Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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...

 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.

 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

 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.

 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

 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.

 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

 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.

 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.

 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.

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

 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".

 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?

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.

Let's hope not.

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).

 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.

 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!

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.

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.

 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.

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.

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.

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.

 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?

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.

 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.

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.

 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.

 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.