ADVERTISEMENT

France taking it to ISIS

Status
Not open for further replies.
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!

You're not answering my question as to how you completely eliminate terrorism other than talking about bombing one town. Then what? The game plan from these guys is they pop up in any country they can like whack-a-mole. You bomb one town off the map, that's not the end.

What kind of bomb are you gonna use that's supposed to scare away the guy who is willing to blow himself up anyhow?

THAT'S the disconnect. I don't mind killing the guys, but it's not like nobody tried that yet. Every time one country gets halfway cleared out, the new version starts up in the next. We can't just turn the entire Middle East into perpetually occupied territory.
 
Every time one country gets halfway cleared out, the new version starts up in the next. We can't just turn the entire Middle East into perpetually occupied territory.

This is not an insignificant point. For the cost of roughly 5000 US soldiers killed and a few trillion dollars we went from a few hundred AQ core jihadists in the AF/Pak border area to a half dozen offshoots of AQ around the globe, to ISIS, numbering in the tens of thousands.

We killed a lot of bad people who needed killing, but we can't ignore the relative ineffectiveness in stamping out terrorism as an ideology.
 
This is not an insignificant point. For the cost of roughly 5000 US soldiers killed and a few trillion dollars we went from a few hundred AQ core jihadists in the AF/Pak border area to a half dozen offshoots of AQ around the globe, to ISIS, numbering in the tens of thousands.

We killed a lot of bad people who needed killing, but we can't ignore the relative ineffectiveness in stamping out terrorism as an ideology.
It's vicious cycle action. Their whole recruiting pitch is that the west is on their soil, killing their people and meddling in their lives. So they attack us knowing full well that in response we'll come to their soil, kill them and meddle in their lives. Do we see a vicious cycle yet?
 
This is not an insignificant point. For the cost of roughly 5000 US soldiers killed and a few trillion dollars we went from a few hundred AQ core jihadists in the AF/Pak border area to a half dozen offshoots of AQ around the globe, to ISIS, numbering in the tens of thousands.

We killed a lot of bad people who needed killing, but we can't ignore the relative ineffectiveness in stamping out terrorism as an ideology.
Thats because of politics not because military ineffectiveness.

There will always be the fringe in society that can cause violence - but that is not what we are talking about here - these groups ISIS and other Islamist terrorist groups need a couple of things to make trouble - 1. A place to operate from and 2. Money

The US and the international community allowed ISIS to grow and continue to allow ISIS to have a base and to have money from Oil sales. This was politically driven and Obama wanted to be known as the President to end the war no matter more people died form the withdrawal.

No you cannot change attitudes but you can make ISIS and AQ go into hiding - its not whack a mole if you deny them access to safe haven and money pretty soon where do they go? The world community needs to make a committment to deny these terrorist groups safe havens and cash no matter where they try and set up shop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: baseball31ne
You're not answering my question as to how you completely eliminate terrorism other than talking about bombing one town. Then what? The game plan from these guys is they pop up in any country they can like whack-a-mole. You bomb one town off the map, that's not the end.

What kind of bomb are you gonna use that's supposed to scare away the guy who is willing to blow himself up anyhow?

THAT'S the disconnect. I don't mind killing the guys, but it's not like nobody tried that yet. Every time one country gets halfway cleared out, the new version starts up in the next. We can't just turn the entire Middle East into perpetually occupied territory.

So what's your plan then? How would you deal with the situation both domestically and internationally?
 
No you cannot change attitudes but you can make ISIS and AQ go into hiding - its not whack a mole if you deny them access to safe haven and money pretty soon where do they go? The world community needs to make a committment to deny these terrorist groups safe havens and cash no matter where they try and set up shop.

All due respect - this sounds a little bit naive. There are always going to be destabilized regions in the ME and North Africa where groups of this type seek and find opportunities for growth.
 
Thats because of politics not because military ineffectiveness.

There will always be the fringe in society that can cause violence - but that is not what we are talking about here - these groups ISIS and other Islamist terrorist groups need a couple of things to make trouble - 1. A place to operate from and 2. Money

The US and the international community allowed ISIS to grow and continue to allow ISIS to have a base and to have money from Oil sales. This was politically driven and Obama wanted to be known as the President to end the war no matter more people died form the withdrawal.

No you cannot change attitudes but you can make ISIS and AQ go into hiding - its not whack a mole if you deny them access to safe haven and money pretty soon where do they go? The world community needs to make a committment to deny these terrorist groups safe havens and cash no matter where they try and set up shop.

Fully agree, the world community should. But there's the world we want, and the world we have. How it usually plays out is that it's all America's fight with a sprinkling of aid and lip service from other nations. What do we do with the countries that are such third-world disasters that they have no real capacity to stop their local faction? Invade them? Bomb them to ruin? What do we do with countries that are hostile to the U.S. and providing harbor or money? Invade them? Bomb them to ruin?
 
Thats because of politics not because military ineffectiveness.

There will always be the fringe in society that can cause violence - but that is not what we are talking about here - these groups ISIS and other Islamist terrorist groups need a couple of things to make trouble - 1. A place to operate from and 2. Money

The US and the international community allowed ISIS to grow and continue to allow ISIS to have a base and to have money from Oil sales. This was politically driven and Obama wanted to be known as the President to end the war no matter more people died form the withdrawal.

No you cannot change attitudes but you can make ISIS and AQ go into hiding - its not whack a mole if you deny them access to safe haven and money pretty soon where do they go? The world community needs to make a committment to deny these terrorist groups safe havens and cash no matter where they try and set up shop.

I don't think you made a clear connection between politics and safe haven. Potentially, you seem to be sticking it on Obama's plate (and he's certainly part of the issue), but AQ-Iraq, AQ-Yemen, AQ-Libya and ISIS all pre-date the Obama administration. Indeed, most of those groups formed and thrived as we turned Afghanistan and Iraq into a shooting gallery, as well as Pakistan. AQI formed as a resistance to US counter-terrorism operations. And even in areas where we shoot a lot of people (Kunar - Nuristan), terrorism still lives strongly.

We have not figured out how to deny them access to safe haven without occupying everywhere they might fall back to. Drones have been semi-effective in making safe havens slightly less so, but significant terrorist activities take places where drones and planes bomb on the regular.

We can't lay everything at the feet of politics, a good chunk of it is simply geography and logistics.
 
Last edited:
Fully agree, the world community should. But there's the world we want, and the world we have. How it usually plays out is that it's all America's fight with a sprinkling of aid and lip service from other nations. What do we do with the countries that are such third-world disasters that they have no real capacity to stop their local faction? Invade them? Bomb them to ruin? What do we do with countries that are hostile to the U.S. and providing harbor or money? Invade them? Bomb them to ruin?
I understand and agree to an extent but as I stated they need two things - safe haven and money to operate - Money trails can always be identified and if there is world cooperation stopped - Cash does not simply appear it can be traced. The problem has been some countries look the other way because they need the oil.

I think stronger penalties and identification of these money sources is certainly possible and I also belive that denying safe haven can happen to a much larger extent that what is happening.

The world should understand by now that just burying your head in the sand and hoping these groups go away is a recipe for disaster - yes the solution involve military and cost and resolve but what is the alternative
 
  • Like
Reactions: leodisflowers
Go back and read my post again. I think it's pretty clear.
Fine, don't have the discussion.
So what's your plan then? How would you deal with the situation both domestically and internationally?

I hate to use the words "manage" or "minimize" but that's sorta the ceiling. The U.S. has been pretty aggressive with its counterterrorism at home, and will continue to be. Fact is, it's worked in terms of preventing attacks within the U.S. There's no such thing as total safety.

We can't protect the world and we can't stop people who hate us from hating us. Certainly I've never heard of bombing somebody til they like you. Things like AQ and ISIS breed and thrive in squalor and poverty. The greatest tyrants seem to spring out of the most downtrodden countries. So the most likely thing to conquer groups like that is the slow drip of global advancement.
 
Fine, don't have the discussion.


I hate to use the words "manage" or "minimize" but that's sorta the ceiling. The U.S. has been pretty aggressive with its counterterrorism at home, and will continue to be. Fact is, it's worked in terms of preventing attacks within the U.S. There's no such thing as total safety.

We can't protect the world and we can't stop people who hate us from hating us. Certainly I've never heard of bombing somebody til they like you. Things like AQ and ISIS breed and thrive in squalor and poverty. The greatest tyrants seem to spring out of the most downtrodden countries. So the most likely thing to conquer groups like that is the slow drip of global advancement.

I agree. There is no such thing as total safety. We shouldn't have to take on refugees though. They should go to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other countries in the region that fall more in line with their daily way of life. Bringing them to the US and opening ourselves up is a bad idea in a lot of ways.
 
I don't think we're talking about Christians committing acts of terror here. Do you have a point?

I was just curious as to whether one of you who enjoyed that statement had some examples to go with it, or any depth of thought to back it up. But it's pretty clear that you don't.
 
I agree. There is no such thing as total safety. We shouldn't have to take on refugees though. They should go to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other countries in the region that fall more in line with their daily way of life. Bringing them to the US and opening ourselves up is a bad idea in a lot of ways.

Other than the belief that there will be terrorist sleepers among them, what are the other lot of ways?
 
Other than the belief that there will be terrorist sleepers among them, what are the other lot of ways?

I know it's probably a drop in the barrel, but what is the cost of bringing them on? I'd rather spend the money on transportation infrastructure and other failing areas of the US vs. take on refugees whom are probably just going to be supported by the American tax payers. As with a lot of things, the bell curve applies IMO. 20% of the refugees will probably be good people that seek jobs and prosper in America. 60% will be in between and will require assistance, and the final 20% you are going to get terrible results from.

Call it bigotry, or whatever you want to call it, it is not the time to bring a heavy influx of muslim/islamic/whatever people to the US right now. With all of the terror going on in the world coming from these radical groups, people look at them in a different light, and aren't going to put up with anything that goes on. I think you are going to see increased violence in the US against these people and it is only going to make the US look more negative world-wide. Why bring them in? You know there is going to be news coverage of someone burning down a mosque or doing something radical. it is just going to increase the hate. Why bring them here, especially if a good portion of them hate America anyways.

There other big reason is the one you hit on as well that doesn't need much more discussion. There are going to be people that slip through. As sophisticated as we are technologically, we still have a ton of gaps in our security. Hell just think about all of the headlines of how bad TSA is, and everything they miss. The first time something happens on our home soil and it has any direct tie to the Syrians, this place is going to go nuts.

The US needs to shut its borders to not just the people we are discussing, but to everyone.
 
In America, its safe, in the world, lots of Christians are murdered because they are Christian.
This is not a situation of terror groups of poor kids just resorting to violence. This is a systematic recruitment from a religious movement of radical Islamism. Now you have people willing to commit suicide and cold blodded murder in the name of their god

Yes Christians world wide are at risk because of how a large number of muslims view their religion - now not all muslims feel this and certainly the majority do not but we are not talking about a couple of hundred terrorists either. There are many thousands who feel the need to kill in the name of their religion. This group needs to be eliminated from the face of the earth - I dont care if we have to whack ten thousand moles to do it
 
  • Like
Reactions: baseball31ne
Would it hurt their recruitment efforts of we allow them to expand beyond their own lands, their words, and then we kill them when they attack and harm or kill?

No, the answer is no. Find them wherever you can find them. Eliminate them since their only victory is our conversion or our death.

Will we kill all of them? No just how many need to be killed before potential members decide this isn't a good idea?

How much is the freedom that you have, at whatever level of actual freedom that've have, worth to you?
 
For those of that do not want to be part of ISIS but feel compelled to, how much is their freedom of an actual choice worth?
 
For those of you who don't know I'm 75% Iraqi and 25% Syrian. I've visited both countries multiple times and can tell you this much. The West's strategy in the middle east should be much like WWII where it's all or nothing and before you tell me that we tried that in Iraq and Afghanistan I'd put the argument to you that we didn't. We didn't have nearly enough men for those countries and we're paying for that miscalculation today.

I suggest a full and comprehensive strategy for the middle east that makes sense. We are fighting ISIS in Iraq and Syria and are allies with them in Yemen fighting against the Iranians. The strategy in the middle east is nonsensical and has been for the last 50 years. Both parties are at fault here. If ISIS is our real enemy then yes I want a full comprehensive military intervention and by full I mean full. I want a 500,000 troops in Syria and Iraq. They don't have to be all American but if we're serious about defeating them then we need to show the commitment that we're willing to go door to door. If ISIS is not the enemy then I don't want to spend a single US taxpayer penny in the region. No more drone war. No more "military advisors". No more arming randoms in the region, giving them training, crossing our fingers, and hoping for the best that they don't become jihadists. I don't want to hear we are fighting a war for "containment" and "winning" only to hear about multiple terrorist attacks across the globe from said group. We either eradicate them or we don't. The statement by the president this past weekend about "ISIS being contained" is clueless and speaks to his lack of understanding as to what is going on in the region. Bush also failed miserably during his presidency but I digress.
 
What I find fascinating is the number of experts who know how to solve/beat ISIS who spend their time chatting Husker football. I bet the Pentagon would be interested to know that all the answers are right here.

I don't claim to know what will be effective, but I can say we bombed the hell out of the Middle East for several years and now we have millions of these fools who will sacrifice their own lives for the sake of mass murdering those in the west.

I'm not proposing "more hugs" as many will suggest I am proposing, but I do think an alternative is worth exploring. The bomb, bomb, and more bombs approach may kick the can down the road a bit, but another group of jihadis will crop up with a vow to exact revenge in the next 2 - 3 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheBeav815
What I find fascinating is the number of experts who know how to solve/beat ISIS who spend their time chatting Husker football. I bet the Pentagon would be interested to know that all the answers are right here.

I don't claim to know what will be effective, but I can say we bombed the hell out of the Middle East for several years and now we have millions of these fools who will sacrifice their own lives for the sake of mass murdering those in the west.

I'm not proposing "more hugs" as many will suggest I am proposing, but I do think an alternative is worth exploring. The bomb, bomb, and more bombs approach may kick the can down the road a bit, but another group of jihadis will crop up with a vow to exact revenge in the next 2 - 3 years.

It's a message board.... Which means we are stating our opinions..
 
What I find fascinating is the number of experts who know how to solve/beat ISIS who spend their time chatting Husker football. I bet the Pentagon would be interested to know that all the answers are right here.

I don't claim to know what will be effective, but I can say we bombed the hell out of the Middle East for several years and now we have millions of these fools who will sacrifice their own lives for the sake of mass murdering those in the west.

I'm not proposing "more hugs" as many will suggest I am proposing, but I do think an alternative is worth exploring. The bomb, bomb, and more bombs approach may kick the can down the road a bit, but another group of jihadis will crop up with a vow to exact revenge in the next 2 - 3 years.

Freeze all of their accounts/assets and take all of their money. Whichever financial institution has ties to anyone or anything who can remotely be tied to terrorists, do not do business with them. Blow up every single area which is known to harbor terrorists. Rinse. Repeat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: otismotis08
Fine, don't have the discussion.


I hate to use the words "manage" or "minimize" but that's sorta the ceiling. The U.S. has been pretty aggressive with its counterterrorism at home, and will continue to be. Fact is, it's worked in terms of preventing attacks within the U.S. There's no such thing as total safety.

We can't protect the world and we can't stop people who hate us from hating us. Certainly I've never heard of bombing somebody til they like you. Things like AQ and ISIS breed and thrive in squalor and poverty. The greatest tyrants seem to spring out of the most downtrodden countries. So the most likely thing to conquer groups like that is the slow drip of global advancement.
Seriously Beav, it's like we live in separate worlds. The US has not been particularly aggressive with its counterterrorism at home that's why we have Ft Hood and Boston. He'll terrorists can walk across our southern border like its a Sunday walk in the park. The fact we haven't been hit is dumb luck. We aren't looking for total safety because any safety is an illusion at this point.
You say we can't protect the world and I say if not us then who? Nobody is suggesting that we can bomb anyone until they like us. Some places in the world will never be our friends but those places need to fear us. We need to continue making alliances, we don't need to walk this path alone. However, we need to stand behind our alliances even when it's painful.
 
What I find fascinating is the number of experts who know how to solve/beat ISIS who spend their time chatting Husker football. I bet the Pentagon would be interested to know that all the answers are right here.

I don't claim to know what will be effective, but I can say we bombed the hell out of the Middle East for several years and now we have millions of these fools who will sacrifice their own lives for the sake of mass murdering those in the west.

I'm not proposing "more hugs" as many will suggest I am proposing, but I do think an alternative is worth exploring. The bomb, bomb, and more bombs approach may kick the can down the road a bit, but another group of jihadis will crop up with a vow to exact revenge in the next 2 - 3 years.

That's the benefit of living in a free country. We get to discuss what's happening in the world and everyone's opinion is as relevant as the next. Even if We don't agree with each other or with our elected representatives everything still functions.
I keep hearing how we have bombed them and it didn't work. We bomb with ROE that ensures we will never be successful. We've never really bombed them because we are so afraid of what the media will say that we refrain from anything that might cause civilian casualties. Meanwhile these same terrorists hide among those civilians to ensure they're never attacked. Eventually we are going to have to decide if we are all in or all out. God help us if we are all out.
 
Last edited:
This is not an insignificant point. For the cost of roughly 5000 US soldiers killed and a few trillion dollars we went from a few hundred AQ core jihadists in the AF/Pak border area to a half dozen offshoots of AQ around the globe, to ISIS, numbering in the tens of thousands.

We killed a lot of bad people who needed killing, but we can't ignore the relative ineffectiveness in stamping out terrorism as an ideology.

Ideologies have never recognized geopolitical boundaries. They also aren't confined to people who have certain skin colors or hair styles. The American public has a gross misperception about how this "war on terrorism" is going to be fought.

As a people we are outraged by the slaughter in Paris ... but where was the same outcry in 2013 in the Westgate Mall shooting in Kenya which killed 67 people? How about the outcry when genuinely innocent people are killed in errant drone strikes?

If a terrorist sympathizer lived in your neighborhood and the government sanctioned a strike which killed the bad guy and it happened to kill your wife and child, would you passively accept that you deserved it? Would you compassionately understand?

Unfortunately, I hear a ridiculous amount of ignorant crap being spouted as though unmitigated violence will resolve the problem. I was on active duty for 12 years. I've buried at least one friend under the age of 40 every single year since 2002.

Some of the resident internet geniuses might take a moment and ask why our military strategy/foreign policy has completely failed while simultaneously costing us trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives. This month well over 100 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan will die by their own hands. War is not a video game. The people on the other side of the map are not inherently evil. Some of them are incredibly bad people. They are assholes.

We didn't condemn the entire Catholic church because a few hundred men in leadership positions decided to use their position to rape young boys. Why not stereotype and label all Catholics?

The Westboro Baptist Church claims to be Baptist. Why not just admit that all Baptists are flaming hate-mongers?

You know why we don't do this? Because we personally know good Catholics and Baptists. We know that a few assholes don't represent everyone under a certain label. I've been deployed to Iraq. I've met hundreds of Iraqi families. By and large, they are great freaking people. Not terribly different from you and I in the areas that matter most.

They want their kids to grow up safe. They want their kids to have a better life than they did. If the only Muslims I'd ever met were the ones trying to blow me up, I'd probably hate them all too. Fortunately, I met hundreds more and found we have a little thing called humanity in common.

I get my disability check from the VA each month. I paid my price in combat. Every Senator and Representative who votes to send our people to war should be required to go with them or volunteer their spouse, son, or daughter to go into combat.

War is a very real and occasionally very necessary thing. However, it isn't real when you don't have any skin in the game. Stop with the anti-Muslim rhetoric. Its nothing more than fear stemming from your ignorant stereotypes. We're Americans. We've done this fear-mongering thing before. We've run Japanese concentration camps on American soil before.

Don't do it. Don't allow assholes (ISIS) to make us assholes. Deal with the problem in a carefully considered rational manner that will produce the desired end results. ISIS clearly knew they would engender a massive emotional reaction. We need to make sure that we don't play right into their hands.
 
Download-File


Look long Beav.
You aren't getting much support on this. Your 26 posts garnered 1 like.
 
This is not a situation of terror groups of poor kids just resorting to violence. This is a systematic recruitment from a religious movement of radical Islamism. Now you have people willing to commit suicide and cold blodded murder in the name of their god

Yes Christians world wide are at risk because of how a large number of muslims view their religion - now not all muslims feel this and certainly the majority do not but we are not talking about a couple of hundred terrorists either. There are many thousands who feel the need to kill in the name of their religion. This group needs to be eliminated from the face of the earth - I dont care if we have to whack ten thousand moles to do it

High-end estimates place ISIS strength at 50K. Most estimates say that we have about 1.3 billion Muslims in the world.

If we could take out a murderer at the expense of 26000 innocent lives, would that really be worth it? Did you seriously just refer to non-violent Muslims as moles?

Either you are an asshole ... or I'm just politically correct.
 
I know it's probably a drop in the barrel, but what is the cost of bringing them on? I'd rather spend the money on transportation infrastructure and other failing areas of the US vs. take on refugees whom are probably just going to be supported by the American tax payers. As with a lot of things, the bell curve applies IMO. 20% of the refugees will probably be good people that seek jobs and prosper in America. 60% will be in between and will require assistance, and the final 20% you are going to get terrible results from.

Call it bigotry, or whatever you want to call it, it is not the time to bring a heavy influx of muslim/islamic/whatever people to the US right now. With all of the terror going on in the world coming from these radical groups, people look at them in a different light, and aren't going to put up with anything that goes on. I think you are going to see increased violence in the US against these people and it is only going to make the US look more negative world-wide. Why bring them in? You know there is going to be news coverage of someone burning down a mosque or doing something radical. it is just going to increase the hate. Why bring them here, especially if a good portion of them hate America anyways.

There other big reason is the one you hit on as well that doesn't need much more discussion. There are going to be people that slip through. As sophisticated as we are technologically, we still have a ton of gaps in our security. Hell just think about all of the headlines of how bad TSA is, and everything they miss. The first time something happens on our home soil and it has any direct tie to the Syrians, this place is going to go nuts.

The US needs to shut its borders to not just the people we are discussing, but to everyone.

As far as whether they are a tax burden or benefit, I'd be genuinely interested in the numbers on that.

As far as the hate goes, by and large I think the 99.99% of us who all get along with each other are losing the PR battle.
Granted this is anecdotal, but I lived for years in a neighborhood surrounded by immigrants. Stores with signs in Arabic, Halal butcher shops, a couple blocks down you had Indian people, a couple blocks another way it's Orthodox Jews. I don't recall a single problem from any of them. Not directed at me or each other. Everyone got along. The crime was courtesy of the home-grown little gangsters born and raised in the U-S-of-A.

I don't have a burning need to accept unlimited quantities of immigrants, but I need a better reason than I'm supposed to be scared of them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT