ISIS

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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**nels1031**

CNN is saying the British aid worker has been decapitated.

**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.

**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."

**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)

**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.....

**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?

**Dreadclaw69**

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

**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.

**Dreadclaw69**

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

**Breotan**

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

**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.

**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".

**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"?

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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!

**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/

**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

**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...

**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.

**Jihadin**

Obama kicked that decision for the next Admin to decide

**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.