jhe90 wrote:
At this rate we should just break out the B52 bombers and pound the gak out of em the old fashioned way.

120 tons of HE removes everything in a large area, guaranteed.

 djones520 wrote:
These actions really infuriate me. This alone is all the justification we should need to steam roll these guys back to the stone age, let alone the mass slaughter they've been committing. I still can't believe people are hesitant about destroying these people.

 Sir Arun wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
To be honest, I find it kinda sad that ISIS is slaughtering thousands of innocent men, women and kids, but what gets people really mad is that they break a few dusty stones.
These ruins are insignificant compared to the lives being lost.

 jhe90 wrote:
At this rate we should just break out the B52 bombers and pound the gak out of em the old fashioned way.

120 tons of HE removes everything in a large area, guaranteed.

Including many thousands of innocents.
Take care that you do not become even worse than ISIS.

 djones520 wrote:
These actions really infuriate me. This alone is all the justification we should need to steam roll these guys back to the stone age, let alone the mass slaughter they've been committing. I still can't believe people are hesitant about destroying these people.

People are hesitant because pretty much every intervention by the West in the past has made things actually much worse rather than improving. You can't solve problems with violence.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Except that has been proven time and again not to work against extremists and Insurgent groups.

With extremists their is no head to cut off. Its an all or nothing scenario and history has proven that America/Western countries lack the stomach for the All or nothing approach.

 Jihadin wrote:
Kids are our weakness there High Speed

 BlaxicanX wrote:
A) The country couldn't afford to spend trillions on war even in 2002- it's been 14 years and we're 5 trillion in the hole despite winding down over the past half decade. Flooding the region with "millions of troops" wouldn't be tenable either considering geopolitical realities- the "real fight" so to speak isn't in the middle east, it's in the pacific. This isn't even taking into consideration that 20 years of occupying other countries and stepping on peoples' necks would leave us in the exact same situation we're in now: a completely destabilized region filled with radicalized, pissed off people who hate the west.

B) Saddam and the WMD's had almost nothing to do with 9/11, and finding Saddam had minimal impact on the War on Terror. To the contrary, Saddam (along with Assad and Gaddafi) were lynch-pins who held the region together, and bringing them down contributed heavily to the preeminence of more radical forces like ISIS.

Neither of your suggestions address the issue, which is fighting terrorism (presumably the entire reason for why we're in the ME in the first place).

 Ghazkuul wrote:


As far as the fundamental cause of terrorism? Well in this case its extreme Islam. The only way to combat that realistically would be a region wide campaign to teach the Iraqi's how to read. That way when the Imam starts teaching them that the Koran tells them to kill Americans/Westerners so they become good Muslims, they can think for themselves...hey wait...thats not what the Koran says. And even then it wont stop because Islam is a religion easily turned towards radicalism. if the last 2,000 years of history haven't proven that I don't know what more will.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:


As far as the fundamental cause of terrorism? Well in this case its extreme Islam. The only way to combat that realistically would be a region wide campaign to teach the Iraqi's how to read. That way when the Imam starts teaching them that the Koran tells them to kill Americans/Westerners so they become good Muslims, they can think for themselves...hey wait...thats not what the Koran says. And even then it wont stop because Islam is a religion easily turned towards radicalism. if the last 2,000 years of history haven't proven that I don't know what more will.

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. If the problem is that people are being misled due to being unable to read the Koran themselves, how is Islam, and not lying Imams, the problem?

People are hesitant because pretty much every intervention by the West in the past has made things actually much worse rather than improving. You can't solve problems with violence

 Ghazkuul wrote:

As far as the fundamental cause of terrorism? Well in this case its extreme Islam.

 Mr Morden wrote:

People are hesitant because pretty much every intervention by the West in the past has made things actually much worse rather than improving. You can't solve problems with violence

I am not sure how else you can stop ISIS or anything else similar?

The problem seems to be the various powers in the area and the world have different desires for who will rule Syria -

We in the West have decided Assad is no longer a man we can do buisiness with - despite all the past history and our continuing support of Saudi regime and other repressive Arab regimes.

The Russians and Iranians are still happy to do so

and the rest of the Arab world is torn between suppprting a fellow dictator and geting rid of a rival....

not sure about China?

Meanwhile religious fanatics kill, maim and destroy at will.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

People are hesitant because pretty much every intervention by the West in the past has made things actually much worse rather than improving. You can't solve problems with violence

I am not sure how else you can stop ISIS or anything else similar?

The problem seems to be the various powers in the area and the world have different desires for who will rule Syria -

We in the West have decided Assad is no longer a man we can do buisiness with - despite all the past history and our continuing support of Saudi regime and other repressive Arab regimes.

The Russians and Iranians are still happy to do so

and the rest of the Arab world is torn between suppprting a fellow dictator and geting rid of a rival....

not sure about China?

Meanwhile religious fanatics kill, maim and destroy at will.

You have to ask first where ISIS comes from and why and how it got so powerful. Take away the reasons so many people support ISIS, and ISIS will lose its power. Western violence against ISIS is exactly what they want. It confirms their ideology of (Sunni) Islam being threatened and opressed by Shi'a heretics supported by Western crusaders. ISIS gets its power from the Sunni tribes of the area that are opressed by Shi'ite and Alawite governments, as well as from Sunni muslims in the West that feel opressed by Western governments. Take this support away and ISIS crumbles. Using violence against these people only confirms their ideas and increases their support.

BBC wrote:Islamic State militants have been pushed back from the ancient Syrian site of Palmyra, officials and a monitoring group say.

Militants seized part of the town of Tadmur on Saturday, which is located on a strategic east-west route next to Palmyra's World Heritage-listed ruins.

Nearly 300 have reportedly died in four days of fighting.

Meanwhile, the number of militants reported killed in a rare US ground raid in Syria on Saturday rose to 32.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a UK-based monitoring group, said that among those killed were "IS oil chief Abu Sayyaf, the deputy IS defence minister, and an IS communications official".

US officials had said about 12 militants were killed at the scene of the raid in the eastern province of Deir al-Zour.

They said Abu Sayyaf had been killed in a firefight during the special forces raid, and his wife was captured.
'Palmyra safe'

The Syrian Observatory said at least 295 people had been killed since IS began advancing on Palmyra on Wednesday. It said they were mainly militants and government troops, though it said 57 civilians were also killed, including dozens executed by IS.

Militants had pulled out of the northern parts of Tadmur, but still held a village north of Palmyra, the group said.

The Unesco World Heritage site is located on the road that leads from the contested eastern city of Deir al-Zour to the city of Homs and the capital, Damascus. It is also close to gas fields and home to a major airbase.

"Palmyra is safe and the road linking Homs with Palmyra is absolutely safe," Talal Barazi, governor of Homs province, told state-run news agency Sana.

Maamoun Abdulkarim, Syria's head of antiquities, said the army was in control of the whole of Tadmur, including the outskirts, and that the ruins south-west of the town - already damaged in previous fighting - had not suffered further harm.

Palmyra: IS threat to 'Venice of the Sands'
Battle for Ramadi

IS has ransacked and demolished several ancient sites that pre-date Islam in Iraq, leading to fears that it might attempt to damage or destroy the Palmyra ruins.

The militant group took control of control of swathes of territory in north-eastern Syria and northern Iraq last year.

In Iraq, the government has been trying to retake some of that territory by advancing in Anbar province, but has faced an IS offensive against the strategic city of Ramadi since Friday.
Fighting in Ramadi has forced thousands to flee

IS has now tightened its grip over large areas of the city while controlling more than half the surrounding province, the BBC's Ahmed Maher reports from Baghdad.

Ramadi is just 70 miles (112) west of the capital and has direct supply lines to IS strongholds in neighbouring Syria. Our correspondent says the government is extremely worried.

A local official said more than 500 people had been killed in the last two days of fighting around Ramadi, including policemen who were trapped after running out of ammunition and civilians caught in the crossfire.

Some 8,000 people have been displaced over the same period, according to the International Organisation for Migration.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:


As far as the fundamental cause of terrorism? Well in this case its extreme Islam. The only way to combat that realistically would be a region wide campaign to teach the Iraqi's how to read. That way when the Imam starts teaching them that the Koran tells them to kill Americans/Westerners so they become good Muslims, they can think for themselves...hey wait...thats not what the Koran says. And even then it wont stop because Islam is a religion easily turned towards radicalism. if the last 2,000 years of history haven't proven that I don't know what more will.

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. If the problem is that people are being misled due to being unable to read the Koran themselves, how is Islam, and not lying Imams, the problem?

I am not contradicting myself, I clearly pointed out that one of the biggest causes of people turning to extreme islam is a lack of insight into what the religion is actually about. However, you can take a look at western countries where the literacy rate is in the 90%+ area and you still have people converting to Radical Islam. Yes a lot of it has to do with the Imams but you can't blame every part of it on them. And on top of that how do you explain the Imams themselves? These are men who have devoted their lives to the Koran and these are the ones trying to convince people to start Jihad against anyone not of the same faith. Is it because you become an Imam and turn evil or because the religion itself is easily corrupted and border line evil to begin with?

In the case of the Boston Marathon bomber, he was clearly literate, he was in college when he committed his crimes. His brother and him were found to have large amounts of radical islamic materials on their computers and in the home. The religion itself is to blame not just the Imams.

Unfortunately, literacy and a Koran in every hand is not the answer. I forget the name for it, but there is a belief within much of Islam (well, pretty much most religions and it's one that also took Chritianity 1000+ years to get over) is that, in addition to what the holy texts say, the religious leaders' words are also binding. A priest speaks for God, and thus speaks with God's authority and the faithful must obey. After all, if the priest was lying or wrong, would not God strike him down? And since God has clearly not struck them down, therefore they are right and their commands are to be obeyed. Faith is a powerful thing, and from an early age many are taught to not question that faith. After all, just look at America and see how much power religious leaders here still hold over their congregations. Sure, if Reverend Jim says to kill someone, you're not going to kill that person. but if Reverend Jim says that Bob is the best candidate in the current election, quite a lot of his congregation will quite likely now vote for Bob. There's a reason why you still see politicians courting the favor of religious leaders

 Ghazkuul wrote:

Unfortunately, literacy and a Koran in every hand is not the answer. I forget the name for it, but there is a belief within much of Islam (well, pretty much most religions and it's one that also took Chritianity 1000+ years to get over) is that, in addition to what the holy texts say, the religious leaders' words are also binding. A priest speaks for God, and thus speaks with God's authority and the faithful must obey. After all, if the priest was lying or wrong, would not God strike him down? And since God has clearly not struck them down, therefore they are right and their commands are to be obeyed. Faith is a powerful thing, and from an early age many are taught to not question that faith. After all, just look at America and see how much power religious leaders here still hold over their congregations. Sure, if Reverend Jim says to kill someone, you're not going to kill that person. but if Reverend Jim says that Bob is the best candidate in the current election, quite a lot of his congregation will quite likely now vote for Bob. There's a reason why you still see politicians courting the favor of religious leaders

That is definitely what I was hinting at, but a lot of that can be stopped by reading the Koran for themselves. I can't tell you the number of Imams and Madrasas we targeted for intelligence collection efforts. Some of the BS that these guys were teaching the kids was mind boggling. Even removing the ultra vulgar stuff what these imams were teaching would go above and beyond anything I would expect to hear in a school.

But yeah faith is a powerful thing, the problem is that we in the Westernized world have gotten away from the Blind faith and believing everything the preachers/reverends/priests tell us. Unfortunately the Islamic world is not even close to that point yet.

 djones520 wrote:
These actions really infuriate me. This alone is all the justification we should need to steam roll these guys back to the stone age, let alone the mass slaughter they've been committing. I still can't believe people are hesitant about destroying these people.

 whembly wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Reckon people are hesitant about getting involved in another quagmire after the costs of the previous one.

We kicked assed militarily... the problem stems from the "nation building" efforts.

I'd say bomb them to smitheress and let nature pick up the pieces.

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Reckon people are hesitant about getting involved in another quagmire after the costs of the previous one.

We kicked assed militarily... the problem stems from the "nation building" efforts.

I'd say bomb them to smitheress and let nature pick up the pieces.

Then what?

 Frazzled wrote:
Because no one asked "then what" twice before and that resulted in both AlQaeda and ISIL.


Then what?

 Frazzled wrote:
Because no one asked "then what" twice before and that resulted in both AlQaeda and ISIL.


Then what?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Because no one asked "then what" twice before and that resulted in both AlQaeda and ISIL.


Then what?

It's not often that Frazzled is a voice of reason.

Proud of you, ol' man.

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Because no one asked "then what" twice before and that resulted in both AlQaeda and ISIL.


Then what?

You keep killing them... until there's no more ISIS / AlQaeda. You see... that's the part we haven't done.

As in. Go total war... not, these excursions where we try to win the hearts/minds of the region. If we're going to use our military, at the cost of our own blood and money, then you let 'em loose.

Otherwise, continue what we're doing now. Fortify our national interests and work with the local government for intelligence to deal with these issues.

There's no "easy button" here Frazzled and opining that we out to go isolationist mode won't help. See Garland.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Because no one asked "then what" twice before and that resulted in both AlQaeda and ISIL.


Then what?

It's not often that Frazzled is a voice of reason.

Proud of you, ol' man.

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Because no one asked "then what" twice before and that resulted in both AlQaeda and ISIL.


Then what?

You keep killing them... until there's no more ISIS / AlQaeda. You see... that's the part we haven't done.

As in. Go total war... not, these excursions where we try to win the hearts/minds of the region. If we're going to use our military, at the cost of our own blood and money, then you let 'em loose.

Otherwise, continue what we're doing now. Fortify our national interests and work with the local government for intelligence to deal with these issues.

There's no "easy button" here Frazzled and opining that we out to go isolationist mode won't help. See Garland.

1. How is that our national interest?
2. Lets assume godlike power. All Al Qaeda and ISIL are wiped out in six months once Team Texas enters the picture. Then what? There's still a power vacuum there. The factors that helped form ISIL are still there.