way the dominant leader of the Islamic world. That doesn't mean they are not a threat, and a quickly growing one at that, but there are several actual countries that have a lot more influence than ISIS.


I think you are missing the point,

If ISIS was such a small part of the islamic community, it wouldnt have the huge footprint it does.

the fact that it can dominate the region, with no one other islamic group powerful enough to actually challenge them, let alone oust them from power,

does in fact make them the most powerful group.

if these other countries you speak of have so much influence, why have they not used it?

if ISIS isnt the strongest group in the region, then why are they in power at all? why have these "moderate majority muslim" groups not ousted them if they are such a majority?

that is the very thesis of power, the most powerful group, is in power, ISIS in in power, ergo the most powerful group.

yes there are islamic groups opposing them, the lack of sucess in opposing them means they are less powerfull/numerous, not more powerful/numerous as you assert.



Indeed.

While the majority of Muslims definitely don't share their radical beliefs, the majority at the very least don't oppose their radical beliefs enough to stop them. Which is almost as bad, if not just as bad, as if they did. And it allows them to propagate their beliefs among the impressionable youth of the various nations, meaning they are growing in numbers.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 19:55:03


Post by: Frazzled


Isis
Islamic Brotherhood (Egypt)
AlQaeda in Yemen, North Africa.
Extremists in North Africa
Extemists in Central Africa
Taliban
Al Shabob
Somali groups
Chenyan extremists


How much of a minority is it at this point? There seems to be an awful lot.



ISIS @ 2014/09/11 19:56:31


Post by: Hordini


The majority of Muslims from where? In Iraq and Syria, or the majority of Muslims in general? As has already been stated there have been clashes with ISIS in Syria and Iraq with both government forces and more moderate militias.

How are Muslims outside of Iraq and Syria supposed to stop ISIS?


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 20:00:28


Post by: d-usa


If somebody said "Westborough Baptist Church is not The Church" would we be having this conversation?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Grey Templar wrote:
 easysauce wrote:
 Hordini wrote:
In the Islamic world as a whole, they are the minority. There are people living in IS territory who aren't pro-ISIS but don't have the capability of fighting back.

There are secular and more moderate militias in Syria who have fought against ISIS, to say nothing of Syrian government forces.

ISIS is in no way the dominant leader of the Islamic world. That doesn't mean they are not a threat, and a quickly growing one at that, but there are several actual countries that have a lot more influence than ISIS.


I think you are missing the point,

If ISIS was such a small part of the islamic community, it wouldnt have the huge footprint it does.

the fact that it can dominate the region, with no one other islamic group powerful enough to actually challenge them, let alone oust them from power,

does in fact make them the most powerful group.

if these other countries you speak of have so much influence, why have they not used it?

if ISIS isnt the strongest group in the region, then why are they in power at all? why have these "moderate majority muslim" groups not ousted them if they are such a majority?

that is the very thesis of power, the most powerful group, is in power, ISIS in in power, ergo the most powerful group.

yes there are islamic groups opposing them, the lack of sucess in opposing them means they are less powerfull/numerous, not more powerful/numerous as you assert.



Indeed.

While the majority of Muslims definitely don't share their radical beliefs, the majority at the very least don't oppose their radical beliefs enough to stop them. Which is almost as bad, if not just as bad, as if they did. And it allows them to propagate their beliefs among the impressionable youth of the various nations, meaning they are growing in numbers.


Until I see a picture of you counter protesting the WBC I should consider you responsible and a supporter?


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 20:02:23


Post by: Hordini


 Frazzled wrote:
Isis
Islamic Brotherhood (Egypt)
AlQaeda in Yemen, North Africa.
Extremists in North Africa
Extemists in Central Africa
Taliban
Al Shabob
Somali groups
Chenyan extremists


How much of a minority is it at this point? There seems to be an awful lot.




You're right, there are a lot of groups in a lot of different countries.

Bloods
Crips
Trinitarios
Latin Kings
Gangster Disciples
Zoe Pound
MS-13
Surenos
Aryan Brotherhood
Volksfront
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.


Wow, there sure are a lot of gangs in the US. Why haven't Americans been able to come together and stop them? They can't just be a minority, it must be the case that the majority of Americans tacitly support them.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 20:02:42


Post by: Frazzled


 Hordini wrote:
The majority of Muslims from where? In Iraq and Syria, or the majority of Muslims in general? As has already been stated there have been clashes with ISIS in Syria and Iraq with both government forces and more moderate militias.

How are Muslims outside of Iraq and Syria supposed to stop ISIS?


Turkey, Jordan, Saudia Arabia, Qatar (oh wait they're helping them), Kuwait, Egypt.
They expect a country thousands of miles away to take care of it.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 20:04:19


Post by: Grey Templar


 d-usa wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Grey Templar wrote:
 easysauce wrote:
 Hordini wrote:
In the Islamic world as a whole, they are the minority. There are people living in IS territory who aren't pro-ISIS but don't have the capability of fighting back.

There are secular and more moderate militias in Syria who have fought against ISIS, to say nothing of Syrian government forces.

ISIS is in no way the dominant leader of the Islamic world. That doesn't mean they are not a threat, and a quickly growing one at that, but there are several actual countries that have a lot more influence than ISIS.


I think you are missing the point,

If ISIS was such a small part of the islamic community, it wouldnt have the huge footprint it does.

the fact that it can dominate the region, with no one other islamic group powerful enough to actually challenge them, let alone oust them from power,

does in fact make them the most powerful group.

if these other countries you speak of have so much influence, why have they not used it?

if ISIS isnt the strongest group in the region, then why are they in power at all? why have these "moderate majority muslim" groups not ousted them if they are such a majority?

that is the very thesis of power, the most powerful group, is in power, ISIS in in power, ergo the most powerful group.

yes there are islamic groups opposing them, the lack of sucess in opposing them means they are less powerfull/numerous, not more powerful/numerous as you assert.



Indeed.

While the majority of Muslims definitely don't share their radical beliefs, the majority at the very least don't oppose their radical beliefs enough to stop them. Which is almost as bad, if not just as bad, as if they did. And it allows them to propagate their beliefs among the impressionable youth of the various nations, meaning they are growing in numbers.


Until I see a picture of you counter protesting the WBC I should consider you responsible and a supporter?


Is the WBC slaughtering innocent people and committing acts of terrorism?


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 20:04:19


Post by: Hordini


 Frazzled wrote:
 Hordini wrote:
The majority of Muslims from where? In Iraq and Syria, or the majority of Muslims in general? As has already been stated there have been clashes with ISIS in Syria and Iraq with both government forces and more moderate militias.

How are Muslims outside of Iraq and Syria supposed to stop ISIS?


Turkey, Jordan, Saudia Arabia, Qatar (oh wait they're helping them), Kuwait, Egypt.
They expect a country thousands of miles away to take care of it.



The majority of Muslims in those countries don't support ISIS either.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 20:05:23


Post by: whembly


 d-usa wrote:
If somebody said "Westborough Baptist Church is not The Church" would we be having this conversation?


I was one of these guys:


Yes, I protested prior to screening Red State.

I'm of the belief that this is the best way to protest... which is mockery.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 20:05:25


Post by: Frazzled


 Hordini wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Isis
Islamic Brotherhood (Egypt)
AlQaeda in Yemen, North Africa.
Extremists in North Africa
Extemists in Central Africa
Taliban
Al Shabob
Somali groups
Chenyan extremists


How much of a minority is it at this point? There seems to be an awful lot.




You're right, there are a lot of groups in a lot of different countries.

Bloods
Crips
Trinitarios
Latin Kings
Gangster Disciples
Zoe Pound
MS-13
Surenos
Aryan Brotherhood
Volksfront
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.


Wow, there sure are a lot of gangs in the US. Why haven't Americans been able to come together and stop them? They can't just be a minority, it must be the case that the majority of Americans tacitly support them.


Are they all motivated by the desire to impose strict Christian law?

Now to be clear I'm noting two things: 1) Its their fight (countries in the region) not ours; 2) There needs to be honesty when we say "miniority" here. We can't fix the problem of radicalism if we don't objectively look at it.



Crips
hey I did my part.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 20:06:06


Post by: easysauce


 Hordini wrote:
The majority of Muslims from where? In Iraq and Syria, or the majority of Muslims in general? As has already been stated there have been clashes with ISIS in Syria and Iraq with both government forces and more moderate militias.

How are Muslims outside of Iraq and Syria supposed to stop ISIS?


same way the jihadis do their jihadi-ing....

everyone flocked to that area to support one group, why are not moderates flocking there to oppose it?

ISIS looks like they are migrating there, and breaking into prisons to gain supporters, what are "moderate majority muslims" doing?

are they migrating there to support their cause or not?

are they taking up arms to support their cause or not?

ISIS put the work in to get where they are, what has MMM (moderate majority muslims) done to oppose them?


the simple fact that, as you say, most MMM's are not even in the middle east, should speak volumes to how accepted/normal/"majority" MMM's are in the middle east (IE they are not accepted, and leave for this very reason)


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 20:06:28


Post by: Frazzled


 Hordini wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
 Hordini wrote:
The majority of Muslims from where? In Iraq and Syria, or the majority of Muslims in general? As has already been stated there have been clashes with ISIS in Syria and Iraq with both government forces and more moderate militias.

How are Muslims outside of Iraq and Syria supposed to stop ISIS?


Turkey, Jordan, Saudia Arabia, Qatar (oh wait they're helping them), Kuwait, Egypt.
They expect a country thousands of miles away to take care of it.



The majority of Muslims in those countries don't support ISIS either.


And they are not doing anything about it, either. Either the people or the governments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 whembly wrote:
 d-usa wrote:
If somebody said "Westborough Baptist Church is not The Church" would we be having this conversation?


I was one of these guys:


Yes, I protested prior to screening Red State.

I'm of the belief that this is the best way to protest... which is mockery.


Thos are true words, polyester really is a sin.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 20:10:47


Post by: Hordini


Moderate people, by the nature of being moderate, don't tend to do extreme things like travel to foreign countries to take up arms against a violent extremist group.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Frazzled wrote:
 Hordini wrote:


The majority of Muslims in those countries don't support ISIS either.


And they are not doing anything about it, either. Either the people or the governments.



That doesn't mean they support it. Two years ago we weren't doing anything about it either. Was the US supporting ISIS for the last two years?


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 20:15:33


Post by: d-usa


 whembly wrote:
 d-usa wrote:
If somebody said "Westborough Baptist Church is not The Church" would we be having this conversation?


I was one of these guys.


Way to not answer the question.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 20:15:38


Post by: Frazzled


 Hordini wrote:
Moderate people, by the nature of being moderate, don't tend to do extreme things like travel to foreign countries to take up arms against a violent extremist group.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Frazzled wrote:
 Hordini wrote:


The majority of Muslims in those countries don't support ISIS either.


And they are not doing anything about it, either. Either the people or the governments.



That doesn't mean they support it. Two years ago we weren't doing anything about it either. Was the US supporting ISIS for the last two years?


1. Agreed. Moderates tend to not do that.
2. Well there is dispute in liberal circles about that...


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 20:16:26


Post by: d-usa


 Grey Templar wrote:
 d-usa wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Grey Templar wrote:
 easysauce wrote:
 Hordini wrote:
In the Islamic world as a whole, they are the minority. There are people living in IS territory who aren't pro-ISIS but don't have the capability of fighting back.

There are secular and more moderate militias in Syria who have fought against ISIS, to say nothing of Syrian government forces.

ISIS is in no way the dominant leader of the Islamic world. That doesn't mean they are not a threat, and a quickly growing one at that, but there are several actual countries that have a lot more influence than ISIS.


I think you are missing the point,

If ISIS was such a small part of the islamic community, it wouldnt have the huge footprint it does.

the fact that it can dominate the region, with no one other islamic group powerful enough to actually challenge them, let alone oust them from power,

does in fact make them the most powerful group.

if these other countries you speak of have so much influence, why have they not used it?

if ISIS isnt the strongest group in the region, then why are they in power at all? why have these "moderate majority muslim" groups not ousted them if they are such a majority?

that is the very thesis of power, the most powerful group, is in power, ISIS in in power, ergo the most powerful group.

yes there are islamic groups opposing them, the lack of sucess in opposing them means they are less powerfull/numerous, not more powerful/numerous as you assert.



Indeed.

While the majority of Muslims definitely don't share their radical beliefs, the majority at the very least don't oppose their radical beliefs enough to stop them. Which is almost as bad, if not just as bad, as if they did. And it allows them to propagate their beliefs among the impressionable youth of the various nations, meaning they are growing in numbers.


Until I see a picture of you counter protesting the WBC I should consider you responsible and a supporter?


Is the WBC slaughtering innocent people and committing acts of terrorism?


They bring pain and suffering to the people fighting terrorism.

And since you have not done your part to stop them by your logic I must assume that you support them.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 20:19:26


Post by: Grey Templar


I support their right to voice their opinions, which is all they are doing. Can you say the same?


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 20:22:13


Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl


 Hordini wrote:
What good would it do to antagonize the majority of Muslims who aren't extremists?

I will try to address this the best I can. There are tons of people in “Islamic” countries for which Islam is not the start-all end-all of their identity. But by constantly referring to them as Muslims, and making this to be their defining characteristic, and refusing to say Islam can be bad, we are doing them no good, and actually strengthen the more religious and the Islamists than want to demonize any and all criticism of Islam, and make Islam into the start-all end-all identity of Arabs/people in their countries. That is why I think actually going out of our way to not criticize Islam is a very bad thing that sends a very bad message.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 20:24:16


Post by: easysauce


 Hordini wrote:
Moderate people, by the nature of being moderate, don't tend to do extreme things like travel to foreign countries to take up arms against a violent extremist group.


I think you are confusing moderates with something else,


moderate does not mean "I believe women are our equals, you believe they should be honour killed, I wont do anything to stop you honour killing women"

moderate is describing, secularly of course as our moderate is their radical and vise versa, the "belief" itself, not the enforcment of these beleifs...

IE moderates have moderate beliefs, this does not necessitate them having no actual will to enforce/spread/support those beliefs. after all, our "moderate" beleifs are "RADICAL" to groups like ISIS.



regardless, this is getting beyond the scope of the actual issue.



in the areas ISIS controls, can you at least agree ISIS is dominant?

so talking specifically about ISIS controlled areas now,

if in these areas, MMM's were the dominant force, then how did ISIS take control?

again, being "moderate" does not mean "unwilling to fight for your beliefs"

ISIS got so worked up about how disconnected reality was from their beleif system, why is it that MMM's dont feel such a disconnect between reality and their belief system that they should take action to affect that reality?


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 20:26:39


Post by: Frazzled


 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
 Hordini wrote:
What good would it do to antagonize the majority of Muslims who aren't extremists?

I will try to address this the best I can. There are tons of people in “Islamic” countries for which Islam is not the start-all end-all of their identity. But by constantly referring to them as Muslims, and making this to be their defining characteristic, and refusing to say Islam can be bad, we are doing them no good, and actually strengthen the more religious and the Islamists than want to demonize any and all criticism of Islam, and make Islam into the start-all end-all identity of Arabs/people in their countries. That is why I think actually going out of our way to not criticize Islam is a very bad thing that sends a very bad message.


One can criticize extremists and their activities without criticizing their faith. We do that all the time.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 20:27:01


Post by: d-usa


 Grey Templar wrote:
I support their right to voice their opinions, which is all they are doing. Can you say the same?


According to your statements you support their message.

You can either bring your own statements to the logical conclusion that you support the WBC and are responsible for the pain of a family that is burying a veteran while the WBC is standing there mocking them and celebrating the death of their loved one, or we can stop this stupid train of thought and admit that holding majority members of a population responsible for the actions of an extreme minority is pretty damn stupid.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 20:35:54


Post by: Grey Templar


 d-usa wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
I support their right to voice their opinions, which is all they are doing. Can you say the same?


According to your statements you support their message.

You can either bring your own statements to the logical conclusion that you support the WBC and are responsible for the pain of a family that is burying a veteran while the WBC is standing there mocking them and celebrating the death of their loved one, or we can stop this stupid train of thought and admit that holding majority members of a population responsible for the actions of an extreme minority is pretty damn stupid.


I am responsible for letting them exercise their rights to do what they do. And you are too for supporting a Constitution that gives us the freedom of speech. This is not morally reprehensible. Its a necessary evil(and a small one) for having our freedoms.

I never said "moderates who do nothing support ISIS", I simply said they were responsible for letting them run about unchecked. Responsibility =/= support. It is morally reprehensible of them to tolerate a terrorist organization.

The WBC isn't a terrorist organization. ISIS is.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 20:37:28


Post by: lliu


Man, 911 has really changed the US. What happened to kill people first, blame it on terrorists later? Now it's just talk, talk, kill.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 20:38:46


Post by: Bromsy


lliu wrote:
Man, 911 has really changed the US. What happened to kill people first, blame it on terrorists later? Now it's just talk, talk, kill.


I wouldn't look at it like that, since the talking never really stops.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 20:44:20


Post by: easysauce


 d-usa wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
I support their right to voice their opinions, which is all they are doing. Can you say the same?


According to your statements you support their message.

You can either bring your own statements to the logical conclusion that you support the WBC and are responsible for the pain of a family that is burying a veteran while the WBC is standing there mocking them and celebrating the death of their loved one, or we can stop this stupid train of thought and admit that holding majority members of a population responsible for the actions of an extreme minority is pretty damn stupid.


you mean like how ISIS holds US citizens responsable for the actions of a few elected officials?

in fact, ISIS holds us citizens so responsable that they are beheading them for such.

the whole WBC comparison is a farce, its one church that really does represent a fringe group. If ISIS was just picketing us, I dont think anyone would mind quite so much.

WBC is voicing a rediculous, hateful and wrong opinion within the confines of democratic law. 99% of churches have disowned/and/or activly disowned this church, and it certainly doesnt have the martial support to over throw large areas of land and start eradicating the gays and so on.

ISIS is killing people, taking over countries, has enough people willing to fight and die for it that it is more powerfull then the local governments. If ISIS was as fringe to islam, as WBC is to christianity, we wouldnt have this problem in the first place.

see the slight difference there?

ISIS is now a country, that does represent enough of the people in that region (not that faith) to be the dominant power.



you keep insisting that ISIS is made up of a minority of people, yet facts clearly indicate otherwise.

if they are such a minority, why do they command the majority of power? land? manpower? support? and so on.

The reality is there is far more support for ISIS IN THE MIDDLE EAST then you are willing to admit.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 20:51:40


Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl


 Frazzled wrote:
One can criticize extremists and their activities without criticizing their faith. We do that all the time.

“Do not do this. The Quran is awesome and noone should be able to criticize it and what you are doing is written as mandatory in the Quran, but do not do it”
.
(Not speaking about Isis specifically here. Stuff like inheritance rules are very explicit in the Quran, and very sexists, for instance.)
Basically, no, you cannot at the same time refuse to criticize some faith and yet criticize those that apply the tenets of such faith. At least not efficiently, and not without looking like a total hypocrite and an idiot.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 21:01:36


Post by: d-usa


 easysauce wrote:

you keep insisting that ISIS is made up of a minority of people, yet facts clearly indicate otherwise.

if they are such a minority, why do they command the majority of power? land? manpower? support? and so on.

The reality is there is far more support for ISIS IN THE MIDDLE EAST then you are willing to admit.


Go to the top of your browser.

Open a new tab.

Learn history, especially the many many many many many many instances of minority rule in many many many many countries during many many many many instances of our history.

Because the majority of people in South Africa must have been white, because if they were such a minority why did they command the majority of power? land? manpower? support? and so on.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 21:08:17


Post by: whembly


 d-usa wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 d-usa wrote:
If somebody said "Westborough Baptist Church is not The Church" would we be having this conversation?


I was one of these guys.


Way to not answer the question.

It was pretty good if I say so myself.

But, your point does stand.

I'm not sure what to do really...

What I do want, is clear/concise plan of action with defined exit strategy.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 21:10:14


Post by: easysauce


 d-usa wrote:
 easysauce wrote:

you keep insisting that ISIS is made up of a minority of people, yet facts clearly indicate otherwise.

if they are such a minority, why do they command the majority of power? land? manpower? support? and so on.

The reality is there is far more support for ISIS IN THE MIDDLE EAST then you are willing to admit.


Go to the top of your browser.

Open a new tab.

Learn history, especially the many many many many many many instances of minority rule in many many many many countries during many many many many instances of our history.

Because the majority of people in South Africa must have been white, because if they were such a minority why did they command the majority of power? land? manpower? support? and so on.


So you are telling me that white people in general dont get blamed for the actions of the miniority?

Open up your browser, and search dakka for all your posts regarding white privilidge and so on then, educate yourself on yourself.


either way,

ISIS is not fringe, is not the miniority (in the middle east areas they control, not the world, as apparently this needs clarifying)

the argument isnt who is responsable for opposing/not opposing ISIS,

its that ISIS is not fringe, not the miniorty it once was, not some rogue group, not some under dog, its the biggest dog in that area right now.

you seem to be in denial over how much support they have, again, IN THE AREA THEY NOW CONTROL>


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 21:13:33


Post by: soundwave591


 easysauce wrote:
 d-usa wrote:
 easysauce wrote:

you keep insisting that ISIS is made up of a minority of people, yet facts clearly indicate otherwise.

if they are such a minority, why do they command the majority of power? land? manpower? support? and so on.

The reality is there is far more support for ISIS IN THE MIDDLE EAST then you are willing to admit.


Go to the top of your browser.

Open a new tab.

Learn history, especially the many many many many many many instances of minority rule in many many many many countries during many many many many instances of our history.

Because the majority of people in South Africa must have been white, because if they were such a minority why did they command the majority of power? land? manpower? support? and so on.


So you are telling me that white people in general dont get blamed for the actions of the miniority?

Open up your browser, and search dakka for all your posts regarding white privilidge and so on then, educate yourself on yourself.


either way,

ISIS is not fringe, is not the miniority (in the middle east areas they control, not the world, as apparently this needs clarifying)

the argument isnt who is responsable for opposing/not opposing ISIS,

its that ISIS is not fringe, not the miniorty it once was, not some rogue group, not some under dog, its the biggest dog in that area right now.

you seem to be in denial over how much support they have, again, IN THE AREA THEY NOW CONTROL>


well of course they arent the minority in the area's they control, they just kill everyone who isnt with them. Well kill or some other horrible actions.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 21:15:14


Post by: Jihadin


Jebus......thread getting jumpy


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 21:16:35


Post by: d-usa


Edit: gonna keep the OT talk out of this thread.

ISIS is not fringe, is not the miniority (in the middle east areas they control, not the world, as apparently this needs clarifying)

the argument isnt who is responsable for opposing/not opposing ISIS,

its that ISIS is not fringe, not the miniorty it once was, not some rogue group, not some under dog, its the biggest dog in that area right now.

you seem to be in denial over how much support they have, again, IN THE AREA THEY NOW CONTROL>


Did whites in South Africa have full support IN THE AREA THEY ONCE CONTROLLED?

Because if "they control it' is your only argument then you just show your ignorance of the vast history of minority rule all across history and all across the world, especially if the minority rulers use violence.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 21:35:04


Post by: IAmTheWalrus


 easysauce wrote:


So you are telling me that white people in general dont get blamed for the actions of the miniority?

Open up your browser, and search dakka for all your posts regarding white privilidge and so on then, educate yourself on yourself.


either way,

ISIS is not fringe, is not the miniority (in the middle east areas they control, not the world, as apparently this needs clarifying)

the argument isnt who is responsable for opposing/not opposing ISIS,

its that ISIS is not fringe, not the miniorty it once was, not some rogue group, not some under dog, its the biggest dog in that area right now.

you seem to be in denial over how much support they have, again, IN THE AREA THEY NOW CONTROL>


Okay, let's back this up and add in some demographics and history.

If you're not already aware, ISIS controls the least populated parts of Iraq, which also happen to be the Sunni majority areas. The al-Maliki government has been systematically oppressing the Sunni minority in Iraq, and has been doing so even more aggressively after the withdrawal of American forces.

So these fine folk, who by and large just want to lives their own lives, have a choice between active oppression by the current government of Iraq, or an unknown in the form of ISIS. In their own personal interest these Sunni Iraqis didn't oppose ISIS when they invaded because they didn't have anything to lose because they were going to be ruled by Sunnis again. But even though ISIS does have control over large swathes of land, it's not a popular revolution, they're still a fringe group.

There is no widespread support for the invaders in Iraq. The last estimate I saw for ISIS numbers in Iraq was between 50,000-70,000, and the Anbar province alone has a population of 1.5 million. The only reason they are still in Iraq is that they haven't pissed off the Sunni tribesman off enough yet, despite all their extremist shenanigans.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 21:50:18


Post by: easysauce


they dont have to be a majority of the population, the population is more groups then just ISIS/not ISIS.

they are the largest/most powerful single group in the region right now.


that they are in "thinly populated areas" doesnt matter, as even the densely populated areas cannot do anything about them either.


ISIS and their supporters are much more predominant and powerful then you are giving them credit for.

to quote Iamthewalrus
"The only reason they are still in Iraq is that they haven't pissed off the Sunni tribesman off enough yet, despite all their extremist shenanigans. "


right, that is part of my my point, that despite all the horrible things they are doing, the sunni dont give a feth, wont stop them, and stand to benefit from doing nothing/supporting them. If ISIS hasnt yet crossed the line to piss off the sunni yet, then the line the sunni have drawn does not appear to land them in the "moderate" category to me.




ISIS @ 2014/09/11 22:08:47


Post by: Iron_Captain


 Grey Templar wrote:
 easysauce wrote:
the legality of bombing countries without their permission also comes to mind...

not sure why obama rejected syrias offer to help either, seems like getting the country where your attacks would land on the same page as you would be a good idea.

Nothing will ever be solved until we have marines drop podding in within minutes from low orbit every time someone sounds the "freedoooooooom" signal.



You could argue that if a country has portions of its land being held by a hostile force it no longer has jurisdiction over that area. If you can't hold it, its no longer yours. It belongs to whoever is holding it.
Great! Now you have finally found proper Russian way of thinking


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 22:11:51


Post by: Jihadin


 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
 easysauce wrote:
the legality of bombing countries without their permission also comes to mind...

not sure why obama rejected syrias offer to help either, seems like getting the country where your attacks would land on the same page as you would be a good idea.

Nothing will ever be solved until we have marines drop podding in within minutes from low orbit every time someone sounds the "freedoooooooom" signal.



You could argue that if a country has portions of its land being held by a hostile force it no longer has jurisdiction over that area. If you can't hold it, its no longer yours. It belongs to whoever is holding it.
Great! Now you have finally found proper Russian way of thinking


Keep it in the Ukraine thread there Iron


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 22:22:16


Post by: IAmTheWalrus


 easysauce wrote:
they dont have to be a majority of the population, the population is more groups then just ISIS/not ISIS.

they are the largest/most powerful single group in the region right now.


that they are in "thinly populated areas" doesnt matter, as even the densely populated areas cannot do anything about them either.


You're arguing that they're the single most powerful group in the region, and no one can do anything about it, but that's just plainly not true. At one point they were approximately 30km from Baghdad, but were turned back by government forces and Shi'a militia. They are the most powerful, non-governmental force in the area, sure.

The population density and demographics are absolutely relevant to the conversation. They have a lot of land, sure, but most of it is strategically unimportant, and their inability to continue to expand outside of their current holdings points to the absolute limits of their power.







right, that is part of my my point, that despite all the horrible things they are doing, the sunni dont give a feth, wont stop them, and stand to benefit from doing nothing/supporting them. If ISIS hasnt yet crossed the line to piss off the sunni yet, then the line the sunni have drawn does not appear to land them in the "moderate" category to me.


You're taking it out of historical context. Sunni tolerance for this Salafi extremism exists because of the abuses of the al-Maliki government, and there is a definitive line between the current inaction of the Sunnis living in ISIS controlled territory, and active support. These people were allied with an earlier incarnation of ISIS, back when it was Al-Qaeda in Iraq and controlled by al-Zarqawi, because it benefited them at the time, but when a more moderate approach presented itself in the form of an alliance with American forces, they were more than happy to oblige.

What do you think the endgame for the majority, moderate Sunnis is? They can do nothing and generally not be bothered by ISIS, or they can shed the blood it would take them to oust ISIS, only to be brought back into the fold and oppressed by the Shi'a majority.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 22:58:37


Post by: whembly


meh... again, what's the plan and what's the exit strategy?

Or isn't this going to be Obama waging a pre-emptive war in Iraq again?

I've been thinking about this all day... isn't it presumptuous for those who are not Muslims to say what is orthodox and what is heretical in Islam?? So... if a group of Muslims say they're part of Islamic State of Iraq and Syria... then, how the feth do non-muslim take it??

Anyways... for as much as I bash the Prez... I'd like to express my gratitude for Obama for giving the greenlight for SealTeam6 to get OBL. I say this without snark... I'm grateful for Obama over this decision.


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 23:37:19


Post by: Jihadin


Kerry saying we're not at war with ISIS?......

Edit

Disregard

Resurrection of "Police Action"


ISIS @ 2014/09/11 23:56:43


Post by: KalashnikovMarine




This is relevant as we busily rubber stamp our way towards MORE involvement in the world's cat box.


ISIS @ 2014/09/12 00:01:45


Post by: d-usa


I've been thinking about this all day... isn't it presumptuous for those who are not Muslims to say what is orthodox and what is heretical in Islam?? So... if a group of Muslims say they're part of Islamic State of Iraq and Syria... then, how the feth do non-muslim take it??


Is North Korea a democracy and a republic just because the name of the country is "Democratic People's Republic of Korea"?

Sometimes a name doesn't actually mean very much when it comes to describing the actual belief of a group.


ISIS @ 2014/09/12 00:09:12


Post by: Wyrmalla


The difference here being that governments seem to be validating the group's claims by calling them ISIS. They don't call North Korea the DPRK....


ISIS @ 2014/09/12 00:09:48


Post by: KalashnikovMarine


Meanwhile in my local news...

""Like all of us, Halima has been horrified to learn of the slaughter and oppression at the hands of the people controlling ISIS," - This idiot's defense attorney

He goes on to say she didn't want to play any part of it... which is why she was heading to Turkey, planning to marry an alleged ISIS fighter and told investigators A. that she intended to join ISIS and B. that she intended to wage jihad against the United States. Clearly she's just aghast at the acts of terror ISIS/ISIL commits on a daily basis. Never mind their no gak enslavement of thousands of minority women.

I admit, I did some boneheaded crap at 19. We all do. It's a good age to be stupid, but this? This skips some levels. Personally I say fly her to Turkey, revoke her passport and citizenship and wish her the best of luck in hadjistan.


http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/10/justice/colorado-jihadist-guilty-plea/index.html


ISIS @ 2014/09/12 00:15:41


Post by: Laemos


I say we let her join isis


ISIS @ 2014/09/12 00:16:30


Post by: Jihadin


 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Meanwhile in my local news...

""Like all of us, Halima has been horrified to learn of the slaughter and oppression at the hands of the people controlling ISIS," - This idiot's defense attorney

He goes on to say she didn't want to play any part of it... which is why she was heading to Turkey, planning to marry an alleged ISIS fighter and told investigators A. that she intended to join ISIS and B. that she intended to wage jihad against the United States. Clearly she's just aghast at the acts of terror ISIS/ISIL commits on a daily basis. Never mind their no gak enslavement of thousands of minority women.

I admit, I did some boneheaded crap at 19. We all do. It's a good age to be stupid, but this? This skips some levels. Personally I say fly her to Turkey, revoke her passport and citizenship and wish her the best of luck in hadjistan.


http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/10/justice/colorado-jihadist-guilty-plea/index.html


Lucky for her at 19 she be entering behind bars...


ISIS @ 2014/09/12 00:17:08


Post by: NuggzTheNinja


 Wyrmalla wrote:
The difference here being that governments seem to be validating the group's claims by calling them ISIS. They don't call North Korea the DPRK....


Actually Obama calls them ISIL, which is incredibly offensive to Israelis as it basically denies their right to exist.

FBHO, as usual.


ISIS @ 2014/09/12 00:21:22


Post by: Jihadin


 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
 Wyrmalla wrote:
The difference here being that governments seem to be validating the group's claims by calling them ISIS. They don't call North Korea the DPRK....


Actually Obama calls them ISIL, which is incredibly offensive to Israelis as it basically denies their right to exist.

FBHO, as usual.


Like I mention to Iron
Keep Israel in the Hamas thread


ISIS @ 2014/09/12 00:28:34


Post by: Wyrmalla


 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
 Wyrmalla wrote:
The difference here being that governments seem to be validating the group's claims by calling them ISIS. They don't call North Korea the DPRK....


Actually Obama calls them ISIL, which is incredibly offensive to Israelis as it basically denies their right to exist.

FBHO, as usual.


Huh, I've not heard ISIL being used much in the media. I guess Iraq and Syria are fair game, but the group is pussy footing about when it comes to taking on Israel, Jordan, Palestine and whatever other countries they apparently own as well. ...That and like hell a bunch of Jihadist who're presenting such an obvious target on the ground could have a hope of taking on the Israelis and Jordanians without having to resort to guerilla tactics (and well look how that's turned out for other groups as well). It seems a little silly that the group's reach out so far in regards to territory they apparently own, yet don't have the numbers to make a move on it. Yeah yeah, propaganda and what not, but don't go about pissing off more people than you need to when you're already fast becoming scape goat of the week for the Western governments.

Ah yeah, but OT. I'll keep the "Woo Israel!" to the "Boo Israel" thread.


ISIS @ 2014/09/12 01:06:58


Post by: Dreadclaw69


 Hordini wrote:
Are you asking me, or Obama?

It was a response to whembly but you beat me to the punch. The question however is open to whomever would like to answer it.

 Frazzled wrote:
They expect a country thousands of miles away to take care of it.

And then complain when we do

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
http://progressivecynic.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/anti-war-left-missing.jpg

This is relevant as we busily rubber stamp our way towards MORE involvement in the world's cat box.

Pretty much


ISIS @ 2014/09/12 01:46:40


Post by: Ahtman


 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
http://progressivecynic.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/anti-war-left-missing.jpg

This is relevant as we busily rubber stamp our way towards MORE involvement in the world's cat box.

Pretty much


Well it was just announced yesterday so give them a bit of time to organize and for the military to actually have more going on. If we can prove that the President et al lied about the reasons for military intervention and they'll grow in numbers, perhaps to Bush era levels. Or we could also realize the the situations are a bit different as is the context for the use of force.

Nah, it is just easier to pretend there are just two sides with one always right and the other always wrong.


ISIS @ 2014/09/12 02:41:06


Post by: Agent_Tremolo


 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Meanwhile in my local news...

""Like all of us, Halima has been horrified to learn of the slaughter and oppression at the hands of the people controlling ISIS," - This idiot's defense attorney

He goes on to say she didn't want to play any part of it... which is why she was heading to Turkey, planning to marry an alleged ISIS fighter and told investigators A. that she intended to join ISIS and B. that she intended to wage jihad against the United States. Clearly she's just aghast at the acts of terror ISIS/ISIL commits on a daily basis. Never mind their no gak enslavement of thousands of minority women.

I admit, I did some boneheaded crap at 19. We all do. It's a good age to be stupid, but this? This skips some levels. Personally I say fly her to Turkey, revoke her passport and citizenship and wish her the best of luck in hadjistan.


http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/10/justice/colorado-jihadist-guilty-plea/index.html


We had a similar story here in Spain not long ago. Two girls, one 19, the other a minor, some say 14. And, if you ask me, I think it's not a bad idea to have them spend the next 20 years in jail. I don't know the exact details but the pattern seems to match that of the Colorado girl in the link you posted: Meet sexy bearded fanatic online -> Travel to Irak -> Join ISIS -> Marry someone -> End up walking towards an Iraqi army checkpoint with your chador stuffed with explosives.

Still a better love story than Twilight.

http://elpais.com/elpais/2014/08/04/inenglish/1407144438_875679.html


ISIS @ 2014/09/12 04:05:18


Post by: Dreadclaw69


 Ahtman wrote:
Well it was just announced yesterday so give them a bit of time to organize and for the military to actually have more going on. If we can prove that the President et al lied about the reasons for military intervention and they'll grow in numbers, perhaps to Bush era levels. Or we could also realize the the situations are a bit different as is the context for the use of force.

Nah, it is just easier to pretend there are just two sides with one always right and the other always wrong.

Funny how you only focus on that one war when we were talking about the anti-war left in general. You know, the same people who lauded Obama as coming to power to end two wars, repair America's standing, avoid further messy international conflicts, shut down Gitmo, stop the drone attacks, curtail the Patriot Act.

Nah, it's easier to ignore all that and distract when you don't want to see the point.


ISIS @ 2014/09/12 04:15:21


Post by: Ahtman


 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
 Ahtman wrote:
Well it was just announced yesterday so give them a bit of time to organize and for the military to actually have more going on. If we can prove that the President et al lied about the reasons for military intervention and they'll grow in numbers, perhaps to Bush era levels. Or we could also realize the the situations are a bit different as is the context for the use of force.

Nah, it is just easier to pretend there are just two sides with one always right and the other always wrong.

Funny how you only focus on that one war when we were talking about the anti-war left in general.



Did you not look at the picture you posted? It isn't hard to see why people would connect showing a picture of people protesting the Iraq War while complaining about protestors and how others would think you are comparing protestors from the Iraq War with the current situation. Really it just seems like looking for an excuse to get a hollow attack on people you don't seem to like by comparing two different situations without considering why they are different.


ISIS @ 2014/09/12 12:30:49


Post by: Dreadclaw69


 Ahtman wrote:
Did you not look at the picture you posted? It isn't hard to see why people would connect showing a picture of people protesting the Iraq War while complaining about protestors and how others would think you are comparing protestors from the Iraq War with the current situation. Really it just seems like looking for an excuse to get a hollow attack on people you don't seem to like by comparing two different situations without considering why they are different.

The picture I posted? KM posted the image of the antiwar left, not I. Second I was agreeing with KM about the antiwar left in general as the image itself noted. I initially did not know, nor care which war was being protested in particular so my point about the antiwar left's deafening silence (which you omitted from my quote above) still stands.

Your comment also presupposes that I somehow approved of the war in Iraq and I am making hay out of this because it's coming from the current Administration. I'll make it clear; I think Iraq was a terrible mistake and a distraction from the campaign in Afghanistan. So you can now stop your hollow accusations of bad faith.



ISIS @ 2014/09/12 13:08:01


Post by: focusedfire


Look, the US is gonna get drawn into this on a full scale basis.
The quicker we in the US accept this the better.

The reasons for this are numerous but at the forefront would be that the US does not currently have a president that is good at foreign policy, diplomacy and leadership on the global scale.

This is not an attack on the man, rather a critique of his short comings as a leader. He is good at dictating and bullying but has never had a good record for bringing people with differing viewpoints together for a common goal.

Because of this, imo, there will not be the strong international coalition needed that would allow the US to just provide air support.

Seeing as we are looking at having to step in to clean up this mess. A mess that Great Britain and Europe made of the mid-east after WWI, btw. I feel it would only be right and fair to bill those European powers for the cost of this war.

I also feel that any strategy to defeat ISIS needs to be centered around finally honouring the past promises to the Kurds. That we not only arm and support militarily but support them becoming a free Kurdish state.

We have seen that the Syrian, Turkish and Iraqi's cannot maintain their territories. I say arm the Kurds and whatever they can take back from ISIS they get to keep.

Later,
ff


ISIS @ 2014/09/12 13:19:59


Post by: whembly


 d-usa wrote:
I've been thinking about this all day... isn't it presumptuous for those who are not Muslims to say what is orthodox and what is heretical in Islam?? So... if a group of Muslims say they're part of Islamic State of Iraq and Syria... then, how the feth do non-muslim take it??


Is North Korea a democracy and a republic just because the name of the country is "Democratic People's Republic of Korea"?

Sometimes a name doesn't actually mean very much when it comes to describing the actual belief of a group.

Eh...

But there's a difference...

You and I live in a Democracy and WE know how farcical the Democratic part in the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea".


ISIS @ 2014/09/12 17:08:01


Post by: IAmTheWalrus


 focusedfire wrote:


Because of this, imo, there will not be the strong international coalition needed that would allow the US to just provide air support.


Why on earth would we need a coalition to launch airstrikes? We have bases in the Persian Gulf and can park a carrier group there as well.

Seeing as we are looking at having to step in to clean up this mess. A mess that Great Britain and Europe made of the mid-east after WWI, btw. I feel it would only be right and fair to bill those European powers for the cost of this war.


Granted, the creation of states with artificial borders not based on ethnic or historical boundaries was not great, but at the same time Iraq persisted as a unified state from the 20's right up until 2003 when America invaded, toppled the government and then ostracized the administrators. I understand where you're coming from, but it's difficult to make a case that this isn't our fault.


I also feel that any strategy to defeat ISIS needs to be centered around finally honouring the past promises to the Kurds. That we not only arm and support militarily but support them becoming a free Kurdish state.

We have seen that the Syrian, Turkish and Iraqi's cannot maintain their territories. I say arm the Kurds and whatever they can take back from ISIS they get to keep.


Since when have the Turks been unable to maintain their territorial integrity?

I like the Kurds just as much as anybody else, but is supporting a Kurdish state really worth losing Turkish goodwill?


ISIS @ 2014/09/13 00:24:35


Post by: SirSertile


Wow! So much response. Does anyone think this could possibly start WWIII? I mean, like what if some country like Russia is supporting ISIS/L, and then Russia moves to protect their interests . . .and well. . . stuff happens.


ISIS @ 2014/09/13 00:38:30


Post by: Hordini


Let's hope not.


ISIS @ 2014/09/13 00:40:38


Post by: LordofHats


I'm going to stay cautiously optimistic. To the best of my knowledge, Russia's economy is still glass. They don't have the infrastructure, the population, or the stability to be fighting a war with Europe (hence why they've jumped so readily to throwing around the "we got nukes" line).


ISIS @ 2014/09/13 01:15:51


Post by: adamsouza


 Agent_Tremolo wrote:

Meet sexy bearded fanatic online -> Travel to Irak -> Join ISIS -> Marry someone -> End up walking towards an Iraqi army checkpoint with your chador stuffed with explosives.

Still a better love story than Twilight.




On a more serious note

America shouldn't have to play world police, but when your adversary operates under the unflinching belief that everyone who disagrees with them must die, they aren't leaving you much wiggle room with how they need to be dealt with.

I wonder what the founding fathers of Hiroshima would say to that.” R.A. Heinlein – Starship Troopers




Automatically Appended Next Post:
SirSertile wrote:
Wow! So much response. Does anyone think this could possibly start WWIII? I mean, like what if some country like Russia is supporting ISIS/L, and then Russia moves to protect their interests . . .and well. . . stuff happens.


I think it's much more likely that ISIS/L will eventually behead a Russian soldier at some point and Putin willl take steps to wipe them from the face of the Earth.



ISIS @ 2014/09/13 01:28:54


Post by: whembly


 adamsouza wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
SirSertile wrote:
Wow! So much response. Does anyone think this could possibly start WWIII? I mean, like what if some country like Russia is supporting ISIS/L, and then Russia moves to protect their interests . . .and well. . . stuff happens.


I think it's much more likely that ISIS/L will eventually behead a Russian soldier at some point and Putin willl take steps to wipe them from the face of the Earth.


Nah... it's likely in this brinkmanship, Obama will orchestrate a way for some Russian official to be beheaded and lay the blame on ISIS.

*I don't condone doing that!


ISIS @ 2014/09/13 01:40:44


Post by: Grey Templar


SirSertile wrote:
Wow! So much response. Does anyone think this could possibly start WWIII? I mean, like what if some country like Russia is supporting ISIS/L, and then Russia moves to protect their interests . . .and well. . . stuff happens.


No.

Ukraine is more likely to cause WW3, and thats still a long shot unless NATO grows a pair and/or Russia bites off just a little too much.


ISIS @ 2014/09/13 04:15:27


Post by: Dreadclaw69


SirSertile wrote:
Wow! So much response. Does anyone think this could possibly start WWIII? I mean, like what if some country like Russia is supporting ISIS/L, and then Russia moves to protect their interests . . .and well. . . stuff happens.

Seems somewhat unlikely given that Russia is currently backing Assad's regime, and ISIS are trying to depose him. The only remote possibility is a proxy war similar to Vietnam where one Great Power gets sucked into an expanding conflict while the other supports the irregulars.


ISIS @ 2014/09/13 09:20:09


Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl


 adamsouza wrote:
America shouldn't have to play world police

Yes.
 adamsouza wrote:
but when your adversary operates under the unflinching belief that everyone who disagrees with them must die, they aren't leaving you much wiggle room with how they need to be dealt with.

Yes, but they are leaving wiggle room why who should deal with them, and there are many other countries in the world. Though it is true none of them spends as much as the U.S. does on military budget.


ISIS @ 2014/09/13 12:09:43


Post by: elotar


I think there is some terrible misunderstanding of jihadi logic here - the goal of the holy war is not to win, but to die there, cause it will guarantee for muslim passage to haven.

So isis "leadership" does not really care about troops, territory or money, all they need is good PR, cause then they will get constant flow of new recruits from functionally unlimited sorce.

And the best PR is American president daily reminding the world about them. American bombings and ground troops under anti-islamic rhetoric in the region is even better.

I think it was obvious after soviet failure in Afganistan, but somehow I was wrong.


ISIS @ 2014/09/13 20:51:24


Post by: SirSertile


elotar wrote:
I think there is some terrible misunderstanding of jihadi logic here - the goal of the holy war is not to win, but to die there, cause it will guarantee for muslim passage to haven.

So isis "leadership" does not really care about troops, territory or money, all they need is good PR, cause then they will get constant flow of new recruits from functionally unlimited sorce.

And the best PR is American president daily reminding the world about them. American bombings and ground troops under anti-islamic rhetoric in the region is even better.

I think it was obvious after soviet failure in Afganistan, but somehow I was wrong.

Great point! Unfortunately, I think that Obama's hand was almost forced by the US and international community.


ISIS @ 2014/09/13 21:05:56


Post by: Da Boss


The reason the anti-war left protested in 2008 was to prevent something along the lines of this very situation.

Shame the administration at the time didn't listen to them. I guess they've learned that protesting doesn't change anything by now, since their protests were ineffective back in the day.


ISIS @ 2014/09/13 21:11:14


Post by: Hordini


 Da Boss wrote:
The reason the anti-war left protested in 2008 was to prevent something along the lines of this very situation.

Shame the administration at the time didn't listen to them. I guess they've learned that protesting doesn't change anything by now, since their protests were ineffective back in the day.



Are you referring to the surge?


ISIS @ 2014/09/13 21:13:51


Post by: Da Boss


I'm referring to the entire invasion, which goes back before 2008 of course.

I was anti-war back then too, and I remember my Uni had a protest about the war. Seemed like the most pointless thing in the world to me, just an exercise in making ourselves feel better. The government at the time didn't give a toss about their own anti-war movement, ours was less than nothing.



ISIS @ 2014/09/13 21:16:12


Post by: Breotan


 Da Boss wrote:
The reason the anti-war left protested in 2008 was to prevent something along the lines of this very situation.
The war protests were anti-Bush protests. The protesters were claiming the war was unjust, our soldiers were dying for no valid reason, we were "foreign occupiers" who the Iraqi people wanted out, and stuff like that. "Troops home now" was a common theme. Maybe I misremember, but I can't think of anything about the protesters wanting to prevent a well equipped terrorist organization from forming.



ISIS @ 2014/09/13 21:18:34


Post by: Da Boss


Really? I can remember stuff like that, but it might have been that I hung around with a lot of left wing anti-war types and actually heard what they had to say.

But I wasn't in the States at the time, so maybe it was different over there. I don't think they were "anti-bush" protests at all though. There were huge protests in Britain too.


ISIS @ 2014/09/13 21:20:01


Post by: Hordini


 Da Boss wrote:
I'm referring to the entire invasion, which goes back before 2008 of course.

I was anti-war back then too, and I remember my Uni had a protest about the war. Seemed like the most pointless thing in the world to me, just an exercise in making ourselves feel better. The government at the time didn't give a toss about their own anti-war movement, ours was less than nothing.




Okay. I just wasn't sure why you mentioned 2008 if you were talking about the invasion. And I agree with Breotan. The people protesting the war in the 2000s generally had no thought of preventing the formation of terrorist organizations in the aftermath of the war, whether in 2003 or 2008.


ISIS @ 2014/09/13 21:20:23


Post by: dogma


 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Seems somewhat unlikely given that Russia is currently backing Assad's regime, and ISIS are trying to depose him. The only remote possibility is a proxy war similar to Vietnam where one Great Power gets sucked into an expanding conflict while the other supports the irregulars.


Russia is most assuredly backing the Assad regime, though it is doubtful that support would lead to direct intervention.

It's important to remember that Russia has its own issues with jihadist violence, and the fall of Russian backed dictator could not only lead to an upswing in such activity in its territory, but also that of its allies. The latter being the primary concern, as it could push the Central Asian states closer to China.

 Hordini wrote:
The people protesting the war in the 2000s generally had no thought of preventing the formation of terrorist organizations in the aftermath of the war, whether in 2003 or 2008.


To be fair, neither did a large chunk of the American civilian leadership.


ISIS @ 2014/09/13 21:21:57


Post by: Hordini


 Da Boss wrote:
Really? I can remember stuff like that, but it might have been that I hung around with a lot of left wing anti-war types and actually heard what they had to say.

But I wasn't in the States at the time, so maybe it was different over there. I don't think they were "anti-bush" protests at all though. There were huge protests in Britain too.




I don't think that the anti-war protests were necessarily exclusively anti-Bush, but there was definitely a strong undercurrent of that attached to many of the protests.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 dogma wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
The people protesting the war in the 2000s generally had no thought of preventing the formation of terrorist organizations in the aftermath of the war, whether in 2003 or 2008.


To be fair, neither did a large chunk of the American civilian leadership.



That's certainly true as well.


ISIS @ 2014/09/13 21:23:14


Post by: Da Boss


 Hordini wrote:
 Da Boss wrote:
I'm referring to the entire invasion, which goes back before 2008 of course.

I was anti-war back then too, and I remember my Uni had a protest about the war. Seemed like the most pointless thing in the world to me, just an exercise in making ourselves feel better. The government at the time didn't give a toss about their own anti-war movement, ours was less than nothing.




Okay. I just wasn't sure why you mentioned 2008 if you were talking about the invasion. And I agree with Breotan. The people protesting the war in the 2000s generally had no thought of preventing the formation of terrorist organizations in the aftermath of the war, whether in 2003 or 2008.


Mentioned 2008 because of the image macro, but should have said 2003. It was the same people, anyhow.

I think a lot of people were against destablising the region further, which is what happened. I think that because that's what I thought, and it's what my friends thought, and it's what my parents thought. That, and that the reasoning behind the invasion was complete bullcrap.


ISIS @ 2014/09/13 21:27:47


Post by: Hordini


 Da Boss wrote:
 Hordini wrote:
 Da Boss wrote:
I'm referring to the entire invasion, which goes back before 2008 of course.

I was anti-war back then too, and I remember my Uni had a protest about the war. Seemed like the most pointless thing in the world to me, just an exercise in making ourselves feel better. The government at the time didn't give a toss about their own anti-war movement, ours was less than nothing.




Okay. I just wasn't sure why you mentioned 2008 if you were talking about the invasion. And I agree with Breotan. The people protesting the war in the 2000s generally had no thought of preventing the formation of terrorist organizations in the aftermath of the war, whether in 2003 or 2008.


Mentioned 2008 because of the image macro, but should have said 2003. It was the same people, anyhow.

I think a lot of people were against destablising the region further, which is what happened. I think that because that's what I thought, and it's what my friends thought, and it's what my parents thought. That, and that the reasoning behind the invasion was complete bullcrap.


There certainly was a segment of protesters who had put that much thought into it. Not all of the reasoning for the invasion was bullcrap though, and at the time of the invasion, the part of the reasoning that was, we didn't really have any proof of.


ISIS @ 2014/09/13 21:35:19


Post by: dogma


 Da Boss wrote:

I think a lot of people were against destablising the region further, which is what happened.


I had the same thought at the time. I mean, Saddam was an evil bastard, but he was a stabilizing influence in a region dominated by evil (or at least amoral) bastards; at least after he was quarantined to ~60 of the country. In particular I was concerned about how deposing Saddam could lead to an upswing in Iranian power, given that the two states have a long history of acting as foils to one another. Thankfully the latter bit hasn't quite come to pass, thanks largely to internal dissent, but it certainly seemed to be a matter of concern in 2003.

 Hordini wrote:

There certainly was a segment of protesters who had put that much thought into it. Not all of the reasoning for the invasion was bullcrap though, and at the time of the invasion, the part of the reasoning that was, we didn't really have any proof of.


I may be misunderstanding you, but to my mind any action so significant as an invasion should only be undertaken based on positive evidence. Anything circumstantial should be disregarded.


ISIS @ 2014/09/13 21:56:51


Post by: jhe90


we may have destabalisd region by bombing, removing Saddam and such meddling out there but we by our actions made ground for ISIS to thrive.

we kind of have to help end them, they are a massive threat, and need to be ended, before they get too powerful.

already ment to have trippled in manpower.


ISIS @ 2014/09/13 22:00:03


Post by: Hordini


 dogma wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

There certainly was a segment of protesters who had put that much thought into it. Not all of the reasoning for the invasion was bullcrap though, and at the time of the invasion, the part of the reasoning that was, we didn't really have any proof of.


I may be misunderstanding you, but to my mind any action so significant as an invasion should only be undertaken based on positive evidence. Anything circumstantial should be disregarded.



I'm not necessarily saying the invasion was justified, I'm just saying not all the reasoning for the invasion were bullcrap. I agree with you on the positive evidence, that was certainly part of the problem in the beginning, which lead to greater problems down the road.


ISIS @ 2014/09/13 22:10:57


Post by: Grey Templar


 Da Boss wrote:
Really? I can remember stuff like that, but it might have been that I hung around with a lot of left wing anti-war types and actually heard what they had to say.

But I wasn't in the States at the time, so maybe it was different over there. I don't think they were "anti-bush" protests at all though. There were huge protests in Britain too.


Here in Cali all the ones I saw were decidedly anti-Bush. They didn't really care what was happening over there other than that it was ammunition to use against someone who they hated. Genuinely hated.

Sure, there was have been opposition to the war itself, but it was definitely second fiddle to the political game.


ISIS @ 2014/09/13 22:53:19


Post by: nels1031


CNN is saying the British aid worker has been decapitated.


ISIS @ 2014/09/13 23:07:51


Post by: Iron_Captain


 nels1031 wrote:
CNN is saying the British aid worker has been decapitated.

Several other news sources say it as well.
R.I.P. David Haines.


ISIS @ 2014/09/13 23:40:55


Post by: Compel


Confirmed by David Cameron on twitter of all places - I guess it makes sense though, he was probably at home, not exactly ready for a standard press statement at 11:30pm at night. Still seems a bit odd to me though.

"The murder of David Haines is an act of pure evil. My heart goes out to his family who have shown extraordinary courage and fortitude.

We will do everything in our power to hunt down these murderers and ensure they face justice, however long it takes."


ISIS @ 2014/09/14 02:01:49


Post by: Grey Templar


I think a change in tactics for fighting Terrorists is in order.

Use their own tactics against them. Send in elite strike forces with heavy air/missile support to disrupt their activities and avoid putting conventional ground troops down which just present a target to guerrilla fighters.

Make the use of IEDs and Suicide Bombers impossible by denying them targets(outside of them coming to us)


ISIS @ 2014/09/14 04:09:33


Post by: Dreadclaw69


 Jihadin wrote:
 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Meanwhile in my local news...

""Like all of us, Halima has been horrified to learn of the slaughter and oppression at the hands of the people controlling ISIS," - This idiot's defense attorney

He goes on to say she didn't want to play any part of it... which is why she was heading to Turkey, planning to marry an alleged ISIS fighter and told investigators A. that she intended to join ISIS and B. that she intended to wage jihad against the United States. Clearly she's just aghast at the acts of terror ISIS/ISIL commits on a daily basis. Never mind their no gak enslavement of thousands of minority women.

I admit, I did some boneheaded crap at 19. We all do. It's a good age to be stupid, but this? This skips some levels. Personally I say fly her to Turkey, revoke her passport and citizenship and wish her the best of luck in hadjistan.


http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/10/justice/colorado-jihadist-guilty-plea/index.html


Lucky for her at 19 she be entering behind bars...

If ISIS are recruiting girls then maybe we sould send Ray Rice. It isn't like his schedule is busy anymore


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Da Boss wrote:
I'm referring to the entire invasion, which goes back before 2008 of course.

I was anti-war back then too, and I remember my Uni had a protest about the war. Seemed like the most pointless thing in the world to me, just an exercise in making ourselves feel better. The government at the time didn't give a toss about their own anti-war movement, ours was less than nothing.

Good thing the current Administration is helping reduce tensions by winding down two wars, not getting into other foreign adventures, standing firm by our allies, closed Gitmo, repealed the Patriot Act, not violated other country's sovereignty, and reducing drone strikes.....


ISIS @ 2014/09/14 04:20:25


Post by: Hordini


 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Good thing the current Administration is helping reduce tensions by winding down two wars, not getting into other foreign adventures, standing firm by our allies, closed Gitmo, repealed the Patriot Act, not violated other country's sovereignty, and reducing drone strikes.....



Come on bro, President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. What more do you want?


ISIS @ 2014/09/14 04:22:22


Post by: Dreadclaw69


Something that actually made America, and possibly her allies, safer. Not just pleasant words and good intentions.


ISIS @ 2014/09/14 04:26:02


Post by: Hordini


 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Something that actually made America, and possibly her allies, safer. Not just pleasant words and good intentions.



Nobel Peace Prize, bro. Nobel PEACE Prize.


ISIS @ 2014/09/14 04:33:18


Post by: Dreadclaw69


Maybe he didn't reset international relations the right way. Perhaps he should have tried turning them off and back on.


ISIS @ 2014/09/14 06:03:58


Post by: Breotan


Perhaps Mrs. Clinton could go to ISIS and give them a big toy reset button like the one she gave Russia?



ISIS @ 2014/09/14 09:05:44


Post by: Da Boss


I am not a fan of Obama Dreadclaw. He's been a huge disappointment.

That said, I get annoyed when people make every event that happens into an us vs them thing.

Sometimes and anti-war protest happens because people are anti-war.


ISIS @ 2014/09/14 15:41:33


Post by: Dreadclaw69


 Da Boss wrote:
That said, I get annoyed when people make every event that happens into an us vs them thing.

Sometimes and anti-war protest happens because people are anti-war.

Whenever a very vocal antiwar group, with very distinct political leanings protest against a sitting President (whose politics they disagree with) for taking military action, and then remain virtually silent when the President they support launches foreign military jaunts, and expands the programs that they complained and protested about then that group sadly gives the distinct impression that it is "us and them".



ISIS @ 2014/09/14 18:07:48


Post by: dogma


 Grey Templar wrote:

Use their own tactics against them. Send in elite strike forces with heavy air/missile support to disrupt their activities and avoid putting conventional ground troops down which just present a target to guerrilla fighters.


You mean the methodology that was used by the Clinton Administration, and almost universally panned by the GOP as being too "soft"?


ISIS @ 2014/09/14 23:34:24


Post by: nels1031


 dogma wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:

Use their own tactics against them. Send in elite strike forces with heavy air/missile support to disrupt their activities and avoid putting conventional ground troops down which just present a target to guerrilla fighters.


You mean the methodology that was used by the Clinton Administration, and almost universally panned by the GOP as being too "soft"?


When/Where?

I genuinely don't remember.


ISIS @ 2014/09/15 00:21:33


Post by: timetowaste85


There seriously are not enough people pissed off in this thread that it ruins Archer's good name with a shared name. Damn it, ISIS is supposed to stand for something: Innuendos & Sexualized, Inebriated Spies.


ISIS @ 2014/09/15 00:42:56


Post by: ScootyPuffJunior


 nels1031 wrote:
 dogma wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:

Use their own tactics against them. Send in elite strike forces with heavy air/missile support to disrupt their activities and avoid putting conventional ground troops down which just present a target to guerrilla fighters.


You mean the methodology that was used by the Clinton Administration, and almost universally panned by the GOP as being too "soft"?


When/Where?

I genuinely don't remember.
The US greatly increased counter-terrorism funding in the 90s after the WTC and Oklahoma City bombings. I read somewhere that the Clinton Administration expanded counter-terrorism funding and activities more so than any other administration.

And there was that time we launched cruise missiles at Afghanistan and Sudan to try and kill Bin Laden and other terrorist leaders... and Congressional Republicans accused Clinton of wagging the dog.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 timetowaste85 wrote:
There seriously are not enough people pissed off in this thread that it ruins Archer's good name with a shared name. Damn it, ISIS is supposed to stand for something: Innuendos & Sexualized, Inebriated Spies.
And also a kickass post-metal band.


ISIS @ 2014/09/15 11:44:55


Post by: Frazzled


lliu wrote:
Man, 911 has really changed the US. What happened to kill people first, blame it on terrorists later? Now it's just talk, talk, kill.


Its our new stealth talking bomb. Like marriage to a talkative wife. It doesn't kill you. You just want to die.

"You're always criticizing how I drive. Stop it."
"In the last ten minutes you've driven off the road, twice."
"Just once."
"Twice."
"Once"
"OK Twice."



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Da Boss wrote:
I am not a fan of Obama Dreadclaw. He's been a huge disappointment.

That said, I get annoyed when people make every event that happens into an us vs them thing.

Sometimes and anti-war protest happens because people are anti-war.


Obama Dreadclaw? Is this a new ork codex hero I? Yikes!


ISIS @ 2014/09/15 16:25:20


Post by: blaktoof


 Jihadin wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
 Jihadin wrote:
McCain knew those individuals were to become part of ISIS a year later?!?!?


he was arguing 2 years ago that he wanted to arm ISIS:

http://lybio.net/busted-mccain-slips-up-and-reveals-us-wanted-to-arm-isis/news-politics/
Already the meeting in the White House, over two years ago, everyone in the national security team recommended arming Isis.


So was Hillary Clinton


wanted to..

a lot of people are reporting they did

http://www.truthandaction.org/us-trained-isis-forces-jordan-base/

http://russianfreedomforum.lefora.com/topic/18811445/US-trained-ISIS-savages#.VBcSaWP66So

http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2014/08/06/french-report-isilisis-leader-al-baghdadi-jewish-mossad-agent/

http://guardianlv.com/2014/06/isis-trained-by-us-government/



ISIS @ 2014/09/16 14:46:10


Post by: adamsouza


 timetowaste85 wrote:
There seriously are not enough people pissed off in this thread that it ruins Archer's good name with a shared name. Damn it, ISIS is supposed to stand for something: Innuendos & Sexualized, Inebriated Spies.


I thought they specifically chose Isis because they were in the danger zone


ISIS @ 2014/09/16 15:32:18


Post by: d-usa


 adamsouza wrote:
 timetowaste85 wrote:
There seriously are not enough people pissed off in this thread that it ruins Archer's good name with a shared name. Damn it, ISIS is supposed to stand for something: Innuendos & Sexualized, Inebriated Spies.


I thought they specifically chose Isis because they were in the danger zone


You guys and your problems...



ISIS @ 2014/09/16 21:54:22


Post by: Frazzled


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/17/world/middleeast/isis-airstrikes-united-states-coalition.html?_r=0

Troops if airstrikes don't work? This feels like another war, but it a much greener environment.


ISIS @ 2014/09/16 22:28:43


Post by: Jihadin


Obama kicked that decision for the next Admin to decide


ISIS @ 2014/09/17 18:03:30


Post by: Sasori


A groundwar with ISIS is an inevitability at this point.

I've already heard that droves of contractors are being hired and sent over to Iraq.


ISIS @ 2014/09/19 02:18:12


Post by: SirSertile


 Sasori wrote:
A groundwar with ISIS is an inevitability at this point.

I've already heard that droves of contractors are being hired and sent over to Iraq.

ISIS is not nearly as powerful as the US, but they released a statistic of about 30,000 troops. They won't be nearly as well armed, but they will use a lot of car/suicide bombs. That's going to really counter the US's very strong ground military.


ISIS @ 2014/09/19 03:16:42


Post by: EmilCrane


It seem like ISIS actually wants to play the conventional war game. They're advancing and taking territory, I think they've even got tanks.

If they continue on that route and it does come to a ground war with the West it will be their funeral.


ISIS @ 2014/09/19 03:48:43


Post by: Hordini


 EmilCrane wrote:
It seem like ISIS actually wants to play the conventional war game. They're advancing and taking territory, I think they've even got tanks.

If they continue on that route and it does come to a ground war with the West it will be their funeral.



I don't know if they have tanks or not, but judging from the videos on the news they definitely have heavy weapons, towed artillery, and armored vehicles like MRAPs. Many of which are probably already getting tagged by US aircraft, if videos like this are any indication:

Spoiler:



ISIS @ 2014/09/19 04:20:32


Post by: Swastakowey


It looked like they where just waiting for it to happen. They cleared the area and even had a camera set up to watch it ages in advance (video skips throughout).

I didnt have sound, so maybe I missed something.


ISIS @ 2014/09/19 04:23:13


Post by: DarkTraveler777


Damn... the accuracy of our munitions is scary impressive.

I have to admit I am surprised the cameraman survived the attack. He didn't seem to be that far from away the artillery piece that was hit.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Swastakowey wrote:
It looked like they where just waiting for it to happen. They cleared the area and even had a camera set up to watch it ages in advance (video skips throughout).

I didnt have sound, so maybe I missed something.


It did look staged, but perhaps ISIS were planning on filming the artillery in action when the air attack occurred. Just overall good timing on the pilot's part to nail them during one of their propaganda shoots.


ISIS @ 2014/09/19 04:29:20


Post by: Swastakowey


 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Damn... the accuracy of our munitions is scary impressive.

I have to admit I am surprised the cameraman survived the attack. He didn't seem to be that far from away the artillery piece that was hit.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Swastakowey wrote:
It looked like they where just waiting for it to happen. They cleared the area and even had a camera set up to watch it ages in advance (video skips throughout).

I didnt have sound, so maybe I missed something.


It did look staged, but perhaps ISIS were planning on filming the artillery in action when the air attack occurred. Just overall good timing on the pilot's part to nail them during one of their propaganda shoots.


Yea but while it was empty unmanned? It seemed busy before hand. I dont know. They can replace the men, not the gun I suppose. Well not as easily anyway. (I assume).

Scary how accurate it was. The power of aircraft when nothing is there to counter it is very scary.


ISIS @ 2014/09/19 05:28:42


Post by: Grey Templar


Yeah, but that accuracy has a price. tens of thousands of dollars a missile.


ISIS @ 2014/09/19 05:34:41


Post by: Swastakowey


Is that the initial cost, or the cost of deployment and the cost of launch including the flight and everything? Seems like it should cost a lot more than that.

Or does it get separated into different bits, the cost of the missile gets lumped into the cost of the attack?

I dont think my country has launched a missile or bomb of any kind in a while. Not sure how these costs are done. Interesting stuff.


ISIS @ 2014/09/19 05:36:39


Post by: Grey Templar


That would just be the missile itself, but the other things involved in shooting it are reusable at least.

Thats why we need railguns. Accuracy, range, and damage of a missile, but far cheaper.


ISIS @ 2014/09/19 05:39:10


Post by: Hordini


It's possible they figured out aircraft were in the area and got away from the gun because they didn't want to get annihilated along with it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Grey Templar wrote:
That would just be the missile itself, but the other things involved in shooting it are reusable at least.

Thats why we need railguns. Accuracy, range, and damage of a missile, but far cheaper.



With a railgun you need direct line of sight though. That's not necessarily the case for missiles.


ISIS @ 2014/09/19 05:42:38


Post by: Swastakowey


 Grey Templar wrote:
That would just be the missile itself, but the other things involved in shooting it are reusable at least.

Thats why we need railguns. Accuracy, range, and damage of a missile, but far cheaper.


I would have thought it would be better t have both available. I cant imagine a rail gun doing what we just saw due to trajectory?



ISIS @ 2014/09/19 05:43:53


Post by: Grey Templar


 Hordini wrote:
It's possible they figured out aircraft were in the area and got away from the gun because they didn't want to get annihilated along with it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Grey Templar wrote:
That would just be the missile itself, but the other things involved in shooting it are reusable at least.

Thats why we need railguns. Accuracy, range, and damage of a missile, but far cheaper.



With a railgun you need direct line of sight though. That's not necessarily the case for missiles.


Actually no.

The Naval Railgun is going to have a bombardment range of 400 miles. The projectile actually leaves the atmosphere for a short time.


ISIS @ 2014/09/19 05:50:22


Post by: Hordini


 Grey Templar wrote:
 Hordini wrote:
It's possible they figured out aircraft were in the area and got away from the gun because they didn't want to get annihilated along with it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Grey Templar wrote:
That would just be the missile itself, but the other things involved in shooting it are reusable at least.

Thats why we need railguns. Accuracy, range, and damage of a missile, but far cheaper.



With a railgun you need direct line of sight though. That's not necessarily the case for missiles.


Actually no.

The Naval Railgun is going to have a bombardment range of 400 miles. The projectile actually leaves the atmosphere for a short time.



Oh, so they're going to use it for indirect fire like artillery then? I guess that makes more sense. There could still be things that missiles can hit that a railgun 400 miles away might not be able to though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There's also the issue that the with the railgun, you'll need an FO on the ground or in the air with eyes on target anyway (which you also need for CAS, I'm just saying the railgun won't eliminate that requirement).


ISIS @ 2014/09/19 06:11:15


Post by: Grey Templar


Missiles need observers too.


ISIS @ 2014/09/19 11:20:50


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


 Hordini wrote:
 EmilCrane wrote:
It seem like ISIS actually wants to play the conventional war game. They're advancing and taking territory, I think they've even got tanks.

If they continue on that route and it does come to a ground war with the West it will be their funeral.



I don't know if they have tanks or not, but judging from the videos on the news they definitely have heavy weapons, towed artillery, and armored vehicles like MRAPs. Many of which are probably already getting tagged by US aircraft, if videos like this are any indication:

Spoiler:



I never understand how videos like this get distributed. Why would a member of ISIS show one of their artillery pieces getting destroyed to the public?
Wouldn't they not want to show them getting harassed?


ISIS @ 2014/09/19 12:55:54


Post by: Dreadclaw69


 EmilCrane wrote:
It seem like ISIS actually wants to play the conventional war game. They're advancing and taking territory, I think they've even got tanks.

If they continue on that route and it does come to a ground war with the West it will be their funeral.

Temporarily. They'll default back to guerrilla tactics


ISIS @ 2014/09/19 13:27:53


Post by: EmilCrane


 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
 EmilCrane wrote:
It seem like ISIS actually wants to play the conventional war game. They're advancing and taking territory, I think they've even got tanks.

If they continue on that route and it does come to a ground war with the West it will be their funeral.

Temporarily. They'll default back to guerrilla tactics


But guerrilla tactics where? Currently they're invading a hostile country. You can't wage an insurgency in a hostile country.


ISIS @ 2014/09/19 14:09:02


Post by: Dreadclaw69


 EmilCrane wrote:
But guerrilla tactics where? Currently they're invading a hostile country. You can't wage an insurgency in a hostile country.

Yes you can. Shelter among a sympathetic population and launch attacks from there. Currently ISIS also holds large areas of land, if they were to start losing pitched battles they would resort to typical guerrilla attacks on an advancing force (mortars, IEDs, etc.)


ISIS @ 2014/09/20 01:09:40


Post by: Breotan


I remember back during the Bush administration the anti-war chorus was about how the occupation of Iraq would create more terrorists. It seems now that the major push is happening since we've left. So, is this "Change we can believe in"?

Marc Young wrote:From gangsta rapper to Islamist militant

A German hip-hop artist joins the Islamic State, sparking fears of homegrown terror in his country

Spoiler:

An archive picture, dated June 20, 2005, shows the former rapper Deso Dogg (real name: Denis Cuspert) posing in Berlin, Germany. The Berlin Office for Protection of the Constitution has new insights about the German Islamist Cuspert in Syria.

As war in Syria and Iraq attracts a growing number of Muslim extremists from Europe, intelligence officials in Germany believe a former gangsta rapper has joined the inner circle of Islamists fighting there.

Denis Cuspert was once a modestly successful member of Germany's hip-hop scene going by the stage name Deso Dogg. Now he calls himself Abu Talha the German and is a top propagandist for the so-called Islamic State (IS) caliphate, which is blamed for several wartime atrocities.

His ascent into the upper IS ranks is raising concerns that such "homegrown" Islamists could embolden Muslim extremists in Germany or that they might one day return themselves to target the country for terrorism.

"Cuspert won't come back since there's an arrest warrant waiting for him," Elke Altmüller, a spokeswoman for Germany's Verfassungsschutz domestic intelligence agency, told Yahoo News. "But there's a danger he could incite others."

And as the cross-border conflict in Syria and Iraq continues to rage, it is luring hundreds of would-be jihadis from Europe, including radicalized converts like the ex-rapper. Although the German authorities have said they see no indications an attack is imminent, they are attempting to track fighters returning from the war zone.

Currently, there are an estimated 400 Muslim extremists from Germany in Syria, either directly engaging in fighting or otherwise supporting the Islamists. Altmüller said roughly 10 percent of them were German converts to Islam. According to intelligence reports, some 40 have been killed in the conflict.

That was almost the fate of the 38-year-old Cuspert after he was seriously injured in an airstrike by Syrian forces in September 2013. But he survived, and being wounded apparently helped him win respect among the extremists. He eventually swore allegiance in an online video this spring to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who has since declared himself caliph of the repressive Islamic State.

Spoiler:

An archive picture dated May 5, 2012 shows Salafis praying in Bonn, Germany. Amongst them is former Berlin rapper Dennis Cuspert (2-L).

Born to a German mother and Ghanaian father, Cuspert grew up in a gritty Berlin neighborhood and got involved in petty crime and gangs while aspiring to become a rap star. He enjoyed some success, even touring in Germany with U.S. rapper DMX. His lyrics in his song "Who's Afraid of the Black Man" document his early disillusionment and violent tendencies:

Doing time in my skin like Tookie Williams in San Quentin/
No identity, where will this end?
In a white world full of hate and illusion/
The last option was only violence and emotion.

But he never managed to make it big rapping, and after a car accident he started to look to radical Islam for direction in life. Over the past four years, he abandoned his music career to become an Islamist poster boy in the German-speaking world, posting videos that encourage Muslims to join the caliphate's holy war.

"I was a sinner. I lived in sin before I turned to Islam. Surrounded by music, drugs, alcohol and women," he said in one recent propaganda video.

Another scene shows Cuspert hitting the head of a corpse with a rock at the site of a suspected IS massacre east of the Syrian city of Homs.

The Islamists clearly see the former rapper's potential in recruiting others in Germany, which has a thriving Salafist scene promulgating an especially dogmatic form of Sunni Islam. The Islamists clearly see the former rapper's potential in recruiting others in Germany.

After two policemen were stabbed during a Salafist protest in the city of Bonn in May 2012, Cuspert used his rap skills to glorify the attacker as "the German lion Murat K." in a poem. And despite renouncing his musical background, he regularly composes Islamic chants known as "anasheeds" in praise of jihad.

According to the German authorities, the man behind the only deadly Islamist attack in Germany, Arid Uka, watched a video of an anasheed by Cuspert before he shot dead two U.S. servicemen at Frankfurt Airport in 2011. Uka's Facebook account was also linked with Cuspert's profile on the social media website.

Spoiler:

Salafist preacher Pierre Vogel prays with supporters during a rally with aboout 300 participants in Hamburg, Germany, July 19, 2014.

Two other prominent German converts to Islam, Pierre Vogel and Sven Lau, have chosen to remain in Germany, but they also actively encourage the spread of their Islamist ideology.

"Vogel and Lau went on tour in Germany in 2014 to promote their cause," Altmüller told Yahoo News. "They might not directly tell people to go to Syria, but it's at those kinds of events where young men are approached by others."

She said converts to radical Islam were often especially fervent and fundamentalist.

"It doesn't necessarily mean they would be involved in an attack, but they help create the conditions for one," Altmüller said.

Vogel and Lau have both had run-ins with the law over the years. Lau was even briefly arrested at the beginning of the year for allegedly sponsoring terrorist activities, but was released for lack of evidence. Neither was available immediately for comment.

Vogel is a burly ex-boxer who officially renounces violence in the name of Islam, but he has often drawn scrutiny from the German authorities for his virulent rhetoric at Salafist rallies. He also publicly praised Cuspert back in 2010 for abandoning his music career, and appeared interested in whether prominent Muslim rappers in Germany could be encouraged to help proselytize their fans.

"Pierre Vogel preaches in German. He uses language that appeals to younger people," Prof. Mouhanad Khorchide, a reformist Islamic theologian at the University of Münster, told Yahoo News. "The ideology being conveyed is dangerous. I regularly receive death threats from Salafists."

And Vogel's contemporary, Lau, caused widespread outrage in Germany earlier this month after he organized patrols through the center of the city of Wuppertal by radical Muslims wearing orange warning vests emblazoned with "Sharia Police" on their backs.

Spoiler:

Salafist-preacher Pierre Vogel, seen on Saturday, June 7, 2014, in Freiburg.

Handing out flyers demanding the introduction of Islamic law known as the Sharia, Lau's troop reportedly tried to discourage young people from entering nightclubs and gambling halls. The calculated provocation worked, sparking stern responses from several German officials, including Chancellor Angela Merkel.

"That is absolutely out of order," she told German TV channel Sat.1. "Nobody is allowed to skulk into the role of the police. The state has a monopoly on the use of force."

Merkel's interior minister, Thomas de Maizière, also made clear the government's displeasure.

"The Sharia will not be tolerated on German soil," he told the Bild newspaper over the weekend.

Khorchide dismissed Lau's Sharia Police as a P.R. stunt, but warned of the growing influence of the Islamists using people like ex-rapper Cuspert.

"The Islamic State gives the losers of German society, those already susceptible to Islamist ideas, the chance to feel strong," the theologian said. "Anyone coming back from the war in Syria will be traumatized and full of hatred."

But as the rise of the repressive IS regime in Syria and Iraq emboldens extremists in Germany, it is also raising tensions with the country's mainstream Muslim community. Following six suspected arson attacks on mosques last month, moderate Muslim leaders have scheduled a demonstration for today against violence in the Middle East and intolerance in Germany.

"We are all afraid of violence, hatred and fanaticism. We have to confront this together," Aiman Mazyek, the chairman of the Central Council of Muslims in Germany, recently told the Berlin-based newspaper Der Tagesspiegel.




ISIS @ 2014/09/20 01:59:38


Post by: Jihadin


Idiots did not know how to set up a 198 and more likely reading the -10 manual to figure it out


ISIS @ 2014/09/20 04:31:49


Post by: dogma


 Grey Templar wrote:

Thats why we need railguns. Accuracy, range, and damage of a missile, but far cheaper.


That's debatable, given how quickly railguns themselves succumb to heat-related wear and tear. Something which reduces the velocity and accuracy of each shot.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

I never understand how videos like this get distributed. Why would a member of ISIS show one of their artillery pieces getting destroyed to the public?
Wouldn't they not want to show them getting harassed?


Not if you're trying to paint your group as one which is resisting an evil oppressor.


ISIS @ 2014/09/20 22:44:40


Post by: Hordini


Hordini wrote:(which you also need for CAS, I'm just saying the railgun won't eliminate that requirement).


Grey Templar wrote:Missiles need observers too.



True, I noted that in my previous post.


ISIS @ 2014/09/20 22:47:51


Post by: Grey Templar


 dogma wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:

Thats why we need railguns. Accuracy, range, and damage of a missile, but far cheaper.


That's debatable, given how quickly railguns themselves succumb to heat-related wear and tear. Something which reduces the velocity and accuracy of each shot.


I think spending only a few hundred bucks a round is better than tens of thousands. And they are working out the wearing problem. It should be worked down to a manageable level within a few years.

Another bonus to railguns is that the shot can't be shot down while a missile can.


ISIS @ 2014/09/21 16:18:07


Post by: dogma


 Grey Templar wrote:

I think spending only a few hundred bucks a round is better than tens of thousands.


First, the present railgun rounds cost ~25K USD.

Second, the cost of the rounds should not be isolated from the cost of the weapon system. A better metric is cost per shot, where cost isn't necessarily monetary; replacing components and all that.

Third, unlike a missile, a railgun becomes less effective after every shot. That lack of predictability is a huge problem.

 Grey Templar wrote:

And they are working out the wearing problem. It should be worked down to a manageable level within a few years.


By what means? Does the military intend to bend the laws of physics?



ISIS @ 2014/09/21 16:36:23


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


Plus, China has around 80% (IIRC) of the world's known Tungsten deposits. Becoming entirely dependant on a political rival for ammunition for your new superweapon might not be very clever.


ISIS @ 2014/09/22 21:38:17


Post by: Experiment 626


How about we show ISIS what a WWII carpet bombing re-enactment looks like? I'm sure we can build a much bigger firestorm nowadays than we managed 70 odd years ago.


ISIS @ 2014/09/22 22:01:04


Post by: timetowaste85


626: Because the governments are squeamish. Isis is in a position to screw up a lot for the world. Eggs are going to get cracked by trying to stop them. But the powers that be don't want to even break one. It's a tough call. Seriously difficult. But it's one that may be an example of "the needs of the many over the needs of the few", and somebody is going to have to make the call that causes them to not be able to look in the mirror for a few weeks. It's a tough call, but it's one they signed on for when they went into office.


ISIS @ 2014/09/22 22:55:15


Post by: Ashiraya


I don't like war. I don't like fighting. I am somewhat idealistic. I am, however, not a fool. I do not think ISIS will back down. I can see no other solution than war.

Religious fanatics are, in my opinion, one of the really troublesome things in this world. Few things can silence reason as well as zeal can.

Edit: typos


ISIS @ 2014/09/22 23:10:35


Post by: Jihadin


So as we train and arm up the Free Syrian Army....is Assad going to call a "time out" from fighting them? Free Syrian Army willing to commit to a two front war?


ISIS @ 2014/09/23 04:12:58


Post by: Dreadclaw69


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/world/middleeast/us-and-allies-hit-isis-targets-in-syria.html?_r=0
Looks like airstrikes have started. Remember the good old days when we were promised fewer foreign military adventures, and that if a vote for Romney was a vote to attack Syria


ISIS @ 2014/09/23 05:20:33


Post by: Hordini


The good old days never existed.


ISIS @ 2014/09/23 09:54:59


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


Question for American tax payers on this site:

Given that we know ISIL captured lots of equipment from the Iraqi army, and given that we know that equipment was paid for by American taxpayers, my question is this:

Are you happy that missiles, paid for by your taxes, are being used to destroy stuff that your taxes originally paid for?


ISIS @ 2014/09/23 11:12:20


Post by: Frazzled


 Hordini wrote:
The good old days never existed.


Incorrect. The 80s were awesome...the 1880s...


ISIS @ 2014/09/23 11:38:41


Post by: Jihadin


Remember that "Red line" quote that was forced on Obama to make


ISIS @ 2014/09/23 11:52:58


Post by: Tibbsy


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Plus, China has around 80% (IIRC) of the world's known Tungsten deposits. Becoming entirely dependant on a political rival for ammunition for your new superweapon might not be very clever.


Look at the SR-71; built to spy on the Soviet Union and made almost entirely from Titanium, sourced directly from the world's largest supplier.

The Soviet Union!




ISIS @ 2014/09/23 12:13:49


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


Tibbsy wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Plus, China has around 80% (IIRC) of the world's known Tungsten deposits. Becoming entirely dependant on a political rival for ammunition for your new superweapon might not be very clever.


Look at the SR-71; built to spy on the Soviet Union and made almost entirely from Titanium, sourced directly from the world's largest supplier.

The Soviet Union!




Oh sweet, sweet irony


ISIS @ 2014/09/23 13:26:05


Post by: whembly


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Question for American tax payers on this site:

Given that we know ISIL captured lots of equipment from the Iraqi army, and given that we know that equipment was paid for by American taxpayers, my question is this:

Are you happy that missiles, paid for by your taxes, are being used to destroy stuff that your taxes originally paid for?

Yup. Blow them sky high!


ISIS @ 2014/09/23 13:31:06


Post by: whembly


Alternate Title:
Nobel Peace Prize Winner Now Bombing Second Country Without Declaration Of War From Congress

Airstrikes by U.S. and Allies Hit ISIS Targets in Syria
WASHINGTON — The United States and allies launched airstrikes against Sunni militants in Syria early Tuesday, unleashing a torrent of cruise missiles and precision-guided bombs from the air and sea on the militants’ de facto capital of Raqqa and along the porous Iraq border.

American fighter jets and armed Predator and Reaper drones, flying alongside warplanes from several Arab allies, struck a broad array of targets in territory controlled by the militants, known as the Islamic State. American defense officials said the targets included weapons supplies, depots, barracks and buildings the militants use for command and control. Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired from United States Navy ships in the region.

The strikes are a major turning point in President Obama’s war against the Islamic State and open up a risky new stage of the American military campaign. Until now, the administration had bombed Islamic State targets only in Iraq, and had suggested it would be weeks if not months before the start of a bombing campaign against Islamic State targets in Syria.

Bahrain, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates took part in the strikes, American officials said, although the Arab governments were not expected to announce their participation until later Tuesday. The new coalition’s makeup is significant because the United States was able to recruit Sunni governments to take action against the Sunni militants of the Islamic State. The operation also unites the squabbling states of the Persian Gulf.

The strikes came less than two weeks after Mr. Obama announced in an address to the nation that he was authorizing an expansion of the military campaign against the Islamic State, also known as ISIS.

Unlike American strikes in Iraq over the past month, which have been small-bore bombings of mostly individual Islamic State targets — patrol boats and trucks — the salvo on Tuesday in Syria was the beginning of what was expected to be a sustained, hourslong bombardment at targets in the militant headquarters in Raqqa and on the border.

The strikes began after years of debate within the Obama administration about whether the United States should intervene militarily or should avoid another entanglement in a complex war in the Middle East. But the Islamic State controls a broad swath of land across both Iraq and Syria.

Defense officials said the goal of the air campaign was to deprive the Islamic State of the safe havens it enjoys in Syria. The administration’s ultimate goal, as set forth in the address Mr. Obama delivered on Sept. 10, is to recruit a global coalition to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the militants, even as Mr. Obama warned that “eradicating a cancer” like the Islamic State was a long-term challenge that would put some American troops at risk.

American warplanes had been conducting surveillance flights over Syria for more than a month in anticipation of airstrikes, but it had been unclear just how much intelligence the Pentagon had managed to gather about the movements of the Sunni militant group in Syria. Unlike Iraq, whose airspace is controlled by the United States, Syria has its own aerial defense system, so American planes have had to rely on sometimes jamming the country’s defenses when crossing into Syria.

The strikes in Syria occurred without the approval of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, whose government, unlike Iraq, did not ask the United States for help against the Sunni militant group. Mr. Obama has repeatedly called on Mr. Assad to step down because of chemical weapons attacks and violence against his own people, and defense officials said Mr. Assad had not been told in advance of the strikes.

But administration officials acknowledge that American efforts to roll back the Sunni militant group in Syria cannot help but aid Mr. Assad, whose government is also a target of the Islamic State.

The United Arab Emirates announced three weeks ago that it was willing to participate in the campaign against the Islamic State, and administration officials have also said they expect the Iraqi military to take part in strikes both in Iraq and Syria. If both nations are in fact participants, the strikes on Tuesday could mark a rare instance when the Shiite-dominated Iraqi military has cooperated in a military operation with its Sunni Arab neighbors.

Combined with a French airstrike last week on a logistics depot held by Islamic State militants in northeastern Iraq, the allied participation in the strikes allows Mr. Obama to make the case that his plan to target the Islamic State has international cooperation.

In addition, Saudi Arabia recently agreed to a training facility for moderate members of the Syrian opposition, whom the United States hopes to train, equip and send back to Syria to fight both Mr. Assad and Islamic State militants.

On Wednesday, Mr. Obama is expected to speak of the international coalition in an address to the United Nations General Assembly.

In his Sept. 10 speech to the nation, Mr. Obama drew a distinction between the military action he was ordering and the two wars begun by his immediate predecessor, George W. Bush. He likened this campaign to the selective airstrikes that the United States has carried out for years against suspected terrorists in Yemen and Somalia, few of which have been made public.

The airstrikes in Syria, so far, come without the benefit of a large ground force to capitalize on gains they make. While some Syrian opposition groups fighting the Islamic State militants may be able to move into a few cleared areas, administration officials acknowledged on Monday that it was doubtful that the Free Syrian Army, the opposition group most preferred by the United States, would be able to take control of major sections of Islamic State territory, at least not until it has been better trained — which will take place over the next year.

That could leave the forces of Mr. Assad in perhaps the best position to take advantage of any American bombardment. An administration official on Monday acknowledged that that was a worry, but said, “We don’t plan to make it easy for Assad to reclaim territory.” He declined to say what methods the United States would use to prevent the Syrian leader from capitalizing on the American aerial bombardment.

Although the full scope of the airstrikes was not immediately clear, they followed an urgent appeal from Hadi al-Bahra, the president of the Syrian Opposition Coalition, for American military action. He said the United States needed to act quickly to stop militants from the Islamic State from pressing their attack against the Kurdish communities near the Syrian border town of Ayn-al-Arab, as it is known by Arabs, or Kobani, as it is called by the Kurds.

And Representative Eliot L. Engel, a New York Democrat who serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, issued a statement urging “targeted American airstrikes” to protect the Syrian Kurds and prevent a “potential massacre.”

Obama administration officials asserted that they were having success building an international coalition to confront the Islamic State, but Laurent Fabius, the French foreign minister, said on Monday that France would limit its military operations to Iraq.

“The French president has said we do not have intention to do the same in Syria, I mean by air,” Mr. Fabius said in an appearance before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, adding that France would support the moderate Syrian opposition.

“I can confirm that U.S. military and partner nation forces are undertaking military action against ISIL terrorists in Syria using a mix of fighter, bomber and Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles,” said Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary, using an alternate name for the Islamic State.

“Given that these operations are ongoing, we are not in a position to provide additional details at this time,” Admiral Kirby said in a statement Monday night in Washington. “The decision to conduct these strikes was made earlier today by the U.S. Central Command commander under authorization granted him by the commander in chief. We will provide more details later as operationally appropriate.”


ISIS @ 2014/09/23 13:37:05


Post by: Ouze


I do not believe there is a constitutionally-based authorization to perform any combat operations against ISIL.





ISIS @ 2014/09/23 13:40:08


Post by: PhantomViper


Why does that article refers to your president almost exclusively as Mr. Obama instead of calling him the president? Was he making all of those declarations and announcements as a private citizen instead of speaking on behalf of his office?


ISIS @ 2014/09/23 13:43:59


Post by: whembly


 Ouze wrote:
I do not believe there is a constitutionally-based authorization to perform any combat operations against ISIL.





Not even a congressional authorization?

I thought we've moved past the idea that one could declare war on non-state actors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PhantomViper wrote:
Why does that article refers to your president almost exclusively as Mr. Obama instead of calling him the president? Was he making all of those declarations and announcements as a private citizen instead of speaking on behalf of his office?

No clue really. That's the New York Times for ya.


ISIS @ 2014/09/23 13:45:43


Post by: Ouze


PhantomViper wrote:
Why does that article refers to your president almost exclusively as Mr. Obama instead of calling him the president? Was he making all of those declarations and announcements as a private citizen instead of speaking on behalf of his office?


this article is old, but answers your question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 whembly wrote:

Not even a congressional authorization?

I thought we've moved past the idea that one could declare war on non-state actors.


I am unaware of any congressional authorization that would cover ISIL. The Al-Qaeda AUMF most certainly does not.


ISIS @ 2014/09/23 13:49:59


Post by: PhantomViper


 Ouze wrote:
PhantomViper wrote:
Why does that article refers to your president almost exclusively as Mr. Obama instead of calling him the president? Was he making all of those declarations and announcements as a private citizen instead of speaking on behalf of his office?


this article is old, but answers your question.


Thanks, it did.

I still find it strange because over here the only times that you call the president by name is when you are talking about the private citizen and not the holder of the office.


ISIS @ 2014/09/23 13:53:53


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


 Ouze wrote:


I am unaware of any congressional authorization that would cover ISIL. The Al-Qaeda AUMF most certainly does not.


Seeing as ISIS started off as a splinter group of al-Qaeda in Iraq (IIRC), couldn't one argue that it's a continuation of a continuation of al-Quaeda?


ISIS @ 2014/09/23 13:54:48


Post by: Frazzled


 Ouze wrote:
I do not believe there is a constitutionally-based authorization to perform any combat operations against ISIL.





I agree.


ISIS @ 2014/09/23 13:55:25


Post by: Dreadclaw69



Barack Obama's Q&A
[Q] In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

[A] The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lets hope this isn't the start of a trend;
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/357104f62bc34225993ee3c4317b48a7/israel-military-shoots-down-syrian-aircraft

JERUSALEM (AP) — The Israeli military shot down a Syrian fighter jet that infiltrated its airspace over the Golan Heights on Tuesday morning — the first such downing in decades, heightening tensions in the volatile plateau.

The military said a "Syrian aircraft infiltrated into Israeli air space" in the morning hours and that the military "intercepted the aircraft in mid-flight, using the Patriot air defense system."

The military would not say what type of aircraft was downed and said the circumstances of the incident were "unclear."

A defense official identified the downed aircraft as a Sukhoi Su-24 Russian fighter plane. Perviously, it was reported to have been a MiG aircraft. He said the Syrian jet penetrated 800 meters (2,600 feet) into Israeli air space and tried to return to Syria after the Patriot missile was fired.

The crew managed to abandon the plane in time and landed in Syrian territory, the Israeli official said.

It was the first such incident since the war with Lebanon in 1982, the official said. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

Israel has largely stayed on the sidelines of Syria's civil war raging across the border. But Israeli leaders appear increasingly nervous about the possibility of al-Qaida-linked fighters occupying the Golan's high ground over northern Israel.

Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon said the aircraft had crossed into Israel in a "threatening way" and vowed to retaliate to any similar attempts in the future.

"We will not any allow element, whether it is a terror group or a state, to threaten our security and breach our sovereignty," he said. "We are committed first and foremost to ensure the security of the Israel's citizens and we will use all means at our disposal to do so," he said.

Israel has avoided taking sides in the three-year civil war in Syria, though Israeli troops have responded to occasional mortar fire that has landed on the Israeli side of the Golan. Israel says some of the attacks have been accidental spillover, while others have been intentionally aimed at Israeli civilians and soldiers. It has always held Syria responsible for any cross-border fire.

Israel and Syria are bitter enemies who have fought several wars.

Israel captured the Golan Heights from Syria in the 1967 Middle East war and later annexed the strategic area in a move that has never been internationally recognized.

While relations are hostile, the ruling Assad family in Syria has kept the border area with Israel quiet for most of the past 40 years. Israel is concerned that Assad's ouster could push the country into the hands of Islamic State extremists or other al-Qaida linked militants, or plunge the region further into sectarian warfare.

The Syrian government confirmed that Israel shot down one of its planes.

In August, Israel shot down a drone that had entered its side of the Golan Heights from Syria.


ISIS @ 2014/09/23 13:58:53


Post by: Ouze


 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Barack Obama's Q&A
[Q] In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

[A] The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/


I agree. However, he does have authority to act to stop an imminent threat, and in fact, there was a second, separate attack this morning aimed at another group using just such phrasing - an imminent threat.

In my opinion the President is required to seek congressional approval within 60 days for these operations.



ISIS @ 2014/09/23 14:04:09


Post by: Dreadclaw69


 Ouze wrote:
I agree. However, he does have authority to act to stop an imminent thread, and in fact, there was a second, separate attack this morning aimed at another group using just such phrasing - an imminent threat.

In my opinion the President is required to seek congressional approval within 60 days for these operations.

Read the quote again; "an actual or imminent threat to the nation". Not just an imminent threat.


ISIS @ 2014/09/23 14:10:58


Post by: Ouze


I would have to look for the article but I believe that was the phrasing.


ISIS @ 2014/09/23 14:29:52


Post by: Easy E


So, he has 60 days to get Congress on board thanks to that terrible War Powers Act?

Except that we have been moving to an IMperial Presidency (i.e. without Congressional oversite) since Reagan. Why stop now?



ISIS @ 2014/09/23 14:30:28


Post by: Dreadclaw69


If that were the case I'd love to hear the justification for an attack on ISIS positions in Syria that were somehow an imminent risk to the US nation. Were they acquiring yellow cake?


ISIS @ 2014/09/23 14:42:31


Post by: Ouze


 Easy E wrote:
So, he has 60 days to get Congress on board thanks to that terrible War Powers Act?


I don't think the War Powers Resolution is terrible at all. I think the framers were absolutely crystal clear that while it was to the President to prosecute war, it was for the legislative to to decide if we fought at all. Pursuant to that I think the Resolution is a great bridge that allows the Executive to act in cases of exigency without unduly impinging on Congress's ultimate authority on this matter.


ISIS @ 2014/09/23 16:50:53


Post by: Dreadclaw69


Sorry it's hidden behind a paywall, but if the headline is anything to go by it seems the US is continuing its long running tradition of ignoring sovereignty when it suits them;
http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-arab-allies-launch-airstrikes-against-islamic-state-targets-in-syria-1411467879
U.S. Denies Syria Government Given Prior Notice of Airstrikes
State Department Doesn't Comment on Claims by Syrian Opposition It Was Told of Attack Plans


ISIS @ 2014/09/23 16:52:47


Post by: Frazzled


I doubt Syria is objecting.


ISIS @ 2014/09/23 16:55:55


Post by: Experiment 626


 Ouze wrote:
 Easy E wrote:
So, he has 60 days to get Congress on board thanks to that terrible War Powers Act?


I don't think the War Powers Resolution is terrible at all. I think the framers were absolutely crystal clear that while it was to the President to prosecute war, it was for the legislative to to decide if we fought at all. Pursuant to that I think the Resolution is a great bridge that allows the Executive to act in cases of exigency without unduly impinging on Congress's ultimate authority on this matter.


Maybe Obama is technically overstepping his authority & powers, but really, are we going to seriously nitpick when it's clear this threat goes well beyond even Nazi ideology?


ISIS @ 2014/09/23 17:02:34


Post by: whembly


Experiment 626 wrote:
 Ouze wrote:
 Easy E wrote:
So, he has 60 days to get Congress on board thanks to that terrible War Powers Act?


I don't think the War Powers Resolution is terrible at all. I think the framers were absolutely crystal clear that while it was to the President to prosecute war, it was for the legislative to to decide if we fought at all. Pursuant to that I think the Resolution is a great bridge that allows the Executive to act in cases of exigency without unduly impinging on Congress's ultimate authority on this matter.


Maybe Obama is technically overstepping his authority & powers, but really, are we going to seriously nitpick when it's clear this threat goes well beyond even Nazi ideology?

No... in this regard, the issue is simply US politics.

I'm all for bringing the level of Freedom™ to ISIS... but, the President's/Democrat's current legal justification hurts my brain.

In addition to lacking domestic authorization for war, the President failed to secure international authorization for war in Syria. The latter is less important to me than the former, but it was, once upon a time, pretty danged important to Democrats that wars be justified under international law. Indeed, Obama went to great lengths to see that the UN would sign off on his Libyan misadventure.


ISIS @ 2014/09/23 17:04:33


Post by: Grey Templar


Not to mention they're squarely painted Hypocrite on themselves given this is very similar to what Bush did, and that they screamed bloody murder over.


ISIS @ 2014/09/23 17:35:17


Post by: Jihadin


Admiral Kirby (Pentagon Spokesman) clearly seems to be more informed and well knowledgeable concerning this


ISIS @ 2014/09/23 17:36:57


Post by: Ouze


 Jihadin wrote:
Admiral Kirby (Pentagon Spokesman) clearly seems to be more informed and well knowledgeable concerning this


Oh? Did he produce a congressional authorization?


ISIS @ 2014/09/23 17:42:09


Post by: Frazzled


, but really, are we going to seriously nitpick when it's clear this threat goes well beyond even Nazi ideology?


SAYS WHO?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ouze wrote:
 Jihadin wrote:
Admiral Kirby (Pentagon Spokesman) clearly seems to be more informed and well knowledgeable concerning this


Oh? Did he produce a congressional authorization?


Holy crap I'm on the same side as Ouze. Next Sebster will suddenly have a revalation and espouse the greatness of the US Republican Party. wo.


ISIS @ 2014/09/23 17:53:40


Post by: whembly


 Frazzled wrote:
Next Sebster will suddenly have a revalation and espouse the greatness of the US Republican Party. wo.

Not gunna happen anytime soon!

To be fair... Ouze has been very consistent with his stance.


ISIS @ 2014/09/23 18:15:12


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


 Grey Templar wrote:
Not to mention they're squarely painted Hypocrite on themselves given this is very similar to what Bush did, and that they screamed bloody murder over.


I'm pretty sure there aren't any UN weapons inspectors saying ISIS is innocent.


ISIS @ 2014/09/23 18:21:49


Post by: Frazzled


And which ones said Saddam Hussein was?


ISIS @ 2014/09/23 18:25:25


Post by: Jihadin


 Ouze wrote:
 Jihadin wrote:
Admiral Kirby (Pentagon Spokesman) clearly seems to be more informed and well knowledgeable concerning this


Oh? Did he produce a congressional authorization?


Have you seen the man speak? I lay down good money betting he can get JC to lose his virginity if giving the chance


ISIS @ 2014/09/23 18:30:55


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 Frazzled wrote:
And which ones said Saddam Hussein was?

I assume he is talking about the faked WMDs.


ISIS @ 2014/09/23 18:31:38


Post by: whembly


 Frazzled wrote:
And which ones said Saddam Hussein was?

None other than Hans Blix:

On that speech, just before the Iraq War, on chemical weapons he raised the problem that:
some 6,500 chemical bombs containing 1,000 tons of chemical agents and “several thousand” chemical rocket warheads are unaccounted for…. Inspectors found a “laboratory quantity” of thiodiglycol, a precursor of mustard gas…. Iraq has prepared equipment at a chemical plant previously destroyed by the UN.’

He also warned that Iraq’s anthrax ‘might still exist’.

Only it didn’t.

Blix, who doesn't "support" Blair & Bush, put the whole Iraq inspection a no-win situation.

He was most definitely NOT part of the Bush/Cheney/Haliburton cabal.



ISIS @ 2014/09/23 22:30:02


Post by: Ouze


 whembly wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Next Sebster will suddenly have a revalation and espouse the greatness of the US Republican Party. wo.

Not gunna happen anytime soon!

To be fair... Ouze has been very consistent with his stance.


Thank you, I think so too.

I think the executive has been overreaching quite a bit in my lifetime, and it's independent of party. I think it accelerated quite a bit under George W. Bush, but that has less to do with his innate Bushness then him simply being in the office at the time circumstances allowed for even more unbalancing. The Obama administration has simply taken this ball and run with it to ever-more frightening extremes - even Mr. Bush in his wildest dreams never claimed he had the legally sanctioned ability to order an American citizen killed without any oversight.

So yes, I would like to see the Congress push back on this administration and put some muscle into the War Powers Resolution. This is I think a unique circumstance - a military action without any clear constitutional basis, with mixed public support, in a term-limited president, with incredible partisan hostility in the Congress that this time doesn't have a voting record that will bite them. I think it needs to happen not because I'm on the "opposing team" (I'm an independant who votes for both parties, and third parties more or less equally), and not because he's the black guy (I voted for him, and I think he has done more good than bad) but because, even though this has been going on for a while, it needs to stop at some point. Our foreign adventures need to come to a close. I agree ISIL are terrible people, and they need to get got, but I firmly believe in a United States that does not seek out monsters to destroy.





ISIS @ 2014/09/23 22:47:47


Post by: Chaos Legionnaire


Nice link, Ouze.


ISIS @ 2014/09/23 22:49:44


Post by: Jihadin


 Ouze wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Next Sebster will suddenly have a revalation and espouse the greatness of the US Republican Party. wo.

Not gunna happen anytime soon!

To be fair... Ouze has been very consistent with his stance.


Thank you, I think so too.

I think the executive has been overreaching quite a bit in my lifetime, and it's independent of party. I think it accelerated quite a bit under George W. Bush, but that has less to do with his innate Bushness then him simply being in the office at the time circumstances allowed for even more unbalancing. The Obama administration has simply taken this ball and run with it to ever-more frightening extremes - even Mr. Bush in his wildest dreams never claimed he had the legally sanctioned ability to order an American citizen killed without any oversight.

So yes, I would like to see the Congress push back on this administration and put some muscle into the War Powers Resolution. This is I think a unique circumstance - a military action without any clear constitutional basis, with mixed public support, in a term-limited president, with incredible partisan hostility in the Congress that this time doesn't have a voting record that will bite them. I think it needs to happen not because I'm on the "opposing team" (I'm an independant who votes for both parties, and third parties more or less equally), and not because he's the black guy (I voted for him, and I think he has done more good than bad) but because, even though this has been going on for a while, it needs to stop at some point. Our foreign adventures need to come to a close. I agree ISIL are terrible people, and they need to get got, but I firmly believe in a United States that does not seek out monsters to destroy.



wait one....



ISIS @ 2014/09/24 09:55:00


Post by: elotar


 Ouze wrote:

This is, I think, a unique circumstance - a military action without any clear constitutional basis, with mixed public support, in a term-limited president, with incredible partisan hostility in the Congress that this time doesn't have a voting record that will bite them.


It really looks like some epic US fail.
Before this campain there was narrative "dumb wars were Bush's fault", now it's definetly broken.

I'm a little biased, maybe, cause here in Russia we got government, which totally embrace the idea of dumb wars, but without any dumb anxiety about lives of it's soldiers.


ISIS @ 2014/09/24 10:42:02


Post by: Soladrin


elotar wrote:
 Ouze wrote:

This is, I think, a unique circumstance - a military action without any clear constitutional basis, with mixed public support, in a term-limited president, with incredible partisan hostility in the Congress that this time doesn't have a voting record that will bite them.


It really looks like some epic US fail.
Before this campain there was narrative "dumb wars were Bush's fault", now it's definetly broken.

I'm a little biased, maybe, cause here in Russia we got government, which totally embrace the idea of dumb wars, but without any dumb anxiety about lives of it's soldiers.


Yeah! Those dumb Americans caring for the lives of their people, so dumb!



ISIS @ 2014/09/24 10:47:48


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


Not for the first time, I'm struggling to get my head around this

So let me get this straight:

1) American tax payer funded missiles are being used to destroy stuff that American taxes paid for (equipment captured by ISIL) The last time America destroyed its own stuff was the civil war

2) Assad, the greatest threat to the world , is now not the greatest threat to the world. Technically, we're on his side.

3) The rebel groups that we supported, are now the bad guys

4) Some of our allies in the region, may have been funding the bad guys we're now fighting

5) And some rubbish about 60 days in congress


I am totally and utterly confused! Getting the impression that sensible thing to do right now would be an attack on outer Mongolia?


ISIS @ 2014/09/24 11:01:57


Post by: Frazzled


 Ouze wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Next Sebster will suddenly have a revalation and espouse the greatness of the US Republican Party. wo.

Not gunna happen anytime soon!

To be fair... Ouze has been very consistent with his stance.


Thank you, I think so too.

I think the executive has been overreaching quite a bit in my lifetime, and it's independent of party. I think it accelerated quite a bit under George W. Bush, but that has less to do with his innate Bushness then him simply being in the office at the time circumstances allowed for even more unbalancing. The Obama administration has simply taken this ball and run with it to ever-more frightening extremes - even Mr. Bush in his wildest dreams never claimed he had the legally sanctioned ability to order an American citizen killed without any oversight.

So yes, I would like to see the Congress push back on this administration and put some muscle into the War Powers Resolution. This is I think a unique circumstance - a military action without any clear constitutional basis, with mixed public support, in a term-limited president, with incredible partisan hostility in the Congress that this time doesn't have a voting record that will bite them. I think it needs to happen not because I'm on the "opposing team" (I'm an independant who votes for both parties, and third parties more or less equally), and not because he's the black guy (I voted for him, and I think he has done more good than bad) but because, even though this has been going on for a while, it needs to stop at some point. Our foreign adventures need to come to a close. I agree ISIL are terrible people, and they need to get got, but I firmly believe in a United States that does not seek out monsters to destroy.





Agreed completely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Not for the first time, I'm struggling to get my head around this

So let me get this straight:

1) American tax payer funded missiles are being used to destroy stuff that American taxes paid for (equipment captured by ISIL) The last time America destroyed its own stuff was the civil war

2) Assad, the greatest threat to the world , is now not the greatest threat to the world. Technically, we're on his side.

3) The rebel groups that we supported, are now the bad guys

4) Some of our allies in the region, may have been funding the bad guys we're now fighting

5) And some rubbish about 60 days in congress


I am totally and utterly confused! Getting the impression that sensible thing to do right now would be an attack on outer Mongolia?


Yep, we need a good football coach to explain the X's and Os of this one. To be safe we should carpet bomb Borneo.


ISIS @ 2014/09/24 16:25:10


Post by: Easy E


Yeah, I'm not super excited about getting involved in another Middle-East "adventure". Especially one that is a tangled mess like this.

I forgot what we decided about going to war with Non-state actors again?

Also, are we going to apply the Powell Doctrine to this one (for a change)?


ISIS @ 2014/09/24 17:10:23


Post by: Dreadclaw69


Could ISIS be causing some strange bedfellows?

http://www.businessinsider.com/robert-foyle-hunwick-china-is-interested-in-against-isis-2014-9
BEIJING, China — The Islamic State is flush with cash, territorially ambitious and eager for recognition.

But is IS a threat to China?

That’s been a question on foreign policy minds since US National Security Adviser Susan Rice’s trip to Beijing earlier this month.

The trip, billed as preparation for President Obama’s trip to China in November, went off without serious glitches — other than a mildly embarrassing mix-up on state TV with that other Rice (Condoleezza).

But Rice's visit was overshadowed by the unfolding chaos in Iraq and Syria, brought about by IS.

Would China be willing to lend its support to an international coalition against this growing threat to world security?

The official response from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) was boilerplate: “The Chinese government staunchly fights against any form of terrorism.”

Privately, “They are interested,” argues Chen Dingding, assistant professor of Government and Public Administration at the University of Macau.

The Communist Party has long insisted on refusing to “interfere with the internal affairs” of sovereign states, a policy pointedly directed at other powers to stay out of China’s domestic matters. But Beijing’s status — as the world’s second-biggest economy, with an increasingly powerful military — is bringing with it the uncomfortable realization that such a simplistic stance is getting tougher to maintain.

China now has its own overseas interests to protect — as demonstrated by its mass evacuation of troops from Libya in 2010 — and uneasy friendships with countries that have their own bad habits.

Russia’s annexation of Crimea and incursions into Ukraine have met with only diplomatic blandishments from the People’s Republic. “A political solution is the only way… sanctions do not help to solve the underlying problems,” a MoFA spokesman said in early September.

In fact, as a gathering of scholars at an international conference in Stockholm recently concluded, China has been a main beneficiary of Russia’s aggression, securing a 30-year gas deal (long in the pipeline), oil and arms exports, energy exports and regional solidarity with its erstwhile foe — all while (or by) doing nothing.

The Islamic State may be a different matter, however. The terrorist group is already seeding unlikely alliances against it, such as Syria’s President Assad, Iran and the US. IS has included China among a list of avowed enemies and, reportedly, a Chinese national fighting for IS has already been captured by Iraqi forces, a fact that MoFA says they are “verifying,” while police in Indonesia say they have arrested four Chinese men accused of traveling there “with the intent of connecting with a local [IS] chief.”

If the captured Chinese IS fighter turns out to be a member of the Turkic-speaking Uighur population from Xinjiang, as is widely thought, it would be evidence that China has become a recruiting ground — and may even have IS cells. That renders a response unavoidable. (China has released no official figures on how many of its nationals have joined IS ranks, although its Middle East envoy has claimed that at least 100 Chinese were training with IS)

Xinjiang, an ethnically divided part of northwest China, has long been considered a hotbed of terrorism. Since April 2013, over 300 deaths have been reported in incidents that state media term as “terrorism” but are impossible to independently verify.

isis 02
AP Images
ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi addresses followers in Mosul, Iraq

This year, the violence has worsened and grown more public, spilling over into civilian attacks in outside provinces, such as a horrific massacre at a Kunming train station that left 34 dead and a suicide attack on Tiananmen Square that killed two bystanders. The arrival of any IS forces on Chinese borders could only intensify this unrest.

Chen Dingding has made a persuasive case for China’s involvement in battling IS, arguing that Beijing has nothing to lose, and could meanwhile gain from international standing, cooperation, and military experience.

Of course, it also risks exposing inexperienced People’s Liberation Army troops to potential defeat and loss of life (and face), as well as entanglement in contentious Middle Eastern politics. Then there’s the matter of domestic politics.

“Some strategists in China have reservations on such cooperation because they view US-China relations as a zero-sum competition,” says Xiayu Pu, assistant professor at the University of Nevada’s Department of Political Science. “In their view, China should not do the US a favor.”

Most analysts therefore agree that China’s role is likely to be political and diplomatic: There will be no “boots on the ground” for the foreseeable future.

“China will stick to its non-interventionist policy for a while, though it might increase efforts in peacekeeping,” says Chen. “It will take time to adjust.”

Beijing’s waiting game may annoy some, but any attempts to rebuke China for complacency risk provoking outrage. After Obama suggested, in an August interview, that China had been a “free rider” in the region, an editorial in People’s Daily, a Beijing mouthpiece, argued that China was a “partner and builder,” while the US was an “invader and deserter.”

The article didn’t mention that China’s first action since the emergence of IS was to evacuate all its 10,000 citizens in Iraq.

Labels aside, “Most would probably agree that China’s dominant strategy has been a low-profile approach in global affairs,” argues Xiaoyu. “From an analytical perspective, such a strategy is essentially a ‘free rider’ strategy. As an inward-looking emerging power, China wants to focus on domestic growth without active entanglement with global affairs.”

And if Obama does persuade a reluctant China to assist in maintaining what is still, essentially, a US-led world order and repair damage caused at least partly by its Middle East strategy, it might find having a new military partner at the table brings with it its own problems.

“If China abandons its ‘free rider’ approach,” asks Xiaoyu, “will the US be ready to share more power and status with China on the world stage?”


ISIS @ 2014/09/24 18:22:24


Post by: Jihadin


Everyone catch the new terrorist group that seems even worse then ISIS? Kronosorsomething that was the trigger to launch attacks.

Edit

US Army prepping a Division HQ unit to Iraq


ISIS @ 2014/09/24 18:47:37


Post by: whembly


 Ouze wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Next Sebster will suddenly have a revalation and espouse the greatness of the US Republican Party. wo.

Not gunna happen anytime soon!

To be fair... Ouze has been very consistent with his stance.


Thank you, I think so too.

I think the executive has been overreaching quite a bit in my lifetime, and it's independent of party. I think it accelerated quite a bit under George W. Bush, but that has less to do with his innate Bushness then him simply being in the office at the time circumstances allowed for even more unbalancing. The Obama administration has simply taken this ball and run with it to ever-more frightening extremes - even Mr. Bush in his wildest dreams never claimed he had the legally sanctioned ability to order an American citizen killed without any oversight.

So yes, I would like to see the Congress push back on this administration and put some muscle into the War Powers Resolution. This is I think a unique circumstance - a military action without any clear constitutional basis, with mixed public support, in a term-limited president, with incredible partisan hostility in the Congress that this time doesn't have a voting record that will bite them. I think it needs to happen not because I'm on the "opposing team" (I'm an independant who votes for both parties, and third parties more or less equally), and not because he's the black guy (I voted for him, and I think he has done more good than bad) but because, even though this has been going on for a while, it needs to stop at some point. Our foreign adventures need to come to a close. I agree ISIL are terrible people, and they need to get got, but I firmly believe in a United States that does not seek out monsters to destroy.




So...

Obama sent a letter to Congress yesterday claiming that Public Law 107-40 Joint Resolution from 2001 as justification for the attacks.


So... nope, Congress ain't got no say in this matter according to this administration.

Where art thou Senator Obama?


During the 2007 campaign, Obama made had a speech about the War Powers Act and the war in Iraq.

He actually blamed Congress for giving Bush the power to wage war that he is now currently using.

“The American people weren’t just failed by a president, they were failed by much of Washington. By a media that too often reported spin instead of facts… And, most of all by Congress, a co-equal branch of government, that voted to give the president the power to wage war that he uses to this day. Without that vote, there would be no war.”

Seems to me, Senator Obama really believes in the separation of powers / co-equal branch of government.


ISIS @ 2014/09/24 18:52:32


Post by: Jihadin


You know he actually kicked this issue with ISIS to whoever is the next POTUS.

Question though is how capable a war leader he is.


ISIS @ 2014/09/24 20:19:48


Post by: Tibbsy


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I am totally and utterly confused! Getting the impression that sensible thing to do right now would be an attack on outer Mongolia?


That's definitely the right thing for us to do. They're one of only 20-odd countries we haven't invaded yet, so I'd say it's well past time they were exposed to some good old-fashioned British Imperialism and introduced to tea, well buttered crumpets and sports we're now gak at.


ISIS @ 2014/09/24 20:26:48


Post by: Frazzled


Tibbsy wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I am totally and utterly confused! Getting the impression that sensible thing to do right now would be an attack on outer Mongolia?


That's definitely the right thing for us to do. They're one of only 20-odd countries we haven't invaded yet, so I'd say it's well past time they were exposed to some good old-fashioned British Imperialism and introduced to tea, well buttered crumpets and sports we're now gak at.


My Slavic ancestors are all for a little Mongolian payback...


ISIS @ 2014/09/24 21:00:12


Post by: whembly


Didn't know where to stick this... but, here's Obama's UN speech today:



Lengthy... but, take the time to watch it.

He actually delivered a lengthy rebuke to Russia over their actions on Ukraine.

He declared that there is no negotiating with evil such as ISIL.

And dude... DUDE! He scolded nations that allow radical Islamists to propagandize, recruit, and fund groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda.

He did bring in some Ferguson trope into this speech, but... eh... who cares?

All in all... I'd have to say it's a decent speech by Obama. If anything, he seems to be targeting the speech to the Islamist and I wish he was more blunt. However, I do like this bit (and I'm paraphrasing):
"So we reject any suggestion of a clash of civilizations. Belief in permanent religious war is the misguided refuge of extremists who cannot build or create anything, and therefore peddle only fanaticism and hate. And it is no exaggeration to say that humanity's future depends on us uniting against those who would divide us along fault lines of tribe or sect; race or religion."

THIS... more of this Mr. President please.

I'll try to post the text of the speech if I get a chance, once it's online.


ISIS @ 2014/09/24 21:03:06


Post by: Ouze


I still hold that there is no lawful, constitutional basis for this military action. the language of the 2001 AUMF is clear and unambiguous. ISIL had nothing to do with the planning of the September 11th, 2001 attacks. They are an offshoot of a terrorist group that didn't even form until 2004. The whole thing is just nonsense. Anyway, I'll stop railing about this because it's clearly needless pedantry at this point.




ISIS @ 2014/09/24 21:15:44


Post by: whembly


 Ouze wrote:
I still hold that there is no lawful, constitutional basis for this military action. the language of the 2001 AUMF is clear and unambiguous. ISIL had nothing to do with the planning of the September 11th, 2001 attacks. They are an offshoot of a terrorist group that didn't even form until 2004. The whole thing is just nonsense. Anyway, I'll stop railing about this because it's clearly needless pedantry at this point.



No worries. I do agree with you.

I can be additionally snarky in that Obama was just at the UN and he didn't even get UN approval for these strikes, which Bush did for Afgan/Iraq.


ISIS @ 2014/09/24 21:28:41


Post by: Medium of Death


This is a terrible idea. I hope to god that they see sense and decide that perhaps we've interfered with that part of the ME for long enough. Time to let them get back to it and offer humanitarian aid when it is requested.


ISIS @ 2014/09/24 22:02:07


Post by: Ahtman


Suffer the little children

tl;dr Idiots are migrating to ISIS areas with children as they see it as a safe place to raise their kids in a holy land.


ISIS @ 2014/09/24 22:10:37


Post by: Medium of Death


It is strange. A girl from about 3 or 4 miles away left the country to go join them. We also had that story of the two American girls that went over and are now apparently pregnant.

I'd just love to see their thought process. I mean, I'd maybe get it if this was a stable nation state but it isn't. It's a loosely defined area of contested land that's about to get the absolutely gak bombed out of it.


ISIS @ 2014/09/24 22:54:17


Post by: Soladrin


 Medium of Death wrote:
It is strange. A girl from about 3 or 4 miles away left the country to go join them. We also had that story of the two American girls that went over and are now apparently pregnant.

I'd just love to see their thought process. I mean, I'd maybe get it if this was a stable nation state but it isn't. It's a loosely defined area of contested land that's about to get the absolutely gak bombed out of it.


To understand crazy you need to be crazy.


ISIS @ 2014/09/24 22:56:42


Post by: adamsouza


 Medium of Death wrote:
I'd just love to see their thought process.


It's natural selection at work.



ISIS @ 2014/09/24 23:57:48


Post by: Bullockist


Tibbsy wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I am totally and utterly confused! Getting the impression that sensible thing to do right now would be an attack on outer Mongolia?


That's definitely the right thing for us to do. They're one of only 20-odd countries we haven't invaded yet, so I'd say it's well past time they were exposed to some good old-fashioned British Imperialism and introduced to tea, well buttered crumpets and sports we're now gak at.


I'd like to add inflicting the british WMD, the Ladbrokes add.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Not for the first time, I'm struggling to get my head around this

So let me get this straight:

1) American tax payer funded missiles are being used to destroy stuff that American taxes paid for (equipment captured by ISIL) The last time America destroyed its own stuff was the civil war

2) Assad, the greatest threat to the world , is now not the greatest threat to the world. Technically, we're on his side.

3) The rebel groups that we supported, are now the bad guys

4) Some of our allies in the region, may have been funding the bad guys we're now fighting

5) And some rubbish about 60 days in congress


I am totally and utterly confused! Getting the impression that sensible thing to do right now would be an attack on outer Mongolia?


I think this conclusively summed up the whole situation well.


ISIS @ 2014/09/25 00:08:58


Post by: Jihadin


I find it funny that a pilot from Qatar bombed ISIS.....a FEMALE fighter pilot



ISIS @ 2014/09/25 00:23:59


Post by: Grey Templar


 Medium of Death wrote:
It is strange. A girl from about 3 or 4 miles away left the country to go join them. We also had that story of the two American girls that went over and are now apparently pregnant.

I'd just love to see their thought process. I mean, I'd maybe get it if this was a stable nation state but it isn't. It's a loosely defined area of contested land that's about to get the absolutely gak bombed out of it.


*sigh

If only that were true.

Sadly I think the bombing effectiveness will be mitigated by silly rules of engagement which allow for soldiers to hide behind civilians without fear of getting hit. And if they do they can parade the bodies of "innocents" around to show how horrible their foe is.

I truly wish we would bomb the everliving gak out of targets like we did in WW2. You'll notice the Germans are very peaceful now, to to point where they continue to apologize for stuff committed 4 generations in the past.


ISIS @ 2014/09/25 00:31:13


Post by: Hordini


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Not for the first time, I'm struggling to get my head around this

So let me get this straight:

1) American tax payer funded missiles are being used to destroy stuff that American taxes paid for (equipment captured by ISIL) The last time America destroyed its own stuff was the civil war

2) Assad, the greatest threat to the world , is now not the greatest threat to the world. Technically, we're on his side.

3) The rebel groups that we supported, are now the bad guys



I'll address a few of these.

1: I really don't think there's anything really confusing about this one. If our own stuff falls into the hands of our enemies, I think it's better to destroy our own stuff then just let our enemies have it and use it. It's not like, "Oh, our enemies have stolen some of our stuff, but we shouldn't destroy it now because it's our stuff!" Especially when the stuff we are talking about it military vehicles and weapons.

2: We're only on his side in the sense that we're both fighting ISIS. There are more than two sides here though.

3: This isn't really true. Although I believe McCain made a comment about wanting to arm ISIS, there are quite a few other more moderate, secular militias such as the Free Syrian Army that some Americans wanted to support. These militias still exist and still oppose both Assad and ISIS. We've still been discussing arming the FSA, who are not our enemies. Some people keep acting like ISIS is the only group opposing Assad, which isn't correct and never has been.


ISIS @ 2014/09/25 00:59:49


Post by: Bullockist


 Jihadin wrote:
I find it funny that a pilot from Qatar bombed ISIS.....a FEMALE fighter pilot



I think that's awesome, I always thought females could not be jet pilots due to g forces and uteruses (uteri?) but it's likely i just heard an old wives tale.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ahtman wrote:
Suffer the little children

tl;dr Idiots are migrating to ISIS areas with children as they see it as a safe place to raise their kids in a holy land.


I have to laugh at the photo the car salesman is using for ID of his wife. Some how I don't think that's going to be very helpful.


ISIS @ 2014/09/25 01:07:43


Post by: Grey Templar


Funny, I always heard it was the other way around. Women make better pilots because they have a higher G-force tolerance.


ISIS @ 2014/09/25 01:14:03


Post by: Hordini


I don't know if either is true, but a lot of countries have female fighter pilots now, including the US.


ISIS @ 2014/09/25 01:15:11


Post by: Grey Templar


Probably something to do with size. Tight confines are more comfortable if you are smaller.


ISIS @ 2014/09/25 01:27:55


Post by: Hordini


 Grey Templar wrote:
Probably something to do with size. Tight confines are more comfortable if you are smaller.


Well, there is a height limit on pilots of either gender.


ISIS @ 2014/09/25 01:29:56


Post by: Jihadin


I heard gender doesn't matter if the pilot is laying flat down


ISIS @ 2014/09/25 02:42:00


Post by: Dreadclaw69


 Ouze wrote:
I still hold that there is no lawful, constitutional basis for this military action. the language of the 2001 AUMF is clear and unambiguous. ISIL had nothing to do with the planning of the September 11th, 2001 attacks. They are an offshoot of a terrorist group that didn't even form until 2004. The whole thing is just nonsense. Anyway, I'll stop railing about this because it's clearly needless pedantry at this point.

I don't think that it is needless pedantry (I know you're all shocked I would say that ), I would say that it is an essential topic to examine whether the action taken against ISIS was in fact legal. Has there been any justification for military action that ISIS posed an "imminent threat"? To date the only reports I can see of a threat from ISIS is that of lone wolf/small cell attacks in revenge for the military strikes currently taking place


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ahtman wrote:
Suffer the little children

tl;dr Idiots are migrating to ISIS areas with children as they see it as a safe place to raise their kids in a holy land.

Just remember, they chose to move to an area governed by terrorists but if their children are hurt because of an airstrike we're the bad guys


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Grey Templar wrote:
*sigh

If only that were true.

Sadly I think the bombing effectiveness will be mitigated by silly rules of engagement which allow for soldiers to hide behind civilians without fear of getting hit. And if they do they can parade the bodies of "innocents" around to show how horrible their foe is.

I truly wish we would bomb the everliving gak out of targets like we did in WW2. You'll notice the Germans are very peaceful now, to to point where they continue to apologize for stuff committed 4 generations in the past.

I don't think that the military would ever be able to conduct itself in the same manner that it did in WWII. KM's article earlier was much better at explaining the reasons that I could manage.


ISIS @ 2014/09/25 04:46:44


Post by: Ahtman


 Jihadin wrote:
I heard gender doesn't matter if the pilot is laying flat down


The missiles/bombs don't care about gender either; they are equal opportunity kablooey.


ISIS @ 2014/09/25 10:45:28


Post by: Frazzled


 Ouze wrote:
I still hold that there is no lawful, constitutional basis for this military action. the language of the 2001 AUMF is clear and unambiguous. ISIL had nothing to do with the planning of the September 11th, 2001 attacks. They are an offshoot of a terrorist group that didn't even form until 2004. The whole thing is just nonsense. Anyway, I'll stop railing about this because it's clearly needless pedantry at this point.




Welcome to the New Millennium. Congress won't touch it if they don't have to. That way they can take credit or post blame depending on how it goes.

Liked the speech. Somehow a Reagan speech writer ninja'd in and substituted the speech.

However its just words.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Hordini wrote:
I don't know if either is true, but a lot of countries have female fighter pilots now, including the US.


Women in bombers....terrifyingly awesome or awesomely terrifying?


ISIS @ 2014/09/25 11:18:47


Post by: Ashiraya


You must be a bombshell to pilot one.


ISIS @ 2014/09/25 11:53:48


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


My thanks to everybody that replied to the points I raised - I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who is confused as hell!


And yet...what is it about the middle east? Everybody that has ever lived, from Genghis Khan to Ronald Reagan knows that getting involved in the Middle East is like putting your foot on a pile of brown stuff. Empires have risen and fallen because of the ME, thousands of books have been written on the dangers of ME involvement...stories films, poems etc etc

AND WE'RE STILL GETTTING INVOLVED! sorry for the caps

It's like some kind of black hole that sucks everything into it

I know it's bad, you know it's bad, it's like some evil, alcohol fuelled cigarette that nobody can give up!


ISIS @ 2014/09/25 11:56:19


Post by: Frazzled


The argument is that they have directly threatened the US. PLus we have no borders at this point (and border partrol found Korans and prayer rugs on the border).

Frazzled of course thinks thats nuts. Close the border and stay out.


ISIS @ 2014/09/25 11:59:40


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 Frazzled wrote:
The argument is that they have directly threatened the US. PLus we have no borders at this point (and border partrol found Korans and prayer rugs on the border).

Frazzled of course thinks thats nuts. Close the border and stay out.


You know as well as I do that anybody who refuses to drink coca cola is deemed to be acting against American interests

The definition of American 'interest' is so vague as to be laughable.

I yearn for the days of the cold war. True, everybody was pointing nukes at each other, but at least you knew what side everybody was on.


ISIS @ 2014/09/25 12:15:15


Post by: Frazzled


Well Putin's trying to help you with that. Thats another whole mess of death I want nothing of.

Time to go back to US policy before FDR helped drag us into WWII. The US has effectively been at war since 1991. Enough of this perpetual war crap. My kids have never lived in a time we weren't bombing someone.


ISIS @ 2014/09/25 16:22:06


Post by: Bromsy


 Frazzled wrote:
Well Putin's trying to help you with that. Thats another whole mess of death I want nothing of.

Time to go back to US policy before FDR helped drag us into WWII. The US has effectively been at war since 1991. Enough of this perpetual war crap. My kids have never lived in a time we weren't bombing someone.


So you're advocating a return to the 1980s, eh?


I approve. Someone call Duran Duran!


ISIS @ 2014/09/25 16:40:43


Post by: Frazzled


It must lunchtime because I'm...hungry like the wolf.


ISIS @ 2014/09/25 17:02:26


Post by: Ouze


 Frazzled wrote:
The US has effectively been at war since 1991. Enough of this perpetual war crap. My kids have never lived in a time we weren't bombing someone.


I agree, but I think you already knew that.


ISIS @ 2014/09/25 18:15:04


Post by: whembly


The UK is doing their part.




Anjem Choudary was arrested on suspicion of being members of a banned Islamist group.

This is a guy who supported ISIS and their terroristic methods:



ISIS @ 2014/09/25 18:17:13


Post by: Hordini





Hopefully now the people who keep asking where the moderate Muslims who are against Islamic extremism and terrorism are can all shut up.


ISIS @ 2014/09/25 18:19:00


Post by: whembly


 Hordini wrote:



Hopefully now the people who keep asking where the moderate Muslims who are against Islamic extremism and terrorism are can all shut up.

I haven't said a word.


ISIS @ 2014/09/25 19:10:07


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 Hordini wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Not for the first time, I'm struggling to get my head around this

So let me get this straight:

1) American tax payer funded missiles are being used to destroy stuff that American taxes paid for (equipment captured by ISIL) The last time America destroyed its own stuff was the civil war

2) Assad, the greatest threat to the world , is now not the greatest threat to the world. Technically, we're on his side.

3) The rebel groups that we supported, are now the bad guys



I'll address a few of these.

1: I really don't think there's anything really confusing about this one. If our own stuff falls into the hands of our enemies, I think it's better to destroy our own stuff then just let our enemies have it and use it. It's not like, "Oh, our enemies have stolen some of our stuff, but we shouldn't destroy it now because it's our stuff!" Especially when the stuff we are talking about it military vehicles and weapons.

2: We're only on his side in the sense that we're both fighting ISIS. There are more than two sides here though.

3: This isn't really true. Although I believe McCain made a comment about wanting to arm ISIS, there are quite a few other more moderate, secular militias such as the Free Syrian Army that some Americans wanted to support. These militias still exist and still oppose both Assad and ISIS. We've still been discussing arming the FSA, who are not our enemies. Some people keep acting like ISIS is the only group opposing Assad, which isn't correct and never has been.


From what I've been reading, the FSA is down to its last 3 men, and 2 of those have got leg injuries! I exaggerate, of course, but they really have hit rock bottom, and can't be relied on as a serious fighting force.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Bullockist wrote:
 Jihadin wrote:
I find it funny that a pilot from Qatar bombed ISIS.....a FEMALE fighter pilot



I think that's awesome, I always thought females could not be jet pilots due to g forces and uteruses (uteri?) but it's likely i just heard an old wives tale.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ahtman wrote:
Suffer the little children

tl;dr Idiots are migrating to ISIS areas with children as they see it as a safe place to raise their kids in a holy land.


I have to laugh at the photo the car salesman is using for ID of his wife. Some how I don't think that's going to be very helpful.


I heard that old wives tale as well

Some old wives tales are rubbish, but there is a grain of truth about some of them. Stuffing cold pork up your nose to stop a nosebleed really does work!


ISIS @ 2014/09/25 19:19:55


Post by: Jihadin


HQ unit from the 1st Infantry Division are moving into place CentCom and Iraq..frame work for a GLOC and ALOC to move combat troops in

Ground Logistical Operation Center
Aviation Logistical Operation Center


ISIS @ 2014/09/25 19:30:24


Post by: whembly


 Jihadin wrote:
HQ unit from the 1st Infantry Division are moving into place CentCom and Iraq..frame work for a GLOC and ALOC to move combat troops in

Ground Logistical Operation Center
Aviation Logistical Operation Center

Buddy... dial back the military jargon and spell out what that means to us civvies.


ISIS @ 2014/09/25 19:31:33


Post by: Jihadin


I did..I use acronym and spelled it out for you all....now use your Google Fu.


ISIS @ 2014/09/25 19:34:52


Post by: whembly


 Jihadin wrote:
I did..I use acronym and spelled it out for you all....now use your Google Fu.

But what the does that mean sir!

Is it foreshadowing that The Boots™, despite what Obama said in the past, will be stomping back in the mideast?


ISIS @ 2014/09/25 20:43:37


Post by: Bullockist


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


You know as well as I do that anybody who refuses to drink coca cola is deemed to be acting against American interests
.


Those damn Scots , next they'll be planning some form of Scottish Republican Army and haggis bombing people.