ISIS is a joke!

Post Reply New Topic

That's because the availability of oil actually effects us. It's our lives.

They are most likely still considering Assad an enemy, and the US-backed opposition is actually engaged in the fight against ISIS (and Assad).

Sort of, not really. There really doesn't exist any moderate opposition in Syria, any real moderates would be swiftly beaten by Islamists and their weapons seized. The "moderate" Syrian opposition we've heard so much about beheads more people every month that ISIS. There are no good guys.

How do you know?

Would you like pictures? Videos?

The "moderate opposition" are the ones that sold those Americans to ISIS in the first place, $50,000 a head.

Pretty much all of the opposition to Assad are Islamists, whether or not they belong to ISIS or not. There are multiple agendas here and just because they oppose ISIS doesn't mean they oppose their ideology. The ones that aren't Islamists aren't warriors and have no chance in a fight against them, they'll turn tail and run just like the Iraqi Army if given weapons.

Sounds like you're referring to the al-Nusra Front and their supporters. They are not backed by the US.

There are many groups fighting in Syria, I can't think of any that secular or moderate besides the Kurds who have their own agenda. ISIS, al-Nusra, Islamic Front, FSA. The FSA which we're puts on a smiling face at the top is largely Islamist dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood and cannot control individual brigades of fighters who are almost extremist jihadists. That is who is fighting here, pretending it is anything else is asking for disaster. Businessmen and students aren't soldiers, they stand no chance against these harden Islamists.

Opposition against Assad at this point makes no sense at this point, there is little argument that he is the most moderate and secular force in this conflict and we're merely appeasing the Turks and Arabs who oppose him.

Most of the weapons that ISIS has are from the US, there is no reason to believe that would chance if we sent even more arms to the region. Some other Islamist group defeating them doesn't seem very realistic nor does it make much sense.

Here is a list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ar ... _Civil_War

Speaking of moderate Kurds...

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/perspec ... omber.html

Groups like Boko Haram and al-Shabaab and al-Nusra don't need tanks in order to cause chaos.

On one hand, al-Shabaab have basically been defeated by the Somalian government; on the other, Ansar Dine were defeated by the French military (though in both those cases it remains to be seen what will happen ten years down the line). Both national and international armies can repel Islamists. I don't know enough to say why Ansar Dine failed or why al-Shabaab failed, if there's some important difference between them and ISIS that makes NATO fighting ISIS a bad idea or local armies fighting ISIS a bad idea.

I definitely agree with you that attacking blindly generally makes things worse, I was opposed to intervention in Libya and I was also generally opposed to intervention in Syria, for exactly the reasons you cite - drumming up anti-West sentiment. I just don't think we can sit back and let ISIS commit atrocities. Does allowing the massacre of Shi'a provoke sympathy for Hezbollah and similar, or even the ISIS to Hezbollah's al-Qaeda?

IM(uninformed)O, if the 2003 Iraq War was WWI then we need WWII. By which I mean, we need a Marshall Plan in the Middle East. Let's clear out ISIS and start building schools and hospitals and transport systems in Iraq. The Marshall Plan was the equivalent of $160bn in today's money. That's the military budgets of France, the UK and Germany for one year. Spread it over four years, the business that win the contracts will love us, the individuals that gain employment will love us, those that benefit from the services will love us. Repeat the trick wherever it is practical.

I think it is pretty much wishful thinking to think al-Shabaab or Ansar Dine were really defeated, you can accomplish certain military goals and kill certain leaders sure but Somalia or Mali aren't free and governable now. I don't think anybody argues that we can and should defeat these people on battlefield but that isn't the end of it, what created these groups still exist and I don't see it disappearing or not being a problem any time soon. The US has wiped out most of al-Qaeda but what has that accomplished really? More are joining the Islamist cause today than they were before 2001, we have a group that is more powerful and more extreme than al-Qaeda in ISIS. Its just a never ending game of wack-a-mole, there is no way we can win unless you're willing to permanently occupy the Middle East and fight a perpetual war. How won't that eventually bleed us dry? That's similar to how the Roman Collapsed isn't it? What other options are there?

Ansar Dine is a good example of the type of blowback we can expect from getting involved in these conflicts btw, the weapons from Libyan conflict funneled themselves into Syria, Algeria, Mali, and Nigeria. Libya is in much worse shape than it ever was under Gaddafi, if the NATO didn't get involved and stopped Gaddafi from retaking Benghazi then there would of been no real uprising and the Islamists in Libya and all across northern Africa and the Middle East wouldn't have the foothold that they do now.

And you're right that these groups don't need tanks or conventional military power, that is in part makes them so impossible to contain since they can fight wars with weapons from the Korean war and defeat superpowers. What will our fighting against ISIS realistically accomplish? We can blow up their heavy equipment that they don't need and patrol their streets, you know what their response to that would be? An endless stream of suicide bombs.

We'd be better off stepping back and letting them kill each other until someone wins or the people get tired of it and put an end to it on there own.

Only because of the dictats of super companies whose profits depend on the import of oil. Its high time we weened ourselves off of oil and convert to renewables.

I think it would require a disregard for civilian casualties to fight IS, much like IS itself. Part of me wants to see large-scale strategic bombing like WW2, but I have to question this bloodlust and wonder if it would help anyone at all. Executing hundreds of people at a time calls for something in response, but what would actually make a difference?

Bombing with no regard for the civilians killed by these people, does seem like a pretty unhelpful way to go about it....sure maybe we 'get the terrorists' but are we any better if we just blew up all the people they might have killed/blown up and somehow try to say this was somehow 'defending justice' lol.

It's a stupid thing to cling to however though, since it will run out and is not a renewable resource...time for the world to move past oil and find better resources to replace it with. Not only that but plenty of methods of collecting said oil(or wars related to collecting oil) certainly are not helping the planet, and the health of the planet effects us...its our lives.

isis is a joke? not if its one of your family thats just been beheaded. stupid statement.

But it's what underpins all of society as we know it. A society based renewable energy sources would require massive change in our lifestyle, which the majority of people can't and won't accept. If you drive a car, you are asking for war.