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.

Ouze wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Dude, shut up. Just shut up. Please.

10/10, would exalt again.

Thanks, that made my morning.

 Hordini wrote:
Dude, shut up. Just shut up. Please. Genocide is in no way a viable course of action. .

Depends on if you consider ISIS and Islamic extremism to be a culture/sub-culture or not. If you do, then he's actually quite correct.

Genocide isn't just the extermination of a people, but also can include the extermination of a culture, as defined by the UN, etc.

As you observe, no amount of western propaganda is going to change them. So, to beat them, the only other option is to kill every last one of them.

Anyone read the article from the Yazedi woman about how the jihadi who purchased her on the slave market would pray before and after he raped her, literally dedicating the act to his god?

This hateful ideology is only going to spread. As time goes by, we may actually wish we had leveled Raqqa and the other cities. The next generation of "cubs" from their wannabe caliphate are going to be even more barbaric and fethed up.

 dusara217 wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Ouze wrote:
I think you guys need to consider we actually don't have a winning play here, and that the best move (i.e. least harmful) might be to largely stay out of it, and contribute limited airstrikes where we can. In other words, what we're doing now.

Largely? How about we just stay out of it instead. We can't back either side. Our allies or other actors who might be able to contain either side are unreliable, or openly hostile to each other. Instead of expending our supply of munitions and putting strain on our airframes why don't we just sell arms to our allies instead? The situation in the Middle East will change when the people there want it to change. Forcing change by external actors doesn't seem to turn out so well unless you start to consider genocide and replacing the existing population , which I don't think any reasonable person would consider.

Hey, genocide is a very viable course of action. Kill their society, kill their way of life, and pacify them via a metric asston of propaganda and pro-West messages, combined with another metric asston of good deeds. A few decades later, most of them will be Westernized, and we will have effectively committed genocide. Of course, this would probably just bring down even more US-hate, and give Putin and our enemies an excuse to start really going after us. But, it would pacify the Middle East.

Are you old enough to be on this website?

 whembly wrote:
What do ya'll think of Trump's plan? (finally)

Have US take control of the region's oil field and do whatever can be done to isolate ISIS from international banking infrastructures. Is that even possible?

Its not money that will bring about the next generation of this ISIS garbage, its religious fervor and ideology. Trump doesn't understand what he's talking about, on even a surface level. Isolating them from money won't prevent them from hiding among the local Sunni population either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

There will never be peace in this region though as long as Islam exists...it's a sad truth that the rest of the world needs to start understanding quickly.

This is the truth, though I'd expand it a bit and say "there will never be peace as long as Abrahamic faith" exists....though Islam is certainly in the limelight of bloodshed lately.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
Anyone read the article from the Yazedi woman about how the jihadi who purchased her on the slave market would pray before and after he raped her, literally dedicating the act to his god?

This hateful ideology is only going to spread. As time goes by, we may actually wish we had leveled Raqqa and the other cities. The next generation of "cubs" from their wannabe caliphate are going to be even more barbaric and fethed up.

I did - it was NYT I think. It was a very upsetting article, made me question if all able nations have an obligation to stop ISIS as hard as they can.

It makes me feel angry/powerless that so many people are at the mercy of these monsters, and knowing no one is coming for them in a meaningful way. Why not?

When we look at history, generally WWII is considered a"just war" here in the States due to the aggression of the axis (and later learning of genocide.) What is different here?

What will it take before we are serious enough to destroy them? A pearl harbor/Sept 11th scale attack? Do people have to feel threatened first?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

This is the truth, though I'd expand it a bit and say "there will never be peace as long as Abrahamic faith" exists....though Islam is certainly in the limelight of bloodshed lately.

Sadly, you must expand even further. "There will never be peace as long as humans exist."

actually money is what fuels these Insurgencies. If you look at Afghanistan, the best year in Afghanistan as far as the US/UK was concerned followed the year where we spent a lot of time on slash and burn campaigns against the Talibans Heroine farms.

 zgort wrote:

Sadly, you must expand even further. "There will never be peace as long as humans exist."

Abrahamic faith is specifically dangerous in its binary & apocalyptic world view. Regardless of the faith in question, it divides the world into the saved & the unsaved with the former having more inherent value than the latter. One could argue (correctly) that all religion does this, to which I present the idea that the underlying psychology of Abrahamic faith invariably leads to large scale violence, particularly when the faiths encounter each other in the wild. There is plenty of evidence in both the historical record and modern media storm.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 zgort wrote:


I did - it was NYT I think. It was a very upsetting article, made me question if all able nations have an obligation to stop ISIS as hard as they can.

This is the correct question. The ISIS playbook is identical to the Nazi's and Imperial Japan. Forceful territorial expansion backed by an elitist ideology which justifies any atrocity by enacting supportive legal code. Is there any difference between an Emperor, Fuhrer, or Caliph? In the case of Al Baghdadi....obviously not. There is only one way to deal with fascism, and the world learned that lesson at great cost. We should be ready to call a spade a spade, even if it is wearing islamic garb rather than a swastika.

As for what will it take for the civilized world to wake up, as nations like Jordan and people's such as the Kurds have? I don't know. If Kayla Mueller's rape by the "caliph" himself, before her murder, isn't enough then I don't know what it will take. I question whether our society, writ large, has the stomach for total warfare anymore.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
At the request of the mods i post this here, and hope they don't delete it as double posting.

Seems the Kurds are starting to complain about Turkey giving ISIS their positions.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33818282

Of course they are. The Turks are not their friends.

Haven't seen much mention of this yet. ISIS is continuing to spread its fingers as far as it can.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/afghanistans-taliban-problem-hasnt-gone-away--and-now-isis-has-arrived-too-10411835.html

I question whether our society, writ large, has the stomach for total warfare anymore.

Of course it doesn't. It hardly had it in the 40s, either. Had Pearl Harbor not happened, the US would not have involved itself in WW2 when it did, if ever it did.

Add to that the fact that, since that time, the US has not done a very good job in attacking an enemy that was a definitive "bad guy" or for good reasons (everyone knows Hussein was an a-hole, but taking him out was not worth the blood or money spent doing so), on top of the fact that the government has been involved in some especially-shady gak, and has lost the fundamental trust of most of the country...

... feth, no, people don't have the stomach for "total war".

 Psienesis wrote:


... feth, no, people don't have the stomach for "total war".

The worrisome part is that, in the case of ISIS, our enemies do have the stomach for it.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:


... feth, no, people don't have the stomach for "total war".

The worrisome part is that, in the case of ISIS, our enemies do have the stomach for it.

I disagree, the US and every country for that matter has the stomach for total war, but it has to have a strong enough reason to fight one. ISIS realistically isn't a HUGE threat beyond its little feth hole area in the middle East. One day they might be but even then they wont be a big enough threat to warrant total war.

I counter disagree.

If ISIS establishes itself as a functioning country, as they are becoming, they can begin spreading their ideology from a place of safety. And begin subverting nearby nations into joining them. And with the area quickly becoming more radicalized its spiraling out of control. It doesn't matter the majority are moderates when they do nothing to stop the radicals. Nobody thought Hitler would be a threat beyond central Europe, and even at its height the Nazi party didn't even have close to most Germans in their full sway, yet they managed to turn most of the civilized world into a warzone. They were simply the party in power and everyone just went along with it because nationalism was a popular thing back then. The same thing could easily happen here. Especially with the favor the youth element shows radical Islam, give them a generation of children brought up even halfway believing their doctrine and things are going to get dangerous.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I counter disagree.

If ISIS establishes itself as a functioning country, as they are becoming, they can begin spreading their ideology from a place of safety. And begin subverting nearby nations into joining them. And with the area quickly becoming more radicalized its spiraling out of control. It doesn't matter the majority are moderates when they do nothing to stop the radicals. Nobody thought Hitler would be a threat beyond central Europe, and even at its height the Nazi party didn't even have close to most Germans in their full sway, yet they managed to turn most of the civilized world into a warzone. They were simply the party in power and everyone just went along with it because nationalism was a popular thing back then. The same thing could easily happen here. Especially with the favor the youth element shows radical Islam, give them a generation of children brought up even halfway believing their doctrine and things are going to get dangerous.

Im not saying we stop blowing them to hell, im just saying they can't form a country because they are being bombed from the air and are having a hard fought ground campaign. Realistically if they ever even came close to posing a significant threat the US would send in the Marines.

They've formed a 'country'. They have province governing bodies, collect taxes and provide services. It might not be recognized in the UN as a country, but they have indeed formed one.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I counter disagree.

If ISIS establishes itself as a functioning country, as they are becoming, they can begin spreading their ideology from a place of safety. And begin subverting nearby nations into joining them. And with the area quickly becoming more radicalized its spiraling out of control. It doesn't matter the majority are moderates when they do nothing to stop the radicals. Nobody thought Hitler would be a threat beyond central Europe, and even at its height the Nazi party didn't even have close to most Germans in their full sway, yet they managed to turn most of the civilized world into a warzone. They were simply the party in power and everyone just went along with it because nationalism was a popular thing back then. The same thing could easily happen here. Especially with the favor the youth element shows radical Islam, give them a generation of children brought up even halfway believing their doctrine and things are going to get dangerous.

You act like this ideology is new. Its the same ideology that got its ass kicked by the Hammer and at the gates of Vienna. This is just the reform movement bringing it back to its original level, that conquered much of the known world.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-33984006

They've murdered one of the leading archaeologists working at Palmyra, an 81 year old academic.

I'm increasingly of the opinion that ISIS should not be reasoned with on any level, that all nations should aim to wipe them out. We haven't got the stomach for what is needed I think. Instead we attack with drones from afar and let them claim victimhood. They need to be eradicated before the lives and history of the people's of the Middle East are destroyed. I can see that if this isn't addressed now, in years to come they could become a significant power that will mass sponsor attacks in our countries. These are people who wouldn't hesitate to use nuclear weapons if they captured them, and there are a lot unaccounted for in the world.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-33984006

They've murdered one of the leading archaeologists working at Palmyra, an 81 year old academic.

I'm increasingly of the opinion that ISIS should not be reasoned with on any level, that all nations should aim to wipe them out. We haven't got the stomach for what is needed I think. Instead we attack with drones from afar and let them claim victimhood. They need to be eradicated before the lives and history of the people's of the Middle East are destroyed. I can see that if this isn't addressed now, in years to come they could become a significant power that will mass sponsor attacks in our countries. These are people who wouldn't hesitate to use nuclear weapons if they captured them, and there are a lot unaccounted for in the world.

How do you eradicate "they." Are you into murdering entire ethnic populations?
Not our fight. I don't see troops from Turkey, Egypt, Lebanon, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait etc etc etc there.
This is a clash as old as the wars between Arabs/Turks and Iran/persia. They've just thrown in a little religion to give it that extra spicy jalapeno kick. The only way to win is to stay out of it.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-33984006

They've murdered one of the leading archaeologists working at Palmyra, an 81 year old academic.

I'm increasingly of the opinion that ISIS should not be reasoned with on any level, that all nations should aim to wipe them out. We haven't got the stomach for what is needed I think. Instead we attack with drones from afar and let them claim victimhood. They need to be eradicated before the lives and history of the people's of the Middle East are destroyed. I can see that if this isn't addressed now, in years to come they could become a significant power that will mass sponsor attacks in our countries. These are people who wouldn't hesitate to use nuclear weapons if they captured them, and there are a lot unaccounted for in the world.

The West doesn't have the stomach for it because of the political Left and the 'Mushy Middle'... War is stupid and mindlessly destructive. But there comes a time that if you truly want peace 'in our time', then your only option is to prepare for war in order to defend that peace and make it happen.

Experiment 626 wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-33984006

They've murdered one of the leading archaeologists working at Palmyra, an 81 year old academic.

I'm increasingly of the opinion that ISIS should not be reasoned with on any level, that all nations should aim to wipe them out. We haven't got the stomach for what is needed I think. Instead we attack with drones from afar and let them claim victimhood. They need to be eradicated before the lives and history of the people's of the Middle East are destroyed. I can see that if this isn't addressed now, in years to come they could become a significant power that will mass sponsor attacks in our countries. These are people who wouldn't hesitate to use nuclear weapons if they captured them, and there are a lot unaccounted for in the world.

The West doesn't have the stomach for it because of the political Left and the 'Mushy Middle'... War is stupid and mindlessly destructive. But there comes a time that if you truly want peace 'in our time', then your only option is to prepare for war in order to defend that peace and make it happen.

You go. I'll hold your coat.

Who are you going to fight? How are you going to identify them? What happens when a continuous stream of volunteers joins them? What happens when you start firebombing villages to save the village?

Directly intervening in Iraq and Syria to stop ISIS won't be the end of it, even if we do wipe them out utterly.

Before long we'll be fighting a Kurdish insurgency too. They're probably pissed that we're turning a blind eye to Turkey, a NATO member, bombing the Kurdish Peshmerga and advancing the interests of ISIS.

Everybody in the Middle East has their own agenda. The Turks care more about suppressing the Kurds than stopping ISIS. Saudi Arabia is playing a game of chess with Iran, spreading Sunni ideology.

We tried meddling in the Middle East for the "greater good", and we ended up leaving Iraq in a worse, more unstable state than we found it. The consequences and fallout of that mistake destabilized countries from Tunisia all the way to Iraq.

As far as I'm concerned we should quarantine the entire region and let them sort it out themselves. No matter what we do or who we side with, at least half the Islamic world is going to view us as imperialist crusaders.

Putting Boots on Ground. Been there. Done that. Actual have t-shirts and scars from there. GOP candidates willing to go back in. Demo I'm not so sure on. I've yet heard a justification that would gain 110% support for a commitment back in

 Frazzled wrote:

You act like this ideology is new. Its the same ideology that got its ass kicked by the Hammer and at the gates of Vienna. This is just the reform movement bringing it back to its original level, that conquered much of the known world.

Frazz gets it, though I would not consider ISIS and the global jihadi movement within Islam to be reformist in nature. More like reactionary, but thats a matter of academic semantics.

You think ISIS is bad? Wait til you see an entire generation of "cubs" raised in their perverse "caliphate."



Rest assured though, if this expansionist insanity keeps on its path they will eventually run into Slavic lands. Slavs have no compunctions against committing totally to war and are perfectly comfortable committing heinous violence, particularly against anyone seen as "invaders." Caliphate expansion into their lands is possibly the ONLY thing that could kindle true Slavic unity. <shrug>

So what we need is a modern day Vlad the Impaler?

I'm getting a lovely feeling of schadenfreude just thinking about ISIS militants being impaled...

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
So what we need is a modern day Vlad the Impaler?

Or a Charles Martel

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

You act like this ideology is new. Its the same ideology that got its ass kicked by the Hammer and at the gates of Vienna. This is just the reform movement bringing it back to its original level, that conquered much of the known world.

Frazz gets it, though I would not consider ISIS and the global jihadi movement within Islam to be reformist in nature. More like reactionary, but thats a matter of academic semantics.

You think ISIS is bad? Wait til you see an entire generation of "cubs" raised in their perverse "caliphate."



Rest assured though, if this expansionist insanity keeps on its path they will eventually run into Slavic lands. Slavs have no compunctions against committing totally to war and are perfectly comfortable committing heinous violence, particularly against anyone seen as "invaders." Caliphate expansion into their lands is possibly the ONLY thing that could kindle true Slavic unity. <shrug>

Indeed, at a certain point reactionary and radical close the loop on each other but I think we both mean the same thing. This is a movement back to the original intent, not away from it. ISIL is correct, all the activities being done were used in the first centuries of jihad that spread across twe continents, often in the exact location as where ISIL is now. Its not culturally new.


I'd say this has already hit slavic lands. Russia has been dealing with the most recent version of it for decades in Chechnya. People forget the hundreds of people who died in the Beslan school siege and Moscow Ballet terrorist attack


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Commissar-Danno wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
So what we need is a modern day Vlad the Impaler?

Or a Charles Martel

Yea...Vlad lost. The Hammer didn't.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Commissar-Danno wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
So what we need is a modern day Vlad the Impaler?

Or a Charles Martel

Yea...Vlad lost. The Hammer didn't.

Vlad lost the same way that the US "lost" Vietnam, politically. From within.

Yea but Charles crushed his. If I were a CSA supporter I'd go with Tepes, but I'm a Texan so I have to pick the guy who wasn't a LOSER.

"Because the very thought of losing is hateful to Americans."
-George Scott playing some guy in a uniform.

 Frazzled wrote:
Who are you going to fight? How are you going to identify them? What happens when a continuous stream of volunteers joins them? What happens when you start firebombing villages to save the village?

I've been asking conservatives this question and receiving no answer in return since ISIL's eminence last year.

Is there any pro-boots-on-the-ground individual on this site who can provide an answer to this question? Anyone?