The recent actions of Isis [Archive]

Vlerchan

September 5th, 2014, 03:55 AM

thatcountrykid

September 5th, 2014, 07:37 AM

ISIL's only recent actions are losing ground to Iraqi and Kursih forces [1] (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28987837)[2] (http://www.eurasiareview.com/29082014-iraqi-forces-retake-al-hamra/)[3] (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/02/iraqi-forces-regain-control-key-road-baghdad-from-isis).

The above can note that I do support ISIL being defeated in Iraq and Syria (and have a lot longer than them - I've been supporting Asaad since evidence pointing to the fundamentalist Islamic nature of the opposition came to light) but that doesn't mean that I'm comfortable to start committing American, etc. soldiers - for reasons I've outlined before.

---

thatcountrykid, are you taking issue with ISIL's mistreatment of POWs?

What about ISIL capturing airfields in Libya. Or what about them selling the yazidi women in Syria. Or the execution of hundereds a of Iraqi recruits. Imprisoning people for leaving stores open during prayer. Or whipping women who don't cover their whole body. I'd say of we got involved it needs to be now. Isis is starting to fight like an organized army with artillery and heavy weapons.

Vlerchan

September 5th, 2014, 08:06 AM

What about ISIL capturing airfields in Libya.
That wasn't ISIL. That was another group of Islamic-leaning insurgents.

It should be noted that the current problem stems from Western-backed efforts to solve the last problem.

Or what about them selling the yazidi women in Syria.
Everyone knows that ISIL are a contemptible organisation.

My point was that they're losing ground and Western intervention doesn't seem necessary.

Or the execution of hundereds a of Iraqi recruits.
Everyone knows that ISIL are a contemptible organisation.

My point was that they're losing ground and Western intervention doesn't seem necessary.

Imprisoning people for leaving stores open during prayer.
Everyone knows that ISIL are a contemptible organisation.

My point was that they're losing ground and Western intervention doesn't seem necessary.

Or whipping women who don't cover their whole body.
Everyone knows that ISIL are a contemptible organisation.

My point was that they're losing ground and Western intervention doesn't seem necessary.

I'd say of we got involved it needs to be now.
I would appreciate if you expanded on this.

Why are these human rights abuses worse than others committed across the world that you don't want to intervene in. I consider the term 'others' to encompass those committed by the US in Guantamano Bay and elsewhere.

Isis is starting to fight like an organized army with artillery and heavy weapons.
It's been using them for a while now. From what I read it doesn't have the expertise to maintain them though.

It's also starting to lose to powers based in the middle east, so how it's fighting style is changing or whatever is irrelevant in my opinion.

---

edit: You also didn't answer my question:

"thatcountrykid, are you taking issue with ISIL's mistreatment of POWs?"

Harry Smith

September 5th, 2014, 09:25 AM

For some reason we're the bad people for wanting to fight and end the people who are commuting genocide, selling women to slavery, and committing endless "war crimes" that the liberals on this site are always screaming the us supposedly commits.

A good act doesn't wash out the bad.

There's no supposedly about it, the US government have committed war crimes.

What liberals are you talking about? I think very few members of this board actually call themselves liberal.

I support air strikes on ISIS in Iraq to prevent genocide, we need to let the Iraqis do the ground fighting

Well, I'd prefer killing every single one of those camel fucking bastards, but apparently that opinion isn't widely accepted.

So the answer to genocide is a racial slur?

phuckphace

September 5th, 2014, 11:57 AM

Well, I'd prefer killing every single one of those camel fucking bastards, but apparently that opinion isn't widely accepted.

just as long as you didn't have to watch and/or push the button, right?

I know you want to feel like the next Genghis Khan but if you really had the opportunity to kill hundreds of millions of people I don't think you'd take it.

Gamma Male

September 5th, 2014, 12:23 PM

Western intervention is what lead to the creation of ISIS.

Also, I STILL haven't received a satisfactory answer as to why we should invade the middle east to stop the bloodshed, but just ignore the massacres going on in Africa. I'm assuming it's because the middle east has more oil pipelines.

phuckphace

September 5th, 2014, 12:32 PM

Also, I STILL haven't received a satisfactory answer as to why we should invade the middle east to stop the bloodshed, but just ignore the massacres going on in Africa. I'm assuming it's because the middle east has more oil pipelines.

because Israel isn't in Africa

thatcountrykid

September 5th, 2014, 12:42 PM

A good act doesn't wash out the bad.

There's no supposedly about it, the US government have committed war crimes.

What liberals are you talking about? I think very few members of this board actually call themselves liberal.

I support air strikes on ISIS in Iraq to prevent genocide, we need to let the Iraqis do the ground fighting

So the answer to genocide is a racial slur?

Personally I don't beleive there are crimes in war. The pout of war is to kill and weaken your enemies by any means necessary. I raw is are not capable of the ground fight. They can stand ground barely and take a few places but would be unable to eradicate Isis.

That wasn't ISIL. That was another group of Islamic-leaning insurgents.

It should be noted that the current problem stems from Western-backed efforts to solve the last problem.

Everyone knows that ISIL are a contemptible organisation.

My point was that they're losing ground and Western intervention doesn't seem necessary.

Everyone knows that ISIL are a contemptible organisation.

My point was that they're losing ground and Western intervention doesn't seem necessary.

Everyone knows that ISIL are a contemptible organisation.

My point was that they're losing ground and Western intervention doesn't seem necessary.

Everyone knows that ISIL are a contemptible organisation.

My point was that they're losing ground and Western intervention doesn't seem necessary.

I would appreciate if you expanded on this.

Why are these human rights abuses worse than others committed across the world that you don't want to intervene in. I consider the term 'others' to encompass those committed by the US in Guantamano Bay and elsewhere.

It's been using them for a while now. From what I read it doesn't have the expertise to maintain them though.

It's also starting to lose to powers based in the middle east, so how it's fighting style is changing or whatever is irrelevant in my opinion.

---

edit: You also didn't answer my question:

"thatcountrykid, are you taking issue with ISIL's mistreatment of POWs?"

My problem is with Isis genociding people and killing innocent people all in the name of their fucked up religion. I have a problem with them trapping people on a mountain and starving them out. Selling women in Syria. That's my problem. That's why we need to fight them.

Double posts merged. ~Typhlosion

Harry Smith

September 5th, 2014, 12:53 PM

....

http://www.johns-jokes.com/afiles/images/congratulations-dash.png

Personally I don't beleive there are crimes in war. The pout of war is to kill and weaken your enemies by any means necessary

Does that apply to ISIS?

This is like hypocrisy overload

thatcountrykid

September 5th, 2014, 03:31 PM

....

image (http://www.johns-jokes.com/afiles/images/congratulations-dash.png)

Does that apply to ISIS?

This is like hypocrisy overload

I said people like you are always screaming about war crimes when the us supposedly commits them but when someone else does you get mad when the us wants to stop them.

Again like I said I don't beleive there are crimes in war but I know when our allies need help and what is not right and that's what's going on with Isis. They are commiting war crimes. It crimes against humanity.

Southside

September 5th, 2014, 04:27 PM

I said people like you are always screaming about war crimes when the us supposedly commits them but when someone else does you get mad when the us wants to stop them.

Again like I said I don't beleive there are crimes in war but I know when our allies need help and what is not right and that's what's going on with Isis. They are commiting war crimes. It crimes against humanity.

So when we launch a drone missile into a village in Pakistan killing three "terrorist" and 40 civilians, that's not crimes against humanity or war crimes? Of course what ISIS is doing over there are crimes against humanity, its brutal and I disapprove of it but I just don't see why we need to be over there fighting.

What allies are in need of help against ISIS? As far as I know, Jordan or Saudi Arabia hasn't been attacked by ISIS yet, if you're referring to the Iraqi's as our ally then I don't know what else you want us to do to help them. We gave the Iraqi military millions of dollars, years of training, and tons of equipment, and they ran like cowards. Only airstrikes I support are those that are keeping our embassy staff safe.

I just don't know why the US has to be the world police in every conflict, its like 27 other countries in NATO, why cant Germany or Italy go over there?

thatcountrykid

September 5th, 2014, 05:21 PM

So when we launch a drone missile into a village in Pakistan killing three "terrorist" and 40 civilians, that's not crimes against humanity or war crimes? Of course what ISIS is doing over there are crimes against humanity, its brutal and I disapprove of it but I just don't see why we need to be over there fighting.

What allies are in need of help against ISIS? As far as I know, Jordan or Saudi Arabia hasn't been attacked by ISIS yet, if you're referring to the Iraqi's as our ally then I don't know what else you want us to do to help them. We gave the Iraqi military millions of dollars, years of training, and tons of equipment, and they ran like cowards. Only airstrikes I support are those that are keeping our embassy staff safe.

I just don't know why the US has to be the world police in every conflict, its like 27 other countries in NATO, why cant Germany or Italy go over there?

Accidents happen in war and if that was an accident that we compensated for then that's done. Isis commiting genocide isn't an accident. Yes we gave them all that crap but they don't quite know how to fight. They need help. Most people who join their army are simple people who need a job and receive poor training.

America gets involved because if we just stand by and le it happen we are no better then Isis. We know what they are doing is wrong so we are trying to help. I don't see how trying to stop a genocide is being world police.

Southside

September 5th, 2014, 11:35 PM

Accidents happen in war and if that was an accident that we compensated for then that's done. Isis commiting genocide isn't an accident. Yes we gave them all that crap but they don't quite know how to fight. They need help. Most people who join their army are simple people who need a job and receive poor training.

America gets involved because if we just stand by and le it happen we are no better then Isis. We know what they are doing is wrong so we are trying to help. I don't see how trying to stop a genocide is being world police.

An "accident" is once or twice, we've killed between 400 and 950 over 5 years of drone operations. We might not be cutting peoples heads off or crucifying people but I don't see why you're not calling out our own flaws. I'm usually not one to bring oil into the discusses but that's why, ISIS is making millions off black market oil. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/iraq-crisis-isis-sells-stolen-crude-oil-raising-over-1-million-per-day-1462389

Why didn't we attack the Assad regime in the last couple years when his forces were shooting down NATO jets and slaughtering civilians with snipers in the streets? Wasn't he committing genocide?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/23/obama-drone-program-anniversary_n_4654825.html[/url]

Harry Smith

September 6th, 2014, 06:03 AM

Again like I said I don't beleive there are crimes in war. They are commiting war crimes. It crimes against humanity.

That sums up the debate for me. Your a hyporcite if you actually believe what you say.

You can't legally justify intervention on the basis of 'war crimes' if you refuse to then admit that war crimes admit. It's made worse by the fact that you simply refuse to accept that the US commits bad acts around the world, yet you jump onto the information about ISIS.

The other thing I'm sure many other posters are worried about is the fact that we can see the wider conflict-we can see that it isn't just a case of ISIS. It's the case that these groups were supported by the CIA, the saudi Arabians and other western powers. The problem with US foreign policy is that you lot are happy to control groups whether its in Libya or Iraq, you want men to do your dirty work but the moment these groups try and and turn against you the US suddenly decides to have a moral compass.

Lets not try and bullshit here-there's two reasons why the US care about ISIS-Oil and Strategic positions. We invaded Iraq in 2003 and you want to regain your puppet in the region. I'm not saying that ISIS are a movement of the people but it's clear that this has parallels with both Iran and South Vietnam-you need to have ground support from the people to win the war, and I'm not sure that US troops shouting racial slurs is actually going to change that.

We all know ISIS are terrible, but please don't pretend that they're the only group in the world that commit these sorts of acts-the Rwandan forces in 1998 committed terrible acts in the Congo war where they butchered entire refugee camps whilst the US stood by and supported it, the US watched and supported Saddam Hussein when he gassed the Iranians. Don't pretend that the US has a moral compass when it stood by and watched Gaza burn

You also have to look at the fact that Obama is the 4th US president to attack Iraq in a row-you've been attacking them for over 24 years and something quite clearly hasn't worked.

Lets get a mandate from the UN to carry out air strikes to protect civilians, lets give support for the Kurds but I don't support sending in US troops for the 3rd time because it quite clearly doesn't work. We need a long term action plan for the Middle east

Sir Suomi

September 6th, 2014, 12:45 PM

So the answer to genocide is a racial slur?

just as long as you didn't have to watch and/or push the button, right?

I know you want to feel like the next Genghis Khan but if you really had the opportunity to kill hundreds of millions of people I don't think you'd take it.

So you're not smart enough to realize I was talking about the ISIS militants, which is roughly 10,00. And I'm pretty sure after they've executed two Americans publicly, calling them names is the not even close to what they really deserve.

Harry Smith

September 6th, 2014, 02:13 PM

I'm pretty sure after they've executed two Americans publicly, calling them names is the not even close to what they really deserve.

You can't justify intervention on the basis of two dead Americans in my view, I'd rather the intervention is justified on the basis of preventing a genocide

Sir Suomi

September 6th, 2014, 10:21 PM

You can't justify intervention on the basis of two dead Americans in my view, I'd rather the intervention is justified on the basis of preventing a genocide

Which I've been saying this whole damn time

Harry Smith

September 7th, 2014, 01:45 AM

Which I've been saying this whole damn time

No, you've been advocating the entire destruction of ISIS.

I'd also argue that support for intervention is admitting that US foreign policy has failed for the last 10 years

Left Now

September 7th, 2014, 03:52 AM

No, you've been advocating the entire destruction of ISIS.

I'd also argue that support for intervention is admitting that US foreign policy has failed for the last 10 years

Well,it has failed.

Sir Suomi

September 7th, 2014, 04:15 PM

No, you've been advocating the entire destruction of ISIS.

I'm done. Seriously, I'm not even going to try to correct you there. That statement is beyond hope of recovery.

Harry Smith

September 8th, 2014, 12:59 AM

I'm done. Seriously, I'm not even going to try to correct you there. That statement is beyond hope of recovery.

Why do 95% of your arguments end up like this? There's a clear difference between the protection of civilians and the destruction of ISIS-to destroy ISIS we'd need to attack Syria-and that's something I don't support

I've yet to to the see the any answers about the major issues in Iraq, you can't fix all the problems in the Middle East with air strikes. The only way that support for ISIS will go away is if we can get the support of the Sunni Tribal leaders who turned against AL-Qaeda in 2007

Left Now

September 8th, 2014, 02:16 AM

The only way that support for ISIS will go away is if we can get the support of the Sunni Tribal leaders who turned against AL-Qaeda in 2007

It's not just this simple Harry.Al-Qaeda was known as an extremist Sunni terrorist organization,but ISIL or ISIS or Daesh is something even beyond it.

They might be known as another extremist Sunni terrorist group in the past,but now they even do not accept the major principles of Sunni Islam,so get the support of Sunni Tribal leaders may be useful but doesn't do much work.

I believe there is only one way to tear ISIL apart,and that is putting doubt and fear in the hearts of their minor recruits who make up the majority of their forces.

Harry Smith

September 8th, 2014, 08:53 AM

It's not just this simple Harry.Al-Qaeda was known as an extremist Sunni terrorist organization,but ISIL or ISIS or Daesh is something even beyond it.

They might be known as another extremist Sunni terrorist group in the past,but now they even do not accept the major principles of Sunni Islam,so get the support of Sunni Tribal leaders may be useful but doesn't do much work.

I believe there is only one way to tear ISIL apart,and that is putting doubt and fear in the hearts of their minor recruits who make up the majority of their forces.

You need the support of sunni tribal leaders because these tribal leaders were helping ISIS however they've now turned (like most of the Arab world)

The US forces in Iraq in 2007 managed to get support from these sunni forces who saw Al-Qaeda as too extreme and it greatly helped

Left Now

September 8th, 2014, 10:54 AM

You need the support of sunni tribal leaders because these tribal leaders were helping ISIS however they've now turned (like most of the Arab world)

The US forces in Iraq in 2007 managed to get support from these sunni forces who saw Al-Qaeda as too extreme and it greatly helped

Of course it can help very much,but it's simply not enough for abolishing ISIL.If we really want ISIL lose its influence and power in region,we need to show that their ideology is a failure,and it's not possible unless you want to fight them with Islamic Ideology itself.

Should I explain what I mean by "Islamic Ideology itself"?

Harry Smith

September 8th, 2014, 10:57 AM

Of course it can help very much,but it's simply not enough for abolishing ISIL.If we really want ISIL lose its influence and power in region,we need to show that their ideology is a failure,and it's not possible unless you want to fight them with Islamic Ideology itself.

Should I explain what I mean by "Islamic Ideology itself"?

I know that a number of 'radical' Islamic preachers who have supported terrorism in the pass claim that ISIS are Islamic because they're killing journalists.

The irony is that most of the foreign fighters from this country have no idea about Islam

Left Now

September 8th, 2014, 11:13 AM

I know that a number of 'radical' Islamic preachers who have supported terrorism in the pass claim that ISIS are Islamic because they're killing journalists.

The irony is that most of the foreign fighters from this country have no idea about Islam

That's right!They claim that they are fighting for Islam while most of them are just following the orders of some radical preachers.If we be able to make them understand that their Ideology is not Islamic and cause them doubt about their way and their beliefs,then they can easily be dealt with even in non-violent ways.

However,unfortunately until medias and others are calling them "Islamists","Jihadists","Islamic State" and ... it's not possible to convince them that their ideology and their beliefs are not Islamic,and they will never start to think about what they are doing right now.

One of the ways which we can make them doubt their beliefs is to let Muslims (mostly Sunnis) themselves stand against them,and that's exactly what you said about getting the support of Sunni Tribal leaders;however,it's just one of its ways...

peyton2000

September 8th, 2014, 12:36 PM

It's sad and dangerous my dad's in the military and there working on some kind of team to monitor isis. I swear if they send him over seas again I'll flip

Broken Toy

September 8th, 2014, 04:15 PM

I cant stand when people make uninformed statements about Islam. Im not attacking anyone here but the fact is, most people will take their opinions based on newspapers and they are awfully one sided.
Example: in England the sun newspaper reported a story about a man who turned muslim (which wasn't important) and was insane and beheaded a woman while ranting about cats. The paper reported it as "muslim convert beheads woman" its ridiculous.
I known this isn't related to isis but i think everyone who wants to kill all Muslims (genocide, like what the few radicals want) is missing the fact British soldiers were slaughtered in the 1600s when we tried to convert them in the middle east. I think its important to remember radicals make up 0.01% of muslims

AgentHomo

September 12th, 2014, 12:15 PM

Honestly, ISIS doesn't pose a threat to the US. They are no more of a threat than a neutralized Al-Qaeda. It's the right wing that seeks to instill fear into the citizens and scare us into going into another pointless war with radicals for no reason other than to have another war over oil. History repeats itself and I won't be surprised that when Obama leaves another republican will take over, antagonize ISIS to commit another 9/11 and start ANOTHER oil war.

Vlerchan

September 12th, 2014, 04:47 PM

History repeats itself and I won't be surprised that when Obama leaves another republican will take over, antagonize ISIS to commit another 9/11 and start ANOTHER oil war.
Obama's already on it.

[...]

First, we will conduct a systematic campaign of airstrikes against these terrorists. Working alongside the Iraqi government, we'll expand our efforts beyond protecting our own people to hit ISIL targets as Iraqi forces go on offense. And we will continue to hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, whether in Iraq or Syria. They will learn what leaders of other terrorist organizations have already learned: If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.

Second, we will increase our support to the forces fighting these terrorists on the ground. We will send an additional 475 service members to Iraq to support Iraqi and Kurdish security forces. These American forces will not have a combat mission. But they are needed to support Iraqi and Kurdish forces with training, intelligence, and equipment -- and tonight, I again called on Congress to give our military the additional authorities and resources it needs to train and equip the Syrian opposition fighters.

Third, working with our partners, we will continue to draw on our substantial counterterrorism capabilities to prevent ISIL attacks. Working with our partners, we will redouble our efforts to cut off its funding, counter its warped ideology, improve our intelligence, strengthen our defenses, and stem the flow of foreign fighters into and out of the Middle East.

And fourth, we will continue to provide humanitarian assistance to the innocent civilians displaced by this terrorism organization. This includes Sunni and Shia Muslims who have borne the brunt of this terror, as well as tens of thousands of Christians and other religious minorities.

[...]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/09/10/president-obama-we-will-degrade-and-ultimately-destroy-isil

Sir Suomi

September 13th, 2014, 11:22 AM

Why do 95% of your arguments end up like this? There's a clear difference between the protection of civilians and the destruction of ISIS-to destroy ISIS we'd need to attack Syria-and that's something I don't support

Because that's what your responses do to me Harry.

Stronk Serb

September 13th, 2014, 06:50 PM

Obama's already on it.

[...]

First, we will conduct a systematic campaign of airstrikes against these terrorists. Working alongside the Iraqi government, we'll expand our efforts beyond protecting our own people to hit ISIL targets as Iraqi forces go on offense. And we will continue to hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, whether in Iraq or Syria. They will learn what leaders of other terrorist organizations have already learned: If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.

Second, we will increase our support to the forces fighting these terrorists on the ground. We will send an additional 475 service members to Iraq to support Iraqi and Kurdish security forces. These American forces will not have a combat mission. But they are needed to support Iraqi and Kurdish forces with training, intelligence, and equipment -- and tonight, I again called on Congress to give our military the additional authorities and resources it needs to train and equip the Syrian opposition fighters.

Third, working with our partners, we will continue to draw on our substantial counterterrorism capabilities to prevent ISIL attacks. Working with our partners, we will redouble our efforts to cut off its funding, counter its warped ideology, improve our intelligence, strengthen our defenses, and stem the flow of foreign fighters into and out of the Middle East.

And fourth, we will continue to provide humanitarian assistance to the innocent civilians displaced by this terrorism organization. This includes Sunni and Shia Muslims who have borne the brunt of this terror, as well as tens of thousands of Christians and other religious minorities.

[...]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/09/10/president-obama-we-will-degrade-and-ultimately-destroy-isil

Here goes the 2002 invasion all over again. How did they threaten America? They're a bigger threat to Turkey and Saudi Arabia than the USA, heck it even isn't on the map of their caliphate, while southern Russia and west China is and they keep their cool. Also the regional powers of the Middle East can handle this, in a better way too. The airstrikes are enough, the training personnel too.

Edit: I misread the news. I realized now that there will be no ground assault.

Vlerchan

September 13th, 2014, 06:54 PM

Here goes the 2002 invasion all over again.
He states further down (not included in the extracted I posted) that it will not be like Iraq and Afghanistan in that he won't have ground troops carrying out missions. He states in the extract what his ground troops will actually be doing.

Stronk Serb

September 13th, 2014, 07:02 PM

He states further down (not included in the extracted I posted) that it will not be like Iraq and Afghanistan in that he won't have ground troops carrying out missions. He states in the extract what his ground troops will actually be doing.

Yeah, I misread that. My bad. It's good that the US will not burst in guns-blazing on full-auto like they did in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Harry Smith

September 14th, 2014, 07:08 AM

He states further down (not included in the extracted I posted) that it will not be like Iraq and Afghanistan in that he won't have ground troops carrying out missions. He states in the extract what his ground troops will actually be doing.

Australia stated this morning that they're sending 500 troops to the region, I wouldn't be surprised if we have boots on the ground within the next month

Paladino

September 14th, 2014, 10:53 AM

I don't care if it is morally wrong, Jihadi John should be captured, brought to UK soil and TORTURED until he reveals all the Isis secrets he knows. We need to get rid of these cunts from society and stop them from killing innocent people.

Harry Smith

September 14th, 2014, 11:11 AM

Paladino

September 14th, 2014, 11:17 AM

It would be a start

Sir Suomi

September 14th, 2014, 05:22 PM

TORTURED

Or as we call it in America, "Cuban persuasion"

Gamma Male

September 14th, 2014, 05:24 PM

Sir Suomi

September 14th, 2014, 05:31 PM

Yeah, that definitely wouldn't just create more terrorists.

Honestly what foreign policy decision we make in the Middle East doesn't ruffle the jimmies of some Johnny Jihadi somewhere?

Gamma Male

September 14th, 2014, 05:33 PM

Honestly what foreign policy decision we make in the Middle East doesn't ruffle the jimmies of some Johnny Jihadi somewhere?

Well, staying out, minding our own business, not torturing people, and not killing innocent bystanders "by accident" would probably go over pretty well.

Sir Suomi

September 14th, 2014, 05:37 PM

Well, staying out, minding our own business, not torturing people, and not killing innocent bystanders "by accident" would probably go over pretty well.

Honestly, at this stage of the game, staying uninvolved is pretty much impossible, from a national security standpoint. We've pissed off one too many goat herders, and allowing radical Islamic states exist is simply not acceptable. I mean, look what happened when we "stayed out" of the Taliban's rise to power originally.

Vlerchan

September 14th, 2014, 05:49 PM

We've pissed off one too many goat herders, and allowing radical Islamic states exist is simply not acceptable.
When ISIL manages to actually consolidate a state then I might start thinking along the same lines as you. At the moment however, ISIL are being pushed back by joined Iraqi-Kurdish forces (with aid from US air-strikes), and are losing ground, fast. You don't even need the Iranians to head in-proper on this one.

The American air attacks have increased and put ISIL (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant) on the defensive. There have been about 150 American air attacks since they began on August 8 th and now occur everywhere ISIL has forces in Iraq. Thus in the last month ISIL has lost control of a major dam, a refinery and major oil fields around Kirkuk. ISIL is also losing control of the oil smuggling operation it had established in Syria and western Iraq. The attack against the Haditha dam includes local Sunni tribal militiamen who have refused to join ISIL. Many Sunni tribes backed away from supporting ISIL or agreed to work with the government. Haditha is the second largest dam in the country in terms of hydroelectric power and water supply.

http://www.aina.org/news/20140908140359.htm

edit: I also believe that the Iranians and Syrians could be bombing ISIL positions just as well, before you bring that up.

I mean, look what happened when we "stayed out" of the Taliban's rise to power originally.
You can't be being serious here?

Gamma Male

September 14th, 2014, 05:50 PM

Honestly, at this stage of the game, staying uninvolved is pretty much impossible, from a national security standpoint. We've pissed off one too many goat herders, and allowing radical Islamic states exist is simply not acceptable. I mean, look what happened when we "stayed out" of the Taliban's rise to power originally.

The Persian Golf war is what started this whole mess. We never ever should've had anything to do with it. When there's an election dispute or riot over here you don't see the president of China or some shit coming over to help us sort out are problems. There's a reason they hate us.

Now, at this point the best thing we could do is cut all ties with our middle eastern "friends", including Israel, immediately issue an apology to the global community, and withdraw all military support everywhere in the middle east. Humanitarian support will continue, and if in the future the UN votes to maybe send in a peace keeping force then we'll just deal with that then. Further military action isn't going to accomplish anything other than passing more people off and getting more innocents killed and costing us more money.

Sir Suomi

September 14th, 2014, 06:01 PM

The Persian Golf war is what started this whole mess. We never ever should've had anything to do with it

I can actually agree with this statement.

My point is though it's easier said than done to remove our presence from the Middle East. It's still a hotspot for terrorist activities, and I'd rather have Jonny Jihad get 3 to the chest there than have him plotting terror attacks against Western powers. This doesn't mean needing stand combat troops in, but more of smaller, more specially trained units, such as Task Force 88, which are basically are our terrorist headhunters, a joint op from JSOC and SAS.

Harry Smith

September 15th, 2014, 01:32 AM

Honestly what foreign policy decision we make in the Middle East doesn't ruffle the jimmies of some Johnny Jihadi somewhere?

I believe a decision to pull out of the Middle east wouldn't ruffle as feathers-much like Spain did after 2005

Or as we call it in America, "Cuban persuasion"

Ah cuba: the evil socialist hell where the US tortures it's enemies

Honestly, at this stage of the game, staying uninvolved is pretty much impossible, from a national security standpoint. We've pissed off one too many goat herders, and allowing radical Islamic states exist is simply not acceptable. I mean, look what happened when we "stayed out" of the Taliban's rise to power originally.

I agree with the first point-it's too late just to sit back and do nothing

On the Taliban and their rise, the US were very very very much involved in it-they gave the funding, training and support for the Taliban. The irony is that in Afganistan during the 70's/80's the USSR were supporting the secular, pro women regime whilst the US was supporting the Islamic government in exile

TL;DR: We supported the bad guys

The Persian Golf war is what started this whole mess. We never ever should've had anything to do with it. When there's an election dispute or riot over here you don't see the president of China or some shit coming over to help us sort out are problems. There's a reason they hate us.

Now, at this point the best thing we could do is cut all ties with our middle eastern "friends", including Israel, immediately issue an apology to the global community, and withdraw all military support everywhere in the middle east. Humanitarian support will continue, and if in the future the UN votes to maybe send in a peace keeping force then we'll just deal with that then. Further military action isn't going to accomplish anything other than passing more people off and getting more innocents killed and costing us more money.

The big problem in the Gulf War was that we based our troops in Saudi Arabia to protect the oil fields which pissed of the extremists.

It's a good example of the intervention for the right reason in the wrong location: What Saddam did was illegal and wrong but the US didn't stop him when he tried to do it 10 years earlier to Iran-it's similar to ISIS, we're doing something that can be seen as morally right we're just doing it for self serving interests

I can actually agree with this statement.

My point is though it's easier said than done to remove our presence from the Middle East. It's still a hotspot for terrorist activities, and I'd rather have Jonny Jihad get 3 to the chest there than have him plotting terror attacks against Western powers. This doesn't mean needing stand combat troops in, but more of smaller, more specially trained units, such as Task Force 88, which are basically are our terrorist headhunters, a joint op from JSOC and SAS.

The majority of terrorist attacks aren't planned in the Middle east-it's a myth peddled by the Bush administration. Looking at both 9/11 and 7/7 they were both planned in mainland europe e.g Spain and London. The biggest problem isn't Saudi terrorists-it's idiots who see something on twitter and then want to look impressive:like the one we had last year where two blokes want around with knines.

There's still one issue that makes us hated:support for Israel. That's why I believe we should take a Gaullist route and cut off support.

I haven't even started on Iran

phuckphace

September 15th, 2014, 09:48 AM

you know, when you really start to think about it, and you finally grasp the size of the abortion that is the War on Terrur, that it becomes truly mind-boggling. murrica has spent 10 years, literally over 9001 American lives, Allah knows how many civilians, and more than a few giga-dollars trying to magically stabilize the region by haplessly murdering the locals and removing the regime that had served to suppress extremist activity before.

funfax: in Saddam's Iraq you could walk around safely at night without fear of getting mugged, and most people didn't lock their doors when they left their homes. but that's lame, I'd rather live in a war zone and get gunned down because the dumb teenager from Kentucky in the helicopter thinks my camera is an RPG.

p.s. reminds me, I need to make a Bashar al-Assad appreciation thread sometime.

TL;DR: We supported the bad guys

just like in WWII amirite?! (just kidding)

Harry Smith

September 15th, 2014, 11:17 AM

just like in WWII amirite?! (just kidding)

Funnily enough a friend of my dads's who visited Germany was told many times that the English and Germans should of joined up to defeat communism

thatcountrykid

September 15th, 2014, 09:47 PM

The Persian Golf war is what started this whole mess. We never ever should've had anything to do with it. When there's an election dispute or riot over here you don't see the president of China or some shit coming over to help us sort out are problems. There's a reason they hate us.

Now, at this point the best thing we could do is cut all ties with our middle eastern "friends", including Israel, immediately issue an apology to the global community, and withdraw all military support everywhere in the middle east. Humanitarian support will continue, and if in the future the UN votes to maybe send in a peace keeping force then we'll just deal with that then. Further military action isn't going to accomplish anything other than passing more people off and getting more innocents killed and costing us more money.

Cutting ties with Israel would be a huge mistake.

Harry Smith

September 16th, 2014, 12:54 AM

Cutting ties with Israel would be a huge mistake.

Was cutting ties with apartheid south Africa a mistake?

Lovelife090994

September 16th, 2014, 04:40 AM

Was cutting ties with apartheid south Africa a mistake?

Israel is like a safe-haven, South Africa was corrupted by European racists.

Cpt_Cutter

September 16th, 2014, 04:51 AM

Israel is like a safe-haven, South Africa was corrupted by European racists.

Handy hint, Dont get in an argument with Harry about Israel. Some people are set on their Ideals, and he is Very set on that one.

thatcountrykid

September 16th, 2014, 07:18 AM

Was cutting ties with apartheid south Africa a mistake?

I can't say I aware of the situation in South Africa so I can say.

Harry Smith

September 16th, 2014, 11:01 AM

Israel is like a safe-haven, South Africa was corrupted by European racists.

What about the prosecution of christian arabs by the Israelis?

Handy hint, Dont get in an argument with Harry about Israel. Some people are set on their Ideals, and he is Very set on that one.

Look at my first posts on this forum about Israel, I'm hardly set in my ideals considering I came to the forum as strong Israeli supporter. It's ironic to say I'm set on my ideals when israel supporters seem to ignore international law

I'm pro israel due to the cold hard fact that they are our ally in the region which is extremely anti britain. I also think that Israel for its land mass and economy has the best military in the world

I can't say I aware of the situation in South Africa so I can say.

South Africa was a US/UK backed regime that was carried out the apartheid, seen as 'anti communism' so we supported it, public turned against it in the 80's-western countries set up trade embargo's and stopped supporting South Africa.

Although it's crashed post Mandela (after 1994)

Lovelife090994

September 16th, 2014, 02:11 PM

Handy hint, Dont get in an argument with Harry about Israel. Some people are set on their Ideals, and he is Very set on that one.

We all are set in our ways in some way.

What about the prosecution of christian arabs by the Israelis?

Look at my first posts on this forum about Israel, I'm hardly set in my ideals considering I came to the forum as strong Israeli supporter. It's ironic to say I'm set on my ideals when israel supporters seem to ignore international law

South Africa was a US/UK backed regime that was carried out the apartheid, seen as 'anti communism' so we supported it, public turned against it in the 80's-western countries set up trade embargo's and stopped supporting South Africa.

Although it's crashed post Mandela (after 1994)

You do realize that Christians are persecuted all over the world? There is a history of persecution with Christians from Japan to Persia, to Rome, to Scandanavia, to Britian, to every other place where Christians were seen as "different".

Harry Smith

September 16th, 2014, 02:20 PM

We all are set in our ways in some way.

You do realize that Christians are persecuted all over the world? There is a history of persecution with Christians from Japan to Persia, to Rome, to Scandanavia, to Britian, to every other place where Christians were seen as "different".

I know, the issue is that many Christians think that Israel is a defender of the Jewish and christian faith when in fact a number of jews have spoken out against Israel and it's aggression in the last couple of months

Lovelife090994

September 16th, 2014, 02:46 PM

I know, the issue is that many Christians think that Israel is a defender of the Jewish and christian faith when in fact a number of jews have spoken out against Israel and it's aggression in the last couple of months

Last couple of months is the key here. Israel was formed to safeguard Jews and other religious groups so that another Holocaust couldn't happen. And last I checked, Jews and Christians are supposed to love and respect one another.

Harry Smith

September 16th, 2014, 02:57 PM

Last couple of months is the key here. Israel was formed to safeguard Jews and other religious groups so that another Holocaust couldn't happen. And last I checked, Jews and Christians are supposed to love and respect one another.

Everyone on this board accepts that Israel has a right to exist,we all agree with that. The issue the last couple of months and actions that many people simply can't endorse.

So when Jews bomb the Arab Christians?

Lovelife090994

September 16th, 2014, 05:31 PM

Everyone on this board accepts that Israel has a right to exist,we all agree with that. The issue the last couple of months and actions that many people simply can't endorse.

So when Jews bomb the Arab Christians?

When have Jews, not terrorists, Jews, bombed Christians? It goes against their beliefs and technically their history.

Harry Smith

September 16th, 2014, 05:44 PM

When have Jews, not terrorists, Jews, bombed Christians? It goes against their beliefs and technically their history.

Not Jews per say-Israel.

I think you're struggling to understand that not every Israeli is Jewish, but I phrased it badly. You'll like this article

http://www.christianpost.com/news/palestinian-christian-western-christians-dont-understand-gaza-israeli-conflict-123272/

Lovelife090994

September 16th, 2014, 06:40 PM

Not Jews per say-Israel.

I think you're struggling to understand that not every Israeli is Jewish, but I phrased it badly. You'll like this article

http://www.christianpost.com/news/palestinian-christian-western-christians-dont-understand-gaza-israeli-conflict-123272/

I am aware not every Israeli is Jewish but ethnically an Israeli is Hebrew or in other words, a Jew. True, not every person in Israel is a Jew but if a terror group in Israel is out to get Christians then that evil act is the responsibility of the terrorists! Just because a gang or such exists in your country doesn't mean the country started it. Take America, all these gangs yet we don't want them either and you can't blame America because the Mafia killed your mother. The Mafia did this, not the representation of the State.

Sir Suomi

September 16th, 2014, 09:39 PM

I believe a decision to pull out of the Middle east wouldn't ruffle as feathers-much like Spain did after 2005

Oh I agree to an extent. We shouldn't have kept such a large occupying force in the region really much past '05 or '06. That's the administration's fault.

Ah cuba: the evil socialist hell where the US tortures it's enemies

All in the name of freedom, right? Although we did get some critical information out of some of the captives, more often than not we just got some Turban-Head that didn't know jack shit.

I agree with the first point-it's too late just to sit back and do nothing

On the Taliban and their rise, the US were very very very much involved in it-they gave the funding, training and support for the Taliban. The irony is that in Afganistan during the 70's/80's the USSR were supporting the secular, pro women regime whilst the US was supporting the Islamic government in exile

TL;DR: We supported the bad guys

Granted, supporting the Mujahideen in their war against Russia was pretty dumb, and pretty much was based on the fact that they were fighting Russia. But we didn't train the Taliban specifically, remember. We trained Mujahideen fighters, which were various factions, which after the removal of Russian forces, fought among themselves. The Taliban rose to power during this time, and through confiscated arms from the defeated mujahideen factions, gained enough firepower to conquer Afghanistan. We put economic sanctions on them after they gained power in (1996, 1997? Can't remember), but that really didn't do anything to stop their treatments of their citizens.

In all honesty, it was those bastards in Saudi Arabia that gave them the funds to do their deeds. Now THOSE are the bastards that supported( and still do) the bad guys.

TLDR; Nuh-uh, and the Saudi's are assholes.

The big problem in the Gulf War was that we based our troops in Saudi Arabia to protect the oil fields which pissed of the extremists.

And ironically Saudi Arabia is one of the world's worst nations we could ever support.

It's a good example of the intervention for the right reason in the wrong location: What Saddam did was illegal and wrong but the US didn't stop him when he tried to do it 10 years earlier to Iran-it's similar to ISIS, we're doing something that can be seen as morally right we're just doing it for self serving interests

So are you saying we just stand back and watch thousands get butchered?

There's still one issue that makes us hated:support for Israel. That's why I believe we should take a Gaullist route and cut off support.

While I disagree with your solution, I can agree that Israel has definitely given the United States enough headaches.

I haven't even started on Iran
I'd prefer not to. Broken Pen might want to stone me death afterwards.

Harry Smith

September 17th, 2014, 12:27 AM

So are you saying we just stand back and watch thousands get butchered?

Nah, I'm just saying that we shouldn't see this as the gallant western world saving the day-there's probably about 4 main reason we're going in, ranked they are
1) Obama wanting to secure his legacy, stop midterms being a disaster etc
2) Protecting a regional ally who the US have spend billions supporting (Iraq)
3) Protecing Iraqi oil
4) Protecting middle eastern allies

Like I get that ISIS are bad and all that-I just don't think that the US is doing this out of generosity.

if a terror group in Israel is out to get Christians then that evil act is the responsibility of the terrorists! Just because a gang or such exists in your country doesn't mean the country started it. Take America, all these gangs yet we don't want them either and you can't blame America because the Mafia killed your mother. The Mafia did this, not the representation of the State.

I'm talking about a gang, I'm saying that the Israeli Military has been killing large amounts of Christians in it's policy of the last 10 years

Lovelife090994

September 17th, 2014, 02:44 AM

Nah, I'm just saying that we shouldn't see this as the gallant western world saving the day-there's probably about 4 main reason we're going in, ranked they are
1) Obama wanting to secure his legacy, stop midterms being a disaster etc
2) Protecting a regional ally who the US have spend billions supporting (Iraq)
3) Protecing Iraqi oil
4) Protecting middle eastern allies

Like I get that ISIS are bad and all that-I just don't think that the US is doing this out of generosity.

I'm talking about a gang, I'm saying that the Israeli Military has been killing large amounts of Christians in it's policy of the last 10 years

Then hate the military, not all of Israel and it's inhabitants.

Left Now

September 17th, 2014, 03:53 AM

I'd prefer not to. Broken Pen might want to stone me death afterwards.

Haha;It wasn't a very good joke.

Stronk Serb

September 17th, 2014, 07:49 AM

Then hate the military, not all of Israel and it's inhabitants.

For the millionth time... We don't hate Israel as a whole. Just the government and military. What Nazinyahu is doing to the Arabs is similar to what Hitler was doing to the Jews in before he opened the death camps. Herd them up in ghettos, make them second-class citizems and enforce it with an iron fist.

phuckphace

September 17th, 2014, 08:15 AM

Funnily enough a friend of my dads's who visited Germany was told many times that the English and Germans should of joined up to defeat communism

that's exactly what I would've done (after assassinating Hitler and replacing him with Erwin Rommel). NatSoc lite + alliance with Germoney = shit would have been cash

Cutting ties with Israel would be a huge mistake.

in what universe? because in this one, Israel's meddling in our politics for self-serving reasons is a pretty damn good reason to tell them to fuck off.

Was cutting ties with apartheid south Africa a mistake?

no ("pointless" is the right word) but one can't deny that the embargoes were done only for the purpose of smug posturing and really didn't change anything anyway. IIRC the economic impact was minimal, and basically amounted to putting on a T-shirt that says "I REALLY REALLY DON'T LIKE YOU AND I REALLY WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE AWARE OF THIS, THANKS"

South Africa was corrupted by European racists.

the only kind there is, AMIRITE?! :D