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.

 Ratius wrote:

No.

Try interacting with some of these people on the issue, or look at the numbers of young Muslims in the West who go to fight with ISIS.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/07/world/isis-western-draw/

http://www.ibtimes.com/isis-recruitment-reaches-unprecedented-scale-15000-foreign-jihadists-joining-militant-1716684

15000 out of a population of 1.5 billion hardly equates to a heavy backing for ISIS amongst Western Muslims.
As the articles state most of these are the old disillusioned youth going off to fight for a cause which gives their otherwise mundane lives some sort of meaning.
Exact same thing happened up North during the troubles. Its the worst sort of sweeping generalisation and helps nothing and no one to propagate it.

Your numbers are way off. There are ~1.5 billion Muslims IN THE WORLD, not in the West. Your litmus test of support is equally ridiculous - plenty of Muslims support the actions of ISIS even if they don't physically put themselves in the conflict. This could be through monetary (donations to "charities") and ideological means.

If you don't think that 15,000 Muslims going to join ISIS isn't indicative of some kind of problem, then I'll chalk this up to White Guilt (tm) or whatever liberal ideology has landed you in this stupor, and say that this interaction is going to be less than fruitful.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
All it takes is someone to unite them. Things can change quickly, letting them stew indefinitely is playing some dangerous odds.

So occupying all of North Africa, the ME, and Central Asia wouldn't unite them? Does someone have a spare million troops sitting around?
We've played the "they're the next Hitler!!!!! game far too many times in my life.

F that. We have oceans.

Those oceans no longer keep us safe... that's been made plenty clear.

 djones520 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
All it takes is someone to unite them. Things can change quickly, letting them stew indefinitely is playing some dangerous odds.

So occupying all of North Africa, the ME, and Central Asia wouldn't unite them? Does someone have a spare million troops sitting around?
We've played the "they're the next Hitler!!!!! game far too many times in my life.

F that. We have oceans.

Those oceans no longer keep us safe... that's been made plenty clear.

Has it? They came on planes. We can stop planes. Going to all out For the Motherland!!!! War with 1.7Bn people seems like a really bad idea.
Better to just stop the planes no?

Again don't see a lot of terrorism against China or Switzerland.

 Frazzled wrote:

The answer is easy: A coalition of nations (US, Europe, Middle East) need to commit ground forces to battling ISIL.

F that.
1. Every time we go into the Middle East it gets worse.
2. Every time we go for a humnitarian mission in the ME or North Africa it gets worse.
3. I see the same nattering chickenhawks (not you-the guys on TV) saying we have to invade invade invade. These are the same chickenhawks who have never been in a war - usually draft dodgers in college or "deferments" and none of their relatives are in any way in danger. RIch man's war Poor man's fight. F them, hard.
3. Its always been crazy. Let it stay crazy without us.

Ignoring the problem won't make it go away, and thanks to the "international" in international terrorism, problems over there have a distressing tendency to make their way over here.

First of all... I wanna make this clear: I'm NOT advocating that we'd nuke them.

But, I wonder that the world feared the US after WW2 when we nuked Japan twice. I mean, truly feared the US.

Almost like, a nerdy kid beat the living gak out the toughest kid on the block, such that the other kids doesn't want to feth with him anymore.

Knowwhatimean?

How do we, or any other Western nation, cultivate a reputation that says, "whoa... we better do what they say".

squidhills wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

The answer is easy: A coalition of nations (US, Europe, Middle East) need to commit ground forces to battling ISIL.

F that.
1. Every time we go into the Middle East it gets worse.
2. Every time we go for a humnitarian mission in the ME or North Africa it gets worse.
3. I see the same nattering chickenhawks (not you-the guys on TV) saying we have to invade invade invade. These are the same chickenhawks who have never been in a war - usually draft dodgers in college or "deferments" and none of their relatives are in any way in danger. RIch man's war Poor man's fight. F them, hard.
3. Its always been crazy. Let it stay crazy without us.

Ignoring the problem won't make it go away, and thanks to the "international" in international terrorism, problems over there have a distressing tendency to make their way over here.

not with good border security they don't.
You do realize you're effectively advocating total war and potentially geneocide against 1/3 of the entire world.
Er no, a little extra border security should work vs. the tens to hundreds of thousands of dead Americans.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
First of all... I wanna make this clear: I'm NOT advocating that we'd nuke them.

But, I wonder that the world feared the US after WW2 when we nuked Japan twice. I mean, truly feared the US.

Almost like, a nerdy kid beat the living gak out the toughest kid on the block, such that the other kids doesn't want to feth with him anymore.

Knowwhatimean?

How do we, or any other Western nation, cultivate a reputation that says, "whoa... we better do what they say".

Deosn't work. They feed on it. It builds their membership. Look at Hamas/Hezzbullah. They need the conflict to survive.
I mean we walloped two contries in the space of a yawn.

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:
First of all... I wanna make this clear: I'm NOT advocating that we'd nuke them.

But, I wonder that the world feared the US after WW2 when we nuked Japan twice. I mean, truly feared the US.

Almost like, a nerdy kid beat the living gak out the toughest kid on the block, such that the other kids doesn't want to feth with him anymore.

Knowwhatimean?

How do we, or any other Western nation, cultivate a reputation that says, "whoa... we better do what they say".

Deosn't work. They feed on it. It builds their membership. Look at Hamas/Hezzbullah. They need the conflict to survive.
I mean we walloped two contries in the space of a yawn.

I go back to this:
What have we've done to inspire respect, if not fear?

They're obviously not going to leave us alone, even *if* western allies/influences leave the Middle East (if that were possible).

Then, what? Go Col. Jessup on the border?

One idea is to promote/encourage more of this:
From Egypt's leader, an ambitious call for reform in Islam

Even though it'll likely inflame the situation even worse, until it gets better... or the terrorists/crazies are deader than dead.

 Frazzled wrote:

You do realize you're effectively advocating total war and potentially geneocide against 1/3 of the entire world.

Please show me where I said anything in the neighborhood to that. I'll wait.

squidhills wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

You do realize you're effectively advocating total war and potentially geneocide against 1/3 of the entire world.

Please show me where I said anything in the neighborhood to that. I'll wait.

You're advocating taking over the region Japan style. Well hey thats 1/3 of the world there (and most of the bad parts).
Now that you see what you're really saying you won't own it.

 Frazzled wrote:

squidhills wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

You do realize you're effectively advocating total war and potentially geneocide against 1/3 of the entire world.

Please show me where I said anything in the neighborhood to that. I'll wait.

You're advocating taking over the region Japan style. Well hey thats 1/3 of the world there (and most of the bad parts).
Now that you see what you're really saying you won't own it.

So ISIL is 33% of the Earth's population? Really? When did that happen? When did I say occupy the whole Middle East? Protip: I didn't.

I said we needed a ground war and occupation to elinimate ISIL. I didn't say anything about fighting the whole damn Middle East. Other people have advocated nukes and cultural destruction, I have not. All I said is that eliminating ISIL will require a ground war and occupation of the affected areas. You've somehow inflated that into my calling for a genocidal war of cultures.

Your numbers are way off. There are ~1.5 billion Muslims IN THE WORLD, not in the West. Your litmus test of support is equally ridiculous - plenty of Muslims support the actions of ISIS even if they don't physically put themselves in the conflict. This could be through monetary (donations to "charities") and ideological means.

If you don't think that 15,000 Muslims going to join ISIS isn't indicative of some kind of problem, then I'll chalk this up to White Guilt (tm) or whatever liberal ideology has landed you in this stupor, and say that this interaction is going to be less than fruitful.

So we're just breaking down isis support to western muslims now. Ah that backs your premise up much better then.
I have little to no doubt a % do back isis but terms like "plenty" do your argument no justice.

Thanks for the cursory summation of my entire political viewpoint though, youre right this interaction based on your previous views elsewhere is going nowhere. I doth gracefully bow out.

 whembly wrote:
First of all... I wanna make this clear: I'm NOT advocating that we'd nuke them.

But, I wonder that the world feared the US after WW2 when we nuked Japan twice. I mean, truly feared the US.

Almost like, a nerdy kid beat the living gak out the toughest kid on the block, such that the other kids doesn't want to feth with him anymore.

Knowwhatimean?

How do we, or any other Western nation, cultivate a reputation that says, "whoa... we better do what they say".

Are you advocating some sort of international "crazy eyes" policy?

 whembly wrote:






I'd rather that we didn't as it took a surprised attack on Peal Harbor to get us engaged in WW2.

I'd rather we just stay out of it and let the rest of the world deal with it.

I'd only get involved if the rest of the world begged the US to intervene and only then.[/u]

So.....what does the US have that massive army for again?

 Da krimson barun wrote:

 whembly wrote:






I'd rather that we didn't as it took a surprised attack on Peal Harbor to get us engaged in WW2.

I'd rather we just stay out of it and let the rest of the world deal with it.

I'd only get involved if the rest of the world begged the US to intervene and only then.[/u]

So.....what does the US have that massive army for again?

Define "Massive" concerning the US Military?

Most people consider 8'350 tanks and almost a over a million active troops with 850'000 "massive"

 Da krimson barun wrote:
Most people consider 8'350 tanks and almost a over a million active troops with 850'000 "massive"

Not if you consider the size of the country relative to the army.

Or what a ground war with ISIS would entail. Complete nightmare.

So? Its still a lot of good tanks and Infantry. What else are they going to use them for?To defend america from......Terrorists?

There are options between "Staying at home" and "Waging a war with a nebulous entity across multiple nations".

squidhills wrote:
I said we needed a ground war and occupation to elinimate ISIL. I didn't say anything about fighting the whole damn Middle East.

And what do you think ends up happening when we initiate "a ground war" and "an occupation". Oh right, you end up fighting the whole damn Middle East when you stir up so much bad blood with the indiginous population that extremists from all over the Middle East and even other parts of the world start streaming into the region to fight you.

Jesus Christ. If insanity is doing the same damn thing and expecting a different result, then what is it called when you spend over a decade, thousands of lives and trillions of dollars doing something that clearly didn't work, and then advocate doing it again?

 plastictrees wrote:
There are options between "Staying at home" and "Waging a war with a nebulous entity across multiple nations".

:thumbs up:

IYO, what would be one of those options?

Are we, US Military, going below Pre WWII strength?

 Jihadin wrote:
Are we, US Military, going below Pre WWII strength?

As long as we actually have an Army that's kind of impossible XD. Pre-WWII US army didn't even have many soldiers, just a bunch of officers (and not enough guns for them all )

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:


Your numbers are way off. There are ~1.5 billion Muslims IN THE WORLD, not in the West. Your litmus test of support is equally ridiculous - plenty of Muslims support the actions of ISIS even if they don't physically put themselves in the conflict. This could be through monetary (donations to "charities") and ideological means.

One of the Pillars of Islam is Zakat. One of the few things Zakat can legitimately be spent on is Jihad and the the support of those who wage jihad. Perhaps the 1.5 billion Muslims paying zakat are enabling the handful of 'bad' Muslims? Even if their dollars/dinar are not directly funding actions they disapprove of, they are freeing up other funds to do so. Most paying zakat have no idea where the funds go/do not go. But it doesn't take a lot of imagination to realize that if one of the purposes of zakat is to fund jihad, perhaps zakat helps fund jihad.

There are Islamic insurgents and terrorist groups in more than 20 countries around the globe. A cursory understanding of guerrilla warfare (read your Mao or Che) is going to lead you to understand these movements require support structures which include safe havens among the populations and funding sources.

You want to fight this? You need to get those that truly feel Islam is the religion of Peace (and not of submission) to quit supporting the bad actors. This means a cultural shift and leaders stepping up and refusing to collect zakat and transfer it to those that use it to wage jihad. It means western nations looking hard at how hawala and zakat enable the bad groups and implementing policies to destroy the systems that are used to provide the support. Yes, that is going to hurt some legitimate charities. War is never a kind and charitable endeavor.

With 1.5 billion folks, there are clearly enough who at least tacitly approve of the current situation, other wise the support required would not be possible.

 Frazzled wrote:
F that. We have oceans.

And a very porous border that millions have already crossed over

 LordofHats wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Are we, US Military, going below Pre WWII strength?

As long as we actually have an Army that's kind of impossible XD. Pre-WWII US army didn't even have many soldiers, just a bunch of officers (and not enough guns for them all )

The U.S. was ranked about 19th militarily in the world at that time. Romania and Portugal were both in possession of bigger militaries.

Putin just having his way with Ukraine. Since we have all this excess vehicles and equipment we can supply Ukraine military with that hardware and watch that conflict escalate
Hell we're even withdrawing/bringing home/closing bases in Germany.

There is no defense they are already all around you... you seen how they all freaked out about the new pic right after one of theirs shot up the french comic strip. They are a highly aggressive highly volatile people.

One wonders where things are headed when the King of Jordan begins quoting Clint Eastwood from "Unforgiven" as he talks about vengeance.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/03/after-isis-execution-angry-king-abdullah-quotes-clint-eastwood-to-us-lawmakers/

Cobra pilot at that to I think

Relapse wrote:
One wonders where things are headed when the King of Jordan begins quoting Clint Eastwood from "Unforgiven" as he talks about vengeance.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/03/after-isis-execution-angry-king-abdullah-quotes-clint-eastwood-to-us-lawmakers/

Well, we know it's going places when he also throws in some DeNiro/Taxi Driver quotes... "you lookin' at me, punk? Huh? You lookin' at me?"

Or, he could go with more Eastwood: