France taking it to ISIS

[jlb321]

I will post again

how do you reconcile policy with the fact that 99.9% of people of Mid East descent (Islam/Muslim) ARE NOT TERRORISTS while acknowledging that the majority of terrorists activities such as we saw in Paris are committed by people in that demographic

if you hold up individual freedoms you are exposed to more of these attacks - if you start profiling you very well may decrease the number and magnitude of these attacks but limit the individual freedoms of the 99.9% who are not involved in terrorist activities

no easy answer

 

[TheBeav815]

There are no easy answers. They're an existential threat to our way of life. Completely wiping them off the map with a scorched Earth method isn't really acceptable anymore but we're running out of options. I do know one thing though. Taking the high road and playing by different rules hasn't worked so far.

"This aggression will not stand, man"

The thing that people don't seem to understand is that there IS no way to get them all. They're not a country with citizens they care about. You can't do anything to them that's bad enough that they'll say, "Holy shit, that was bad! We surrender!"

You can't end it. There are rooms full of generals who do nothing all day but try. It's a vicious cycle where you can't do anything but kill them, and killing them is exactly what they want because that way they get to tell the next batch of recruits, "Look! America wants to kill you! Kill them!"

 

[Huskerlife39]

All class all the time, aren't you? That statement is as ignorant of the facts as it is obnoxious. Take a read through Jflores' posts below for some ACTUAL information on the U.S. response. While France gets the headlines, the U.S. gets the lion's share of the work. The latter is as per usual.


Your eyes don't run as well as your mouth. Never said it wasn't possible. Just said I don't keep a pair of piss-soaked underwear about it like you do.

I've been meaning to ask...you war hawks active duty, or retired? Surely you wouldn't sit around clamoring for a fight you're not willing to take part in...

Thanks for asking, I would be retired USMC. Served through the first Desert Storm, cake walk that it was and I'm definitely "clamoring" for action despite knowing that my son is considering following his father.

 

[otismotis08]

I will post again

how do you reconcile policy with the fact that 99.9% of people of Mid East descent (Islam/Muslim) ARE NOT TERRORISTS while acknowledging that the majority of terrorists activities such as we saw in Paris are committed by people in that demographic

if you hold up individual freedoms you are exposed to more of these attacks - if you start profiling you very well may decrease the number and magnitude of these attacks but limit the individual freedoms of the 99.9% who are not involved in terrorist activities

no easy answer

If they are so outnumbered, then the 99.9% should put them down.

 

[Huskerlife39]

The thing that people don't seem to understand is that there IS no way to get them all. They're not a country with citizens they care about. You can't do anything to them that's bad enough that they'll say, "Holy shit, that was bad! We surrender!"

You can't end it. There are rooms full of generals who do nothing all day but try. It's a vicious cycle where you can't do anything but kill them, and killing them is exactly what they want because that way they get to tell the next batch of recruits, "Look! America wants to kill you! Kill them!"

So your educated feel good response would be? Hope they decide to stop? Run out of bullets and machetes? Achieve there goals and decide the territory they've already seized and the Christians they've already killed are enough?
Force is all these animals understand, and despite your naïve assertion to the contrary, we can exert enough force to make them stop. The only question is does the West have the stomach for it.

 

[TheBeav815]

So for some reason I think I'm ending up with chain quotes filling up my posts that I can't get rid of, but Huskerlife39 let me ask you this:

When you look at conflict like this compared to Desert Storm that was more "conventional" in the sense you knew victory looked like driving the Iraqi army out of Kuwait, what does victory look like? And (honest question), where do we start in terms of reconciling the value of life as far as a soldier's life, a civilian's life who ends up as collateral damage, a civilian's life lost in a terror attack?

That's the part that fries my brain about it, is the numbers game of the thing. Can they EVER be stopped from getting 100 here or 50 there? How many hundreds or thousands of soldier's lives do you trade for that? How can you quantify whether anything has been won?

 

[litespeedhuskerfan]

Originally you said you didn't equate the Syrian refugees with terrorists, now we have a direct link and you're acting like there's nothing we can do nothing to stop it. Yes we can, we can say, "You can't come over here".

 

[TheBeav815]

So your educated feel good response would be? Hope they decide to stop? Run out of bullets and machetes? Achieve there goals and decide the territory they've already seized and the Christians they've already killed are enough?
Force is all these animals understand, and despite your naïve assertion to the contrary, we can exert enough force to make them stop. The only question is does the West have the stomach for it.

How do we exert enough force to make them stop? Because I'm looking at this in terms of what happened, let's say starting with Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the U.S. getting into that whole proxy war. Then you have Desert Storm, then you get the current conflict which basically runs 9/11 - present.

A whole lot of effort and lives have been thrown at this problem and it's maybe bigger than ever. So what specifically has to be different?

 

[Huskerlife39]

I will post again

how do you reconcile policy with the fact that 99.9% of people of Mid East descent (Islam/Muslim) ARE NOT TERRORISTS while acknowledging that the majority of terrorists activities such as we saw in Paris are committed by people in that demographic

if you hold up individual freedoms you are exposed to more of these attacks - if you start profiling you very well may decrease the number and magnitude of these attacks but limit the individual freedoms of the 99.9% who are not involved in terrorist activities

no easy answer

Actually Jlb, I think your numbers are a little off. The number that I have heard circulated (no I don't have the link) is 10-15% of the Muslim population is either already radicalized or sympathetic to their cause. That's a ridiculously large number of people.

 

[jlb321]

Actually Jlb, I think your numbers are a little off. The number that I have heard circulated (no I don't have the link) is 10-15% of the Muslim population is either already radicalized or sympathetic to their cause. That's a ridiculously large number of people.

I think there is a wide-wide gap between having "extreme views" and strapping on a TNT vest.

Probably 10-15% of the US population has extreme views toward the federal government

 

[TheBeav815]

Originally you said you didn't equate the Syrian refugees with terrorists, now we have a direct link and you're acting like there's nothing we can do nothing to stop it. Yes we can, we can say, "You can't come over here".

You have ONE guy out of millions of refugees and that's all you wanna talk about. That's about as solid a correlation as closing our borders to people who studied art because Hitler did it.

Confirmation bias, study up. Out of millions of people, your focus is all on one guy. Meanwhile, in America, you staunchly oppose what looks like the only actionable solution to how our own citizens carry out the exact same kinds of terroristic attacks in our schools on a much more frequent basis and say "nothing you can do, never gonna stop em."

But here you're dead set that there's everything you can do and you're gonna stop em. You just pick and choose whatever little factoid fits your idea of how you want to live your life.

 

[leodisflowers]

Well congratulations on your duty-by-association. If we're playing that game, then pretty much all of us qualify, don't we? Is this the part where I name drop my relatives and their ranks? Which one is USAF, which one is Army, which one is an engineer? Yeah, you're real tough with your arsenal you play pretend with for a day you know deep down is never coming. You've seen WHAT with your own two eyes? Some clay trap? Some pheasants?

While you were pecking that out, you missed on live TV where the POTUS laid out very clearly that he doesn't give a shit who thinks he's tough or wants to scream about what they think America looks like, he has to go look the kids at Walter Reed in the eyes and know he ordered them into battle when they're sitting there with no legs.

What a joke that some of you fancy yourselves the tough guy in the room, you've never been there, it's not your life on the line. But you wanna fan the flames and send somebody else to go do the job and then act like I'm the coward. Shit, better a "libtard" than a chickenhawk.

I'm not claiming duty by association. You asked me a question, so I answered it. Nice try again.... POTUS is a joke. He wants to take credit for everything when it is going well, but never wants to own up when he fails. According to the POTUS, ISIS was contained... OH WAIT!

Do you just make shit up as you go? Who is claiming to be tough? Although I am 31 years old, if shit got real I would definitely sign up to go do my part. I have no problem with defending my country. I could care less about your political stance on things. If you are a liberal fine... So be it.. The fact of the matter is ISIS needs to be curb stomped, yet our commander in chief wants to give them openings to come to our country... At this point I am counting on Russia and France to take care of business because they aren't currently being lead by a jellyfish of a man.

I think we all want this to end to the extent it can (their will always be terrorism) , and the way to do that is go wipe these pieces of s#$% of the map. Enough with tactical airstrikes. Go show them our true firepower.

 

[TheBeav815]

I think there is a wide-wide gap between having "extreme views" and strapping on a TNT vest.

Probably 10-15% of the US population has extreme views toward the federal government

That's actually a very interesting point. What if we looked at our own citizens that way and made the same leap in logic? How many people would suddenly be classed as domestic terrorists by proxy for "sympathizing" with people who have these conspiracy theories about the impending govt police state and martial law, etc.?

 

[TheBeav815]

I'm not claiming duty by association. You asked me a question, so I answered it. Nice try again.... POTUS is a joke. He wants to take credit for everything when it is going well, but never wants to own up when he fails. According to the POTUS, ISIS was contained... OH WAIT!

Do you just make shit up as you go? Who is claiming to be tough? Although I am 31 years old, if shit got real I would definitely sign up to go do my part. I have no problem with defending my country. I could care less about your political stance on things. If you are a liberal fine... So be it.. The fact of the matter is ISIS needs to be curb stomped, yet our commander in chief wants to give them openings to come to our country... At this point I am counting on Russia and France to take care of business because they aren't currently being lead by a jellyfish of a man.

I think we all want this to end to the extent it can (their will always be terrorism) , and the way to do that is go wipe these pieces of s#$% of the map. Enough with tactical airstrikes. Go show them our true firepower.

According to you, shit's pretty real and yet here you are in a chair, not a uniform. Sounds like you have it all figured out, you should have your own division in no time, then you can look your kids in the eyes before you send them into harm's way to go "show them our true firepower."

 

[Huskerlife39]

How do we exert enough force to make them stop? Because I'm looking at this in terms of what happened, let's say starting with Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the U.S. getting into that whole proxy war. Then you have Desert Storm, then you get the current conflict which basically runs 9/11 - present.

A whole lot of effort and lives have been thrown at this problem and it's maybe bigger than ever. So what specifically has to be different?

Beav I know your not going to like the response, but we start systematically eliminating any home they claim. We start with Raqqa and eliminate it. Every man, Woman and Child. Then we move on to the next ISIS stronghold and do the same. Its harsh, its distasteful, and I agree its inhuman, but until Muslim SYMPATHIZERS understand that we are willing to make the price of supporting the terrorist so abhorrent that they can not pay it there will never be an end. This is how the Arab leaders have been controlling the situation for centuries. We do this with a coalition of Eastern, Western and Middle Eastern Countries.

 

[litespeedhuskerfan]

You said you didn't equate Syrian refugees to terrorists and now we have a direct link and you still can't admit it's a bad idea and a legit problem.

 

[Huskerlife39]

That's actually a very interesting point. What if we looked at our own citizens that way and made the same leap in logic? How many people would suddenly be classed as domestic terrorists by proxy for "sympathizing" with people who have these conspiracy theories about the impending govt police state and martial law, etc.?

Did you really just make the leap to saying that people who lawfully disagree with their governments actions are comparable to Muslim Terrorists and anyone who supports their lawful right to disagree are comparable to ISIS sympathizers? Because if so there really isn't any point in further debate. We are not even discussing issues in the same world.

 

[leodisflowers]

According to you, shit's pretty real and yet here you are in a chair, not a uniform. Sounds like you have it all figured out, you should have your own division in no time, then you can look your kids in the eyes before you send them into harm's way to go "show them our true firepower."

Like I said, if America needs help and it comes a time I will do my duty. War is hell, and bad things are going to happen to people. Some in our military end up making the ultimate sacrifice, and people like myself thank them everyday for it. Maybe you should find a country to live in that doesn't want to be proactive in protecting itself, and where no one is ever going to be harmed. Luxembourg? Lichtenstein?

 

[TheBeav815]

You said you didn't equate Syrian refugees to terrorists and now we have a direct link and you still can't admit it's a bad idea and a legit problem.

Ever been to church? Prove you're not in the KKK. I heard there was a guy in the KKK who goes to church, so admit it, you might be in the Klan.

 

[otismotis08]

Did you really just make the leap to saying that people who lawfully disagree with their governments actions are comparable to Muslim Terrorists and anyone who supports their lawful right to disagree are comparable to ISIS sympathizers? Because if so there really isn't any point in further debate. We are not even discussing issues in the same world.

Unreal.

 

[TheBeav815]

Did you really just make the leap to saying that people who lawfully disagree with their governments actions are comparable to Muslim Terrorists and anyone who supports their lawful right to disagree are comparable to ISIS sympathizers? Because if so there really isn't any point in further debate. We are not even discussing issues in the same world.

No, you just made that leap, not me. What does that mean that somebody is "extreme" or a "sympathizer." The action they will take is what? It's a stat pulled off some poll and then manipulated to suggest 15% of all Muslims are for sure terrorists.

That's wildly misleading. There is a world of difference between somebody not being opposed to something and taking part in it. Particularly when you don't know what kind of propaganda campaign is being waged over there.

 

[jflores]

We can't exert enough force to wipe out terrorism. The most realistic path is to view is as pruning a garden. From time to time, you cut out the weeds.

If there was a wide disparity in what our approach and what the Russian approach buys a nation, it should be easily reconciled that Russia is just as neck deep in terrorism as us (if not more) and they currently have more civilian casualties from ISIS than we do.

In short, nothing wrong with shooting the dudes, all for it right here, but don't sell people on a notion that we can't back up. If not ISIL someone else will be waiting in line to take a swing.

 

[TheBeav815]

Beav I know your not going to like the response, but we start systematically eliminating any home they claim. We start with Raqqa and eliminate it. Every man, Woman and Child. Then we move on to the next ISIS stronghold and do the same. Its harsh, its distasteful, and I agree its inhuman, but until Muslim SYMPATHIZERS understand that we are willing to make the price of supporting the terrorist so abhorrent that they can not pay it there will never be an end. This is how the Arab leaders have been controlling the situation for centuries. We do this with a coalition of Eastern, Western and Middle Eastern Countries.

Help me understand how the sympathizer is not choosing between "die now or die later" in that scenario. ISIS will kill them if they don't cooperate. If I'm in your house RIGHT NOW telling you I'm gonna kill you if you don't help me (let's assume for discussion I'm capable of that in this scenario), are you really gonna say, "Oh no, I'm not helping you. Somebody else will come later and kill me if I help you." It's not that they like these guys, they'll die if they don't cooperate.

You eliminate every man woman and child in Raqqa how? Level it? House-to-house clearing? Do you occupy it after it's cleared? If so, for how long?

I'm trying to figure out how any of these scenarios work without the U.S. colonizing the entire Middle East for at least several decades, and I'm not seeing it.

 

[TheBeav815]

We can't exert enough force to wipe out terrorism. The most realistic path is to view is as pruning a garden. From time to time, you cut out the weeds.

If there was a wide disparity in what our approach and what the Russian approach buys a nation, it should be easily reconciled that Russia is just as neck deep in terrorism as us (if not more) and they currently have more civilian casualties from ISIS than we do.

In short, nothing wrong with shooting the dudes, all for it right here, but don't sell people on a notion that we can't back up. If not ISIL someone else will be waiting in line to take a swing.

Pretty much exactly how I feel about it.

 

[swihawkeye]

There are no innocents in Raqqa just Isis and Isis sympathizers. Anyone not associated with Isis has either fled or been murdered long ago.. My sentiments are bombs away like we did in Europe. Muslims have been shown that there is a price for opposing Isis. Perhaps it's time they start to learn there is also a price for supporting them!

THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

They want to return to the middle ages, bomb them there.

Being an ISIS sympathizer needs to be dangerous.

 

[Huskerlife39]

No, you just made that leap, not me. What does that mean that somebody is "extreme" or a "sympathizer." The action they will take is what? It's a stat pulled off some poll and then manipulated to suggest 15% of all Muslims are for sure terrorists.

That's wildly misleading. There is a world of difference between somebody not being opposed to something and taking part in it. Particularly when you don't know what kind of propaganda campaign is being waged over there.

Sorry, I didn't need to make any leap you were already there. I just read what you posted and clarified what you were saying.
In Raqqa being a sympathizer means your there by choice, you agree with there ideas and therefore your an enemy of the west. Bomb the city into parking lot. Don't stop till there's no structures left. Let Isis try to live in and rule a pile of rubble.
Exert and keep exerting force until sympathizing with Isis, even at penalty of death is a losing proposition. Just because Jflores doesn't think it's possible doesn't mean I agree with him. While I think he exerts very logical an intelligent arguements I disagree with him completely on this point.
In my never humble opinion, brutality like we see from Isis, Al Queda, Boko Harem or whatever else they call themselves these days can only be met with brutality. They must know the price for opposing the West is worse than the price for opposing the terrorists.

 

[big red22]

I will post again

how do you reconcile policy with the fact that 99.9% of people of Mid East descent (Islam/Muslim) ARE NOT TERRORISTS while acknowledging that the majority of terrorists activities such as we saw in Paris are committed by people in that demographic

if you hold up individual freedoms you are exposed to more of these attacks - if you start profiling you very well may decrease the number and magnitude of these attacks but limit the individual freedoms of the 99.9% who are not involved in terrorist activities

no easy answer

+1 on this

I for one would not like a bomb dropped on Omaha, because a few crazies start a gang and start causing havok. What I'm reading on here is some of you want us to just blow up a whole area, and not give a crap about the innocent civilians. Man that would suck for some kids that grew up there, and had to live in the middle of all this crap.

It's not like the innocent can just pack up and leave!

There is no answer, like someone said, "You cut a worm in half you get two". Also it is not all Obama's fault like some of seem to claim, and when you say that it is you clearly are ignorant and not well informed.

To quote a great comedian Mr. Christopher Rock, "You can't fix Crazy!"

 

[litespeedhuskerfan]

You know what's crazy? Inviting tens of thousands of them from a country like Syria when we don't have to. That's what people are mad at the prez. for. We know he didn't shoot up the concert, but he doesn't have to invite them over here, that is his baby and will spill more of our blood. Whether one of them are a terrorist, or all of them, or somewhere in between. When this blows up in our faces (literally) Obama will be blamed, directly, and every single person who defended them coming here will have blood on their hands. I hope it's their families blood and not mine.

 

[Huskerlife39]

Look Beav, I've pretty much expressed my opinion on the subject but I'm going to offer an additional thought because you keep asking how we are going to go after these animals and whose kids are going to do it.

The truth of the matter is the freedoms we enjoy in the West are not free. Our freedoms have been bought and paid for with they blood of our countrymen. Men and women who were willing to sacrifice everything to ensure that their loved ones, their friends, their neighbors and people they didn't even know would continue to enjoy those freedoms. It's why I enlisted 30 years ago and why my son is considering the same path. It's a sad fact that our children have been called upon and will further be called to shed their blood in the defense of our ideals. It's what makes this country great that we are having to turn away recruits because our ranks are already full of patriots who are answering the call!

 

[Huskerlife39]

+1 on this

I for one would not like a bomb dropped on Omaha, because a few crazies start a gang and start causing havok. What I'm reading on here is some of you want us to just blow up a whole area, and not give a crap about the innocent civilians. Man that would suck for some kids that grew up there, and had to live in the middle of all this crap.

It's not like the innocent can just pack up and leave!

There is no answer, like someone said, "You cut a worm in half you get two". Also it is not all Obama's fault like some of seem to claim, and when you say that it is you clearly are ignorant and not well informed.

To quote a great comedian Mr. Christopher Rock, "You can't fix Crazy!"

Sorry bud nothing in your post resembles intelligent thought.

 

[leodisflowers]

Look Beav, I've pretty much expressed my opinion on the subject but I'm going to offer an additional thought because you keep asking how we are going to go after these animals and whose kids are going to do it.

The truth of the matter is the freedoms we enjoy in the West are not free. Our freedoms have been bought and paid for with they blood of our countrymen. Men and women who were willing to sacrifice everything to ensure that their loved ones, their friends, their neighbors and people they didn't even know would continue to enjoy those freedoms. It's why I enlisted 30 years ago and why my son is considering the same path. It's a sad fact that our children have been called upon and will further be called to shed their blood in the defense of our ideals. It's what makes this country great that we are having to turn away recruits because our ranks are already full of patriots who are answering the call!

Yep! +1

 

[jteten]

The most fascinating question regarding the Syria bombings and home invasions throughout France yesterday is the lack of attacking the known targets prior to the terrorist attacks in Paris. If all of the targets were known, why didnt anyone move on them sooner? That question really has nothing to do with the attacks in Paris, but the war on terror in general.

 

[Lincoln100]

These are radicals within the Islam/Muslim community. Part of the response needs to be applying immense pressure on this community to "fix" their own. This is only a part of the response, however.

Yes, but good luck with that. Giving someone a hard time because of their religion will not be tolerated, unless of course you are a Christian, then it is ok, but don't you dare say or do anything that could in any way be deemed offensive to anyone who identifies themselves as Muslim; 1) the media will jump your s@%t, and 2) you will be put on the ISIS hit list.

 

[jeans15]

10% of Muslims believe in Jihad that's 100 Million People

They know the west is full of people who are scared to do what needs to be done.

 

[jeans15]

The most fascinating question regarding the Syria bombings and home invasions throughout France yesterday is the lack of attacking the known targets prior to the terrorist attacks in Paris. If all of the targets were known, why didnt anyone move on them sooner? That question really has nothing to do with the attacks in Paris, but the war on terror in general.

No Gitmo or interrogations anymore. Oh and thanks Snowden.

 

[NebChicago]

If we never invaded Iraq there wouldn't be an ISIS. Interventional thinking without a plan for "and then what" is a big reason we are talking about this today. Perhaps the Saddam's, Gaddafi's and Assad's serve a purpose selfishly for the West. They keep these lunatics on a leash or crush them, while they pray to the God of $$$. Which is a solvable problem, as opposed to those who want to be martyrs.

When I hear arguments for for more intervention, I just don't understand (to Beav's point) what the "and then what?" is? We need more pragmatism and less blood lust.

 

[TheBeav815]

10% of Muslims believe in Jihad that's 100 Million People

They know the west is full of people who are scared to do what needs to be done.

Can I get a source on that? No, you made it up? Just checking.

 

[litespeedhuskerfan]

jeans is wrong, the number is much higher than 10%. Sources galore await those who would like to look. I'd link 'em, but you would read them and still not care so I won't bother.

 

[otismotis08]

Yes, but good luck with that. Giving someone a hard time because of their religion will not be tolerated, unless of course you are a Christian, then it is ok, but don't you dare say or do anything that could in any way be deemed offensive to anyone who identifies themselves as Muslim; 1) the media will jump your s@%t, and 2) you will be put on the ISIS hit list.

"A hard time" would be an understatement.

 

[jflores]

The most fascinating question regarding the Syria bombings and home invasions throughout France yesterday is the lack of attacking the known targets prior to the terrorist attacks in Paris. If all of the targets were known, why didnt anyone move on them sooner? That question really has nothing to do with the attacks in Paris, but the war on terror in general.

If folks are simply talking about lists of sketchy people and areas, the governments of the world are not for want of these. Actionable targets with real validated reporting behind them, much fewer.

No Gitmo or interrogations anymore. Oh and thanks Snowden.

I'm just curious how many detainee reports you have ever personally read and assessed. Snowden was a big deal.