Raven_tiger 5 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 From The Atlantic, but the libs won't like it: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,542 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 The libs wrote the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,204 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 They're an apocalyptic death cult. Full scale war is what they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUUSN 823 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 They're an apacolyptic death cult. Full scale war is what they want. Yep. Expanding the conflict may seem like a self-destructive move. But to some analysts, it is squarely in keeping with what the group advertises as its overriding, apocalyptic mission: to lure the world’s unbelievers into Syria for a final, Armageddon-like battle. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/for-the-islamic-state-paroxysms-of-violence-portends-apocalypse/2015/11/16/7020482e-8c99-11e5-baf4-bdf37355da0c_story.html?postshare=1581447745667545&tid=ss_tw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUUSN 823 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,542 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 They're an apacolyptic death cult. Full scale war is what they want. Yep. Expanding the conflict may seem like a self-destructive move. But to some analysts, it is squarely in keeping with what the group advertises as its overriding, apocalyptic mission: to lure the world’s unbelievers into Syria for a final, Armageddon-like battle. https://www.washingt...67545&tid=ss_tw I can see two sides to this. One is to not give them that apocalyptic battle and find some other way to defeat them. I'm not sure what that way is. The other is that I don't believe Daesh can win a straight up battle on the ground in Syria against us or our allies. Maybe we should be luring them to a wide open space in Syria to have the final showdown and crush them once and for all there. That would break their prophecies about themselves would it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltigger21 0 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 Oh we could wipe these people out real easy if we had the willingness to do so. There would be a lot of collateral damaged and non combatants killed. We won't fight like that. We get upset and wring our hands incessantly over one. We don't have the stomach to fight like that anymore and they know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven_tiger 5 Posted November 17, 2015 Author Share Posted November 17, 2015 The libs wrote the article. There are some semi-intelligent libs, case and point. I should have phrased it 'sidewalk libs' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,776 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 We should use "every" means at our disposal (excluding the obvious). Rules of engagement be damned. If not......don't bother. We won't "win" anything without full scale resolve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
channonc 466 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 Oh we could wipe these people out real easy if we had the willingness to do so. There would be a lot of collateral damaged and non combatants killed. We won't fight like that. We get upset and wring our hands incessantly over one. We don't have the stomach to fight like that anymore and they know it. "Fight like that"? What does that even mean? You would like us to start looking for suicide bombers who can help with our mission? Start indiscriminately bombing places full of innocent women and children? Is that what kind of fighting you are referring to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUUSN 823 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 Oh we could wipe these people out real easy if we had the willingness to do so. There would be a lot of collateral damaged and non combatants killed. We won't fight like that. We get upset and wring our hands incessantly over one. We don't have the stomach to fight like that anymore and they know it. Damn....just....damn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,513 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 The libs wrote the article. There are some semi-intelligent libs, case and point. I should have phrased it 'sidewalk libs' I think I posted a link to this very article months ago, soon after it was first published. Your paradigms suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUbritt 611 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 That was a fascinating read. Thanks for posting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven_tiger 5 Posted November 17, 2015 Author Share Posted November 17, 2015 The libs wrote the article. There are some semi-intelligent libs, case and point. I should have phrased it 'sidewalk libs' I think I posted a link to this very article months ago, soon after it was first published. Your paradigms suck. Bless your heart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltigger21 0 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 Channoc, what we're doing now isn't working. We're so damn worried, about not offending anyone and we've fought with one hand tied behind our back. ISIS is not contained and they are not on the run. If blasting the whole area is what it takes then yes do it. Defeat your enemy and worry about the rest afterwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,481 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 That was a fascinating read. Thanks for posting it. Awesome in details, but it was absolutely nothing revolutionary in total scope. ISIS is dedicated to perpetual war with the rest of the world, including non-ISIS Islam. It was very cool to get inside their thinking as far "Peace is a sin" and "The Caliph must wage war yearly or be replaced." This is disturbing BUT, it really isnt anymore disturbing than the Nazis, Pol Pot, the Bolsheviks, etc. It is just Islam's turn to mature as a part of the World's Body Politik. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUbritt 611 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 The best argument for going in and defeating them utterly is that it would destroy the caliphate, which would basically totally undermine their support. Unlike Al Quaeda, ISIS is dependent on occupying (even expanding) its physical territory. In theory, it would be much easier to get rid of ISIS than AQ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
channonc 466 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 Channoc, what we're doing now isn't working. We're so damn worried, about not offending anyone and we've fought with one hand tied behind our back. ISIS is not contained and they are not on the run. If blasting the whole area is what it takes then yes do it. Defeat your enemy and worry about the rest afterwards. So you are in favor of mass destruction which would kill millions of innocent women and children. Got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strychnine 1,804 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 The best argument for going in and defeating them utterly is that it would destroy the caliphate, which would basically totally undermine their support. Unlike Al Quaeda, ISIS is dependent on occupying (even expanding) its physical territory. In theory, it would be much easier to get rid of ISIS than AQ. Of course, the counter argument for that is if we go in and solve this problem, that Iraq should have been able to deal with, we are back to square one of occupying a country that is going to want us out (again). ISIS is certainly not formidable, and they haven't had much success against the determined foe they've faced. ISIS is likely to be replaced with more of the same (or maybe something worse) if the West is what crushes them. The other countries in the Middle East are the ones that ultimately need to do something about ISIS, and Saudi Arabia definitely needs to do something about the Salafist/Wahhabist thought that spreads from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
channonc 466 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 The best argument for going in and defeating them utterly is that it would destroy the caliphate, which would basically totally undermine their support. Unlike Al Quaeda, ISIS is dependent on occupying (even expanding) its physical territory. In theory, it would be much easier to get rid of ISIS than AQ. Of course, the counter argument for that is if we go in and solve this problem, that Iraq should have been able to deal with, we are back to square one of occupying a country that is going to want us out (again). ISIS is certainly not formidable, and they haven't had much success against the determined foe they've faced. ISIS is likely to be replaced with more of the same (or maybe something worse) if the West is what crushes them. The other countries in the Middle East are the ones that ultimately need to do something about ISIS, and Saudi Arabia definitely needs to do something about the Salafist/Wahhabist thought that spreads from there. This! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUbritt 611 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 The best argument for going in and defeating them utterly is that it would destroy the caliphate, which would basically totally undermine their support. Unlike Al Quaeda, ISIS is dependent on occupying (even expanding) its physical territory. In theory, it would be much easier to get rid of ISIS than AQ. Of course, the counter argument for that is if we go in and solve this problem, that Iraq should have been able to deal with, we are back to square one of occupying a country that is going to want us out (again). ISIS is certainly not formidable, and they haven't had much success against the determined foe they've faced. ISIS is likely to be replaced with more of the same (or maybe something worse) if the West is what crushes them. The other countries in the Middle East are the ones that ultimately need to do something about ISIS, and Saudi Arabia definitely needs to do something about the Salafist/Wahhabist thought that spreads from there. Yeah, I didn't mean to suggest that it was necessarily the best solution to the problem; I just think it's the best argument for going in and taking them out. I'm not convinced it's what we should do. Honestly, I'm ignorant of a lot of things going on with the Middle East, Islam, and many other things. Just thinking and trying to figure out where I stand on some of these issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strychnine 1,804 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 The best argument for going in and defeating them utterly is that it would destroy the caliphate, which would basically totally undermine their support. Unlike Al Quaeda, ISIS is dependent on occupying (even expanding) its physical territory. In theory, it would be much easier to get rid of ISIS than AQ. Of course, the counter argument for that is if we go in and solve this problem, that Iraq should have been able to deal with, we are back to square one of occupying a country that is going to want us out (again). ISIS is certainly not formidable, and they haven't had much success against the determined foe they've faced. ISIS is likely to be replaced with more of the same (or maybe something worse) if the West is what crushes them. The other countries in the Middle East are the ones that ultimately need to do something about ISIS, and Saudi Arabia definitely needs to do something about the Salafist/Wahhabist thought that spreads from there. Yeah, I didn't mean to suggest that it was necessarily the best solution to the problem; I just think it's the best argument for going in and taking them out. I'm not convinced it's what we should do. Honestly, I'm ignorant of a lot of things going on with the Middle East, Islam, and many other things. Just thinking and trying to figure out where I stand on some of these issues. Sorry if it seemed I was putting words in your mouth. Jihadist terrorism is something that the West will always be unable to defeat. Western attacks play into their rhetoric, as does the collateral damage of warfare, and we can never kill them all. There are always new leaders to take the old ones' place. The best we can ever do is force them to change their tactics, force them underground for awhile, and try to interdict attacks against us. Saudi Arabia, specifically the House of Saud, can actually do something meaningful about it. They can act to forcefully crush ISIS (sending a resonant message through the Muslim world), and they can denounce Salafism/Wahhabism (where this fundamentalist interpretation of Islam comes from). It's time for us to stop letting Saudi Arabia play both sides: join the modern world, or leave it behind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
channonc 466 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 The best argument for going in and defeating them utterly is that it would destroy the caliphate, which would basically totally undermine their support. Unlike Al Quaeda, ISIS is dependent on occupying (even expanding) its physical territory. In theory, it would be much easier to get rid of ISIS than AQ. Of course, the counter argument for that is if we go in and solve this problem, that Iraq should have been able to deal with, we are back to square one of occupying a country that is going to want us out (again). ISIS is certainly not formidable, and they haven't had much success against the determined foe they've faced. ISIS is likely to be replaced with more of the same (or maybe something worse) if the West is what crushes them. The other countries in the Middle East are the ones that ultimately need to do something about ISIS, and Saudi Arabia definitely needs to do something about the Salafist/Wahhabist thought that spreads from there. Yeah, I didn't mean to suggest that it was necessarily the best solution to the problem; I just think it's the best argument for going in and taking them out. I'm not convinced it's what we should do. Honestly, I'm ignorant of a lot of things going on with the Middle East, Islam, and many other things. Just thinking and trying to figure out where I stand on some of these issues. Sorry if it seemed I was putting words in your mouth. Jihadist terrorism is something that the West will always be unable to defeat. Western attacks play into their rhetoric, as does the collateral damage of warfare, and we can never kill them all. There are always new leaders to take the old ones' place. The best we can ever do is force them to change their tactics, force them underground for awhile, and try to interdict attacks against us. Saudi Arabia, specifically the House of Saud, can actually do something meaningful about it. They can act to forcefully crush ISIS (sending a resonant message through the Muslim world), and they can denounce Salafism/Wahhabism (where this fundamentalist interpretation of Islam comes from). It's time for us to stop letting Saudi Arabia play both sides: join the modern world, or leave it behind. Couldn't agree more with this analysis. It seems SA has been playing both sides for decades now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUbritt 611 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 The best argument for going in and defeating them utterly is that it would destroy the caliphate, which would basically totally undermine their support. Unlike Al Quaeda, ISIS is dependent on occupying (even expanding) its physical territory. In theory, it would be much easier to get rid of ISIS than AQ. Of course, the counter argument for that is if we go in and solve this problem, that Iraq should have been able to deal with, we are back to square one of occupying a country that is going to want us out (again). ISIS is certainly not formidable, and they haven't had much success against the determined foe they've faced. ISIS is likely to be replaced with more of the same (or maybe something worse) if the West is what crushes them. The other countries in the Middle East are the ones that ultimately need to do something about ISIS, and Saudi Arabia definitely needs to do something about the Salafist/Wahhabist thought that spreads from there. Yeah, I didn't mean to suggest that it was necessarily the best solution to the problem; I just think it's the best argument for going in and taking them out. I'm not convinced it's what we should do. Honestly, I'm ignorant of a lot of things going on with the Middle East, Islam, and many other things. Just thinking and trying to figure out where I stand on some of these issues. Sorry if it seemed I was putting words in your mouth. Jihadist terrorism is something that the West will always be unable to defeat. Western attacks play into their rhetoric, as does the collateral damage of warfare, and we can never kill them all. There are always new leaders to take the old ones' place. The best we can ever do is force them to change their tactics, force them underground for awhile, and try to interdict attacks against us. Saudi Arabia, specifically the House of Saud, can actually do something meaningful about it. They can act to forcefully crush ISIS (sending a resonant message through the Muslim world), and they can denounce Salafism/Wahhabism (where this fundamentalist interpretation of Islam comes from). It's time for us to stop letting Saudi Arabia play both sides: join the modern world, or leave it behind. Nah, I didn't think you were putting words in my mouth. I was just clarifying. It's an intriguing argument you're making. I wonder how much political pressure is being brought to bear on the Saudis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strychnine 1,804 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 The best argument for going in and defeating them utterly is that it would destroy the caliphate, which would basically totally undermine their support. Unlike Al Quaeda, ISIS is dependent on occupying (even expanding) its physical territory. In theory, it would be much easier to get rid of ISIS than AQ. Of course, the counter argument for that is if we go in and solve this problem, that Iraq should have been able to deal with, we are back to square one of occupying a country that is going to want us out (again). ISIS is certainly not formidable, and they haven't had much success against the determined foe they've faced. ISIS is likely to be replaced with more of the same (or maybe something worse) if the West is what crushes them. The other countries in the Middle East are the ones that ultimately need to do something about ISIS, and Saudi Arabia definitely needs to do something about the Salafist/Wahhabist thought that spreads from there. Yeah, I didn't mean to suggest that it was necessarily the best solution to the problem; I just think it's the best argument for going in and taking them out. I'm not convinced it's what we should do. Honestly, I'm ignorant of a lot of things going on with the Middle East, Islam, and many other things. Just thinking and trying to figure out where I stand on some of these issues. Sorry if it seemed I was putting words in your mouth. Jihadist terrorism is something that the West will always be unable to defeat. Western attacks play into their rhetoric, as does the collateral damage of warfare, and we can never kill them all. There are always new leaders to take the old ones' place. The best we can ever do is force them to change their tactics, force them underground for awhile, and try to interdict attacks against us. Saudi Arabia, specifically the House of Saud, can actually do something meaningful about it. They can act to forcefully crush ISIS (sending a resonant message through the Muslim world), and they can denounce Salafism/Wahhabism (where this fundamentalist interpretation of Islam comes from). It's time for us to stop letting Saudi Arabia play both sides: join the modern world, or leave it behind. Nah, I didn't think you were putting words in my mouth. I was just clarifying. It's an intriguing argument you're making. I wonder how much political pressure is being brought to bear on the Saudis? None that is meaningful. Using Saudi Arabia's influence in the Muslim world to contain other 'isms in the region was always more important to the West than addressing the core of Wahhabism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.