MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: jesmu84 on November 13, 2015, 04:59:28 PM
-
Horrific.
French President closing their borders.
-
It's only a matter of time until there is a true war on ISIS. They have now attacked American, French, and Russians in their attacks. I don't see how they can be ignored much longer as they have no desire to sit peacefully in their own state.
-
It's only a matter of time until there is a true war on ISIS. They have now attacked American, French, and Russians in their attacks. I don't see how they can be ignored much longer as they have no desire to sit peacefully in their own state.
While you are likely correct, there is no indication yet that this is linked to ISIS.
-
CNN mentioned that there is some report that ISIS was taking credit but they couldn't verify it. At the very least, all signs are pointing to some extremist islamic group. If ISIS wasn't directly involved, they still help spread this type of culture.
-
While you are likely correct, there is no indication yet that this is linked to ISIS.
Yet.
-
It's only a matter of time until there is a true war on ISIS. They have now attacked American, French, and Russians in their attacks. I don't see how they can be ignored much longer as they have no desire to sit peacefully in their own state.
Yup, they've pissed off some pretty powerful people. If it is indeed ISIS and Russia and the US put aside their differences, they won't last long. They're one attack on the UK away from really getting every major power against them.
-
Remember that ISIS wasn't ultimately responsible for the Hebdo shootings. The brothers trained with Al Qaeda in Yemen.
-
These nomad attacks will take place here again.
-
Yup, they've pissed off some pretty powerful people. If it is indeed ISIS and Russia and the US put aside their differences, they won't last long. They're one attack on the UK away from really getting every major power against them.
It's what they want.
-
Death toll currently at 118 and expected to rise significantly. Horrific.
-
Now reports of 149 dead. Horrible tragedy.
-
The driveby shooting and bombs by the Stade de France were disturbing, but the concert hostage killing is what is truly horrifying and terrifying. If half of what was posted on social media by people inside, it is an absolute nightmare.
-
Death toll up to 153 per CNN. Yes, the concert hall shooting sounds like it was terrifying.
-
It's only a matter of time until there is a true war on ISIS. They have now attacked American, French, and Russians in their attacks. I don't see how they can be ignored much longer as they have no desire to sit peacefully in their own state.
They do want to sit peacefully in their own state. They believe their own state is the entire planet. They want to rid the world of infidels (non-Muslim) and are attempting the first step, a world wide religious war.
-
These nomad attacks will take place here again.
Unfortunately, you are correct.
-
If this is ISIS, it calls for a overwhelming, catastrophic response - much as I hate to say it.
We know what cities they are based in. Those towns need to be wiped off the map. Men, women, children, pets, every living thing.
And make it clear that the same response will occur if there is another attack outside of their own country.
-
If this is ISIS, it calls for a overwhelming, catastrophic response - much as I hate to say it.
Does it really matter if they call themselves ISIS, Al-Quada or something else? If the goal is to wipe out only whichever Islamic terrorist group is responsible for this particular attack it will just be another ineffective whack-a-mole operation. We have to acknowledge that we're at war with Islamic Extremists wherever they are and whatever they call themselves. Either declare war and do whatever it takes to win it or accept this as something we'll live with as part of our new normal. Anything in between wastes time, money and lives but accomplishes next to nothing.
-
Does it really matter if they call themselves ISIS, Al-Quada or something else? If the goal is to wipe out only whichever Islamic terrorist group is responsible for this particular attack it will just be another ineffective whack-a-mole operation. We have to acknowledge that we're at war with Islamic Extremists wherever they are and whatever they call themselves. Either declare war and do whatever it takes to win it or accept this as something we'll live with as part of our new normal. Anything in between wastes time, money and lives but accomplishes next to nothing.
I was criticized in the past by a few here for "embellishing" the viciousness of Islamic Extremists. Since then we have had ISIS broadcasting the beheading of captive infidels (including a Marquette alum) or merely burning to death or drowning people. In just the past two weeks we have multiple examples of mass murder by these people.
Americans need to know that there is a real war out there being fought over basic principles and ideas. There are people who despise us and our way of life and who will stop at nothing to destroy us.
While it is deemed by some to be impolite to use the term Radical Islamic Terrorists the reality is that these people would sooner slit an American's throat than have tea and figs together.
It is important to note, however, that the vast majority of people in North Africa and the Middle East are far more concerned about basic survival issues than they ever will be about spreading the faith or fighting jihad.
But those who have politicized their religion are very dangerous and they are not open to negotiation or compromise. What happened in Paris is indicative of their bargaining skills.
-
French President Hollande said it was an organized attack by ISIS and France will respond in kind.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/14/world/paris-attacks/index.html?sr=twnewday111415paris-attacks1124AMVODtopVideo&linkId=18753399
This is exactly what ISIS wants, a Christian/Muslim war. Are we ready for this?
-
Morbidly, I'm surprised this kind of attack isn't commonplace. A few guys with guns and lots of ammo. The suicide vests are hard to source, sure, but frankly unnecessary. Walk into a theater, arena, mall or school with lots of victims. Very little planning and resources necessary. Just need the jihadis and a few hundred bucks.
Utter chaos and doom.
-
French President Hollande said it was an organized attack by ISIS and France will respond in kind.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/14/world/paris-attacks/index.html?sr=twnewday111415paris-attacks1124AMVODtopVideo&linkId=18753399
This is exactly what ISIS wants, a Christian/Muslim war. Are we ready for this?
Are we ready for the alternative...Paris over and over?
-
Yup, they've pissed off some pretty powerful people. If it is indeed ISIS and Russia and the US put aside their differences, they won't last long. They're one attack on the UK away from really getting every major power against them.
I really hope they piss off the Chinese too. It's a good sign that the Chinese president condemned the attacks last night in offering his support to France.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/15/world/europe/isis-claims-responsibility-for-paris-attacks-calling-them-miracles.html?_r=0
-
Does it really matter if they call themselves ISIS, Al-Quada or something else? If the goal is to wipe out only whichever Islamic terrorist group is responsible for this particular attack it will just be another ineffective whack-a-mole operation. We have to acknowledge that we're at war with Islamic Extremists wherever they are and whatever they call themselves. Either declare war and do whatever it takes to win it or accept this as something we'll live with as part of our new normal. Anything in between wastes time, money and lives but accomplishes next to nothing.
I disagree. It won't be whack-a mole if it is devastating and overwhelming. The Japanese vowed to fight to the last person standing on their homeland in WW2. The 2 devastating attacks changed their thinking completely.
Remember, I am not talking a GWB action here. I am talking utter destruction of ISIS villages (and every one in them) where they have their headquarters. Scorched earth policy in any area where they reside.
There is no "war" to be fought. These are small pockets of people in many different countries. Unless you are advocating a new world war.
-
Our esteemed sheriff weighing in:
https://twitter.com/SheriffClarke/status/665373128386846720
David A. Clarke, Jr. @SheriffClarke 13h13 hours ago
If GOP plays this politically smart they can end any chance that the Dems win the WH in 2016. War is politics carried on by other means.
-
I disagree. It won't be whack-a mole if it is devastating and overwhelming. The Japanese vowed to fight to the last person standing on their homeland in WW2. The 2 devastating attacks changed their thinking completely.
Remember, I am not talking a GWB action here. I am talking utter destruction of ISIS villages (and every one in them) where they have their headquarters. Scorched earth policy in any area where they reside.
There is no "war" to be fought. These are small pockets of people in many different countries. Unless you are advocating a new world war.
The problem is ISIS hides in the civilian population. They want armies of Christians killing innocent Muslims by the thousands. Why? As noted here, most Muslims are peaceful and perfer these extremists would go away. However, note that the peaceful Muslim, by and large, really just look the other way. They are not trying very hard to stop it. ISIS is betting that a brutal campaign of Christian Armies against innocent Muslims will create and unleash tens of millions of Jihadis.
Added
This is why I said these attacks in the west are designed to drag us in deeper. That is what they want.
So while I agree we go in, understand what we are committing to, understand its cost and understand it means changing the very course of human history.
Do not confuse this with the spoiled Children at Mizzou and black lives matter that we will tire of one day and that will all end. This is very serious, it is this generations WW2 and will have the same (or larger) consequences to the course of human history.
-
The problem is ISIS hides in the civilian population. They want armies of Christians killing innocent Muslims by the thousands. Why? As noted here, most Muslims are peaceful and perfer this extremist would go away. However, note that the peaceful Muslim, by and large, really just look the other way. They are not trying very hard to stop it. ISIS is betting that a brutal campaign of Christian Armies against innocent Muslims will create and unleash tens of millions of Jihadis.
You are correct. A killing of thousands in response to a killing of hundreds I don't think is really the Christian way anyhow.
-
Remember this? They got lucky those three Americans were on this train or this guy would have killed scores of people.
That marks three large scale jihadi attacks in Paris this year (first being Charlie Hebdo). Each was designed to be bigger than the last. A trend has been established.
France is struggling with a big Muslim problem ... 10% of the population is Muslim and they are very disaffected living in slums in the Paris Suburbs).
So does Paris, and the world, have to come to terms with the idea that the next attack will kill 500 or more and it is 3 to 4 months away?
---------
August 21, 2015
France train attack: Americans overpower gunman on Paris express
Police investigate incident near Arras, France, in which three US citizens – two of them soldiers – prevented attack by suspect reportedly armed with AK-47
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/21/amsterdam-paris-train-gunman-france
-
Remember this? They got lucky those three Americans were on this train or this guy would have killed scores of people.
That marks three large scale jihadi attacks in Paris this year (first being Charlie Hebdo). Each was designed to be bigger than the last. A trend has been established.
France is struggling with a big Muslim problem ... 10% of the population is Muslim and they are very disaffected living in slums in the Paris Suburbs).
So does Paris, and the world, have to come to terms with the idea that the next attack will kill 500 or more and it is 3 to 4 months away?
---------
August 21, 2015
France train attack: Americans overpower gunman on Paris express
Police investigate incident near Arras, France, in which three US citizens – two of them soldiers – prevented attack by suspect reportedly armed with AK-47
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/21/amsterdam-paris-train-gunman-france
What was the second large scale attack?
-
What was the second large scale attack?
The Magazine Charlie Hebdo in January.
-
The Magazine Charlie Hebdo in January.
When I was in Paris in June with my mom and sister, there was a definite stepped up police and military presence at some venues. Eiffel Tower, some of the religious sites, etc. However, I was also surprised that some venues had nothing at all, at least outwardly (perhaps undercover, etc).
The attacks yesterday, both happened within 1,000 meters of our hotel at the Republique. The Bataclan was about 700 meters from our hotel and we walked down that street several times. Very sad. Looks like at least one of the terrorists was a refugee from Syria. You wonder how many more have penetrated via open borders in Europe and here in the States.
-
Our esteemed sheriff weighing in:
https://twitter.com/SheriffClarke/status/665373128386846720
David A. Clarke, Jr. @SheriffClarke 13h13 hours ago
If GOP plays this politically smart they can end any chance that the Dems win the WH in 2016. War is politics carried on by other means.
What a disgrace.
-
The problem is ISIS hides in the civilian population. They want armies of Christians killing innocent Muslims by the thousands. Why? As noted here, most Muslims are peaceful and perfer these extremists would go away. However, note that the peaceful Muslim, by and large, really just look the other way. They are not trying very hard to stop it. ISIS is betting that a brutal campaign of Christian Armies against innocent Muslims will create and unleash tens of millions of Jihadis.
Added
This is why I said these attacks in the west are designed to drag us in deeper. That is what they want.
So while I agree we go in, understand what we are committing to, understand its cost and understand it means changing the very course of human history.
Do not confuse this with the spoiled Children at Mizzou and black lives matter that we will tire of one day and that will all end. This is very serious, it is this generations WW2 and will have the same (or larger) consequences to the course of human history.
I'm curious as to why do you keep framing this as Christian vs Muslim armies?
ISIS doesn't seem to have a particular bone to pick with Christianity. ISIS didn't attack France because of its religion/religious history (currently only about 1/3 of French people are religious). Notice that the terrorists didn't shoot up a church. ISIS doesn't care if the infidels are Christian, Hindu, or Secular.
The proper framing, IMO, is ISIS vs. Everyone
-
The Magazine Charlie Hebdo in January.
I thought you said they were the first?
Can you please list the 3 large scale attacks?
-
I thought you said they were the first?
Can you please list the 3 large scale attacks?
1. Charlie Hebdo in January
2. The train attack in August, they got lucky the three Americans stopped it or he would have killed scores.
3. Yesterday in Paris
-
1. Charlie Hebdo in January
2. The train attack in August, they got lucky the three Americans stopped it or he would have killed scores.
3. Yesterday in Paris
Got it.
-
I'm curious as to why do you keep framing this as Christian vs Muslim armies?
ISIS doesn't seem to have a particular bone to pick with Christianity. ISIS didn't attack France because of its religion/religious history (currently only about 1/3 of French people are religious). Notice that the terrorists didn't shoot up a church. ISIS doesn't care if the infidels are Christian, Hindu, or Secular.
The proper framing, IMO, is ISIS vs. Everyone
ISIS, and Al-Qaeda before them want to rid the world of infidels. Yes that is all non-Muslim. To them it is a religious war. To us, that is unpleasant, so we pretend it is not a religious war even though the other side thinks it is.
Currently their is a large Christian genocide underway in the Middle East and Africa. (Dafur, that all the lefties championed, was/is a Christian genocide). Boko haram in Nigeria is conducting a Christian genocide (the 400 girls that were kidnapped that Michelle Obama started #bringbackourgirls were Christian. They never came back, most were sold into slavery and some of the very young impressible types are being trained as sucide bombers.). ISIS has been committing mass genocide against Christians, hardly any exist in their territory (except the Kurds because they are well armed).
I understand we want to think this is a war of profit and not of ideology. That makes it easier for us to understand. So we think "raising the cost" by dropping a few bombs will end it.
It is much more than this. The only question is how many more attacks will it take for us to understand? And understand their goal with these attacks is to drag us in. They want us killing them as they think that will get the entire Muslim world to rise up against the infidels.
They only way this does not get really messy is if other Muslims are willing to take them out. So far none are interested.
-
You are correct. A killing of thousands in response to a killing of hundreds I don't think is really the Christian way anyhow.
Of course, you are correct. The problem lies in the fact that Muslims will not fight against ISIS even though ISIS' numbers are fairly small. Until that changes, we are helpless.
And the point is not revenge - "A killing of thousands in response to a killing of hundreds". The point is that the tone has to change. There need to be devastating consequences for terror attacks. Not a drone killing 10 people, but scorched earth type devastation. The Iraqi and Syrian armies need to learn that THEY need to go in and root these people out, because a lot less people will die that way.
Again, as I have said before, I am probably the biggest pacifist on this board.
But pacifism does not mean lying down when war is declared against you. Rather it is doing anything necessary to end the war as quickly as possible to prevent a further loss of life. It is soul-numbing that we used atomic bombs on civilian populations in 1945. But it ended what would have been a much worse carnage.
I am not advocating for a nuclear strike, but our response must be so devastating, that it will no longer be worth it for these people to continue. And to be that convincing, it must be massive and devastating.
-
The only thing that will come from this is more job security for event staff. People are so mind controlled by media and thus unwilling to be labeled as mean. They will not stop immigration into their country from a population that does not like them or their culture. Hence these attacks will continue.
-
Looks like France is gonna be attacking ISIS full on. Could be the closest thing we get to WWIII
-
Looks like France is gonna be attacking ISIS full on. Could be the closest thing we get to WWIII
Please...the French haven't attacked anything full on in any meaningful way in hundreds of years....at least not effectively. With Holland at the helm, it isn't going to happen now either. It will be measured approach...."containment". No one wants to do the big boy stuff anymore.
-
Of course, you are correct. The problem lies in the fact that Muslims will not fight against ISIS even though ISIS' numbers are fairly small. Until that changes, we are helpless.
Muslims have been fighting against ISIS. Of course those Muslims are backed by Iran so we have reason to be wary. But Muslims have been fighting. They simply may not be strong enough.
-
Muslims have been fighting against ISIS. Of course those Muslims are backed by Iran so we have reason to be wary. But Muslims have been fighting. They simply may not be strong enough.
This I agree with. It is one of the reasons I think taking on immigrants is wrong. That sounds terrible, but here's my rationale. If you refuse to take on immigrants, you force those being oppressed to do one of two things. Lay down and get butchered, or stand up and take it to the enemy, demand their gov'ts do something, etc, etc. It means bloodshed, and that's why people aren't willing to do it.
Instead, the borders are open, the oppressors win, PLUS they drive more terrorists as trojan horses throughout Europe AND destabilize the general population. People better wake up soon.
-
Morbidly, I'm surprised this kind of attack isn't commonplace. A few guys with guns and lots of ammo. The suicide vests are hard to source, sure, but frankly unnecessary. Walk into a theater, arena, mall or school with lots of victims. Very little planning and resources necessary. Just need the jihadis and a few hundred bucks.
Utter chaos and doom.
Yes. Surprised we don't see it at sporting events, Betty Brinn, wherever else... I fear that time will come and turn things upside down.
-
Morbidly, I'm surprised this kind of attack isn't commonplace. A few guys with guns and lots of ammo. The suicide vests are hard to source, sure, but frankly unnecessary. Walk into a theater, arena, mall or school with lots of victims. Very little planning and resources necessary. Just need the jihadis and a few hundred bucks.
Utter chaos and doom.
Which is exactly why so many of us support conceal carry or open carry, because when that starts to happen it will be 10 to 15 minutes for the police to arrive. You're dead. Yesterday's episode, took police 14 minutes to arrive....80+ dead, many more in critical condition. No thanks...I have better odds defending myself.
-
Yes. Surprised we don't see it at sporting events, Betty Brinn, wherever else... I fear that time will come and turn things upside down.
Don't be shoppin' da Mall of America on Black Friday, hey?
-
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/?utm_source=SFTwitter
Interesting read.
-
Which is exactly why so many of us support conceal carry or open carry, because when that starts to happen it will be 10 to 15 minutes for the police to arrive. You're dead. Yesterday's episode, took police 14 minutes to arrive....80+ dead, many more in critical condition. No thanks...I have better odds defending myself.
And .. I can conceive how that conclusion can make some sense. Do you pack heat, Chicos?
I remember a week after Sandy Hook, I was at my son's 1st grade holiday singing event with 400 other parents and just looked around thinking, man, a bad guy with a gun would mow us all down. I sure hope the gym teacher is packing heat right now.
But that's the thing .. I'm not buying a gun, and even if I did, I wouldn't be trotting it down to the Bradley Center or school or the grocery when .. you'd need it. Not to mention none of those places allow guns on premises.
Then there's the question .. Would it be a great idea to have ~50 guys watching Eagles of Death Metal be packing heat? Holy fck no.
In the end, most of us "innocents" want to outsource security to someone else. But just take a moment and think about mostly untrained concealed carry folks (or especially the open carriers) and hoping those bozos are near you when the ISIS rodeo starts. .. "Better than nothing" is about the best argument that can be made.
There's not a lot of good solutions when civilization breaks down.
-
This I agree with. It is one of the reasons I think taking on immigrants is wrong. That sounds terrible, but here's my rationale. If you refuse to take on immigrants, you force those being oppressed to do one of two things. Lay down and get butchered, or stand up and take it to the enemy, demand their gov'ts do something, etc, etc. It means bloodshed, and that's why people aren't willing to do it.
Instead, the borders are open, the oppressors win, PLUS they drive more terrorists as trojan horses throughout Europe AND destabilize the general population. People better wake up soon.
What bothers me is that the only people willing to die for their cause are the enemy and our military. Yet we can't use our military to fight the enemy because, well, there's an election in 12 months and the hippies won't show up to the polls unless we keep trying to give peace a chance (lot of good that's done, huh?)
It didn't used to be like that. Thank God that our citizenry had a different perspective on life back in the late 1700s. Mostly that they didn't tolerate hippies.... oh, and they were wiling to hang together, too.
-
What bothers me is that the only people willing to die for their cause are the enemy and our military. Yet we can't use our military to fight the enemy because, well, there's an election in 12 months and the hippies won't show up to the polls unless we keep trying to give peace a chance (lot of good that's done, huh?)
It didn't used to be like that. Thank God that our citizenry had a different perspective on life back in the late 1700s. Mostly that they didn't tolerate hippies.... oh, and they were wiling to hang together, too.
Actually what people don't want is war where the costs exceed the benefits. Or where the benefits were exaggerated to begin with. "Hippies" didn't just come into existence for no reason.
-
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/?utm_source=SFTwitter
Interesting read.
"Interesting" does not do that article justice. That may be one of the greatest (insightful and matter-of-fact) pieces of journalism that I have ever read. Thanks for posting.
-
Actually what people don't want is war where the costs exceed the benefits. Or where the benefits were exaggerated to begin with. "Hippies" didn't just come into existence for no reason.
There are hippies that say war is never the answer......apparently they thought Nazism was awesome.
-
There are hippies that say war is never the answer......apparently they thought Nazism was awesome.
(http://cdn.funzypics.com//Thumbnails/5/28397-War-Has-Never-Solved-Anything-Except----.jpg)
-
"Interesting" does not do that article justice. That may be one of the greatest (insightful and matter-of-fact) pieces of journalism that I have ever read. Thanks for posting.
+1 Its long, but it is the best article that I have read all year.
-
There are hippies that say war is never the answer......apparently they thought Nazism was awesome.
You managed to Godwin the post in just over 72 minutes. Figures.
-
(http://cdn.funzypics.com//Thumbnails/5/28397-War-Has-Never-Solved-Anything-Except----.jpg)
Yup.
-
You managed to Godwin the post in just over 72 minutes. Figures.
Methinks you don't know what Godwin means, because of the context in which I used it I know that to be the case. The comment was about some people saying WAR IS NEVER the answer, and yes...those people exist.
-
Methinks you don't know what Godwin means, because of the context in which I used it I know that to be the case. The comment was about some people saying WAR IS NEVER the answer, and yes...those people exist.
Right. But that was never my point.
-
Please...the French haven't attacked anything full on in any meaningful way in hundreds of years....at least not effectively. With Holland at the helm, it isn't going to happen now either. It will be measured approach...."containment". No one wants to do the big boy stuff anymore.
Perhaps you need to read up a little more on World War I, when the French fought with remarkable courage, despite the overwhelming advantages the Germans had in personnel, weaponry, technology and resources.
-
Of course, you are correct. The problem lies in the fact that Muslims will not fight against ISIS even though ISIS' numbers are fairly small. Until that changes, we are helpless.
Muslim Kurds are fighting ISIS (and just captured a key city in Iraq).
Muslim Iraqis are fighting ISIS.
Muslim Syrians (both pro- and anti-Assad) are fighting ISIS.
Muslim Turks are fighting ISIS.
Muslim Iranians are fighting ISIS.
Muslim Lebanese are fighting ISIS.
Muslim Jordanians are fighting ISIS.
The notion that Muslims "will not fight" against ISIS is simply and provably false. Muslims are fighting ISIS in far greater numbers and at far greater costs than the U.S., Russia or any European nation.
As God awful as the events in Paris Friday, that bloodshed pales in comparison to the havoc ISIS has wrought on fellow Muslims in the regions it controls.
-
Muslim Kurds are fighting ISIS (and just captured a key city in Iraq).
Muslim Iraqis are fighting ISIS.
Muslim Syrians (both pro- and anti-Assad) are fighting ISIS.
Muslim Turks are fighting ISIS.
Muslim Iranians are fighting ISIS.
Muslim Lebanese are fighting ISIS.
Muslim Jordanians are fighting ISIS.
The notion that Muslims "will not fight" against ISIS is simply and provably false. Muslims are fighting ISIS in far greater numbers and at far greater costs than the U.S., Russia or any European nation.
As God awful as the events in Paris Friday, that bloodshed pales in comparison to the havoc ISIS has wrought on fellow Muslims in the regions it controls.
+ 1
-
Muslim Kurds are fighting ISIS (and just captured a key city in Iraq).
Muslim Iraqis are fighting ISIS.
Muslim Syrians (both pro- and anti-Assad) are fighting ISIS.
Muslim Turks are fighting ISIS.
Muslim Iranians are fighting ISIS.
Muslim Lebanese are fighting ISIS.
Muslim Jordanians are fighting ISIS.
The notion that Muslims "will not fight" against ISIS is simply and provably false. Muslims are fighting ISIS in far greater numbers and at far greater costs than the U.S., Russia or any European nation.
As God awful as the events in Paris Friday, that bloodshed pales in comparison to the havoc ISIS has wrought on fellow Muslims in the regions it controls.
Pak, it's my fault that I wasn't clear in what I was saying. Yes, there are Muslims fighting against ISIS. I was referring to Muslim governments fighting against ISIS. Iran is the only one that I see that is actively fighting them. There are local gov'ts and tribes getting together to fight, but there is no push by the Iraqi gov't or the Syrian gov't to fight ISIS.
The Iraqi government has accepted only a fraction of fighting vehicles the U.S. has offered to provide it, indicating leaders in Baghdad holding their country together amid the Islamic State group onslaught may be trying to appease multiple groups. We offered them over 3,000 fighting vehicles that we had stored in Kuwait for them to use to fight ISIS. They took a small token amount - under 10% and didn't want the rest. Maliki is much more interested in keeping power than he is in fighting ISIS. It is thought that the vehicles he did take are for his own protection and not for fighting ISIS.
In Syria, Assad ignored ISIS even as they got more powerful. Finally, in the last 6 weeks or so, he is starting to see that he is threatened by ISIS and may finally be willing to fight.
Saudi Arabia is too concerned about its fight for dominance in the Middle East with Iran to pay attention to ISIS. The Saudis backed rebel fighters in Syria over our objections because they believe overthrowing Assad is the only way to defeat Syria.
Turkey has convinced NATO nations that the war against ISIS can only be won if Turkey’s traditional Kurdish opponents are neutralized first.
Israel sees only one way to defeat ISIS: destroy Iran’s nuclear program.
And Egypt? They threates to undermine the fight against ISIS completely over their own government's self-preservation.
So, it's all quite simple:
Saudi Arabia proposes first dislodging President Assad in Syria, one of ISIS’s principal enemies, which will in turn strengthen the Islamic State. That may seem like a step backward, but fear not: There’s more. The Saudis will then attack Yemen to defeat the Houthis, who are allied with Iran. This will distract Iran in its fight against ISIS. The Kingdom will also draw other Arab countries away from U.S.-led airstrikes against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq so that these states can participate in Saudi-led strikes in Yemen. Where, you ask, does defeating ISIS fit into all this? Return to the start of this paragraph.
Turkey has advanced the idea that defeating ISIS will require attacking the Kurdish factions who are doing the most to fight the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, thereby easing the pressure on ISIS. The Turks will then offset this by alsodemanding the removal of Assad, and by asking their Western allies to deflect resources away from fighting ISIS and toward creating a “safe zone” in Syria. Turkey will subsequently move to weaken Western and NATO support for Kurdish fighters, turning the Kurds into both an ally and enemy of the West. This will so utterly confuse ISIS that the group will commit major strategic mistakes.
The Kurds believe the only way to defeat ISIS is to fight it. It’s a disappointingly simple strategy.
Iran’s plan for defeating ISIS relies heavily on arming Shia groups, thus giving the impression that the war against ISIS is a Sunni-Shia conflict. While this might appear to bolster ISIS’s propagandistic claims that it is defending Sunnis against Shia aggression, Iran will dispel this illusion by encouraging non-Shia groups battling ISIS to also fight under Shia banners.
Israel’s blueprint is quite straightforward by comparison: ISIS can only be defeated after Iran, which is fighting ISIS, is contained and defeated. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cleverly unified these aims by calling Iran “the Islamic State of Iran.” No other leader has ever tried to conduct geopolitics through wordplay before, but the strategy seems to be gaining momentum. The popularity of the phrase “the ISIS of …” to describe things one hates attests to the resonance of this approach. Israel plans to escalate its anti-ISIS campaign by referring to anyone who opposes Israel as “ISIS,” including Hamas (the ISIS of Gaza), Hezbollah (the ISIS of Lebanon), and Sweden (the ISIS of Scandinavia).
America’s strategy is substantially different from everyone else’s. President Barack Obama wants to defeat ISIS by not appearing to be the force defeating ISIS. This is a difficult task, particularly when your air force is the one carrying out most operations against ISIS targets. But Obama is an astute strategist. His plan centers on supporting Kurdish factions as he also supports Turkey which is now attacking the Kurds while also supporting Saudi Arabia in its war in Yemen which upsets Iran whom U.S. forces are collaborating with in fighting ISIS in Iraq as he simultaneously yields to pressure from allies to weaken Assad in Syria which complicates things further with Iran which he pacifies by signing the nuclear deal upsetting America’s traditional friend Israel whose anger is absorbed with shipments of advanced weapons escalating the arms race in the region.
So yes, there are PEOPLE fighting ISIS. But Muslim governments - for the most part - are not.
-
Muslim Kurds are fighting ISIS (and just captured a key city in Iraq).
Muslim Iraqis are fighting ISIS.
Muslim Syrians (both pro- and anti-Assad) are fighting ISIS.
Muslim Turks are fighting ISIS.
Muslim Iranians are fighting ISIS.
Muslim Lebanese are fighting ISIS.
Muslim Jordanians are fighting ISIS.
So yes, there are PEOPLE fighting ISIS. But Muslim governments - for the most part - are not.
Brandx is correct. If Pakuni's list was a list of Muslim GOVERNMENTS fighting ISIS, they would not exist. Instead we have selected groups (mainly that hate Sunnis) fighting them which is why ISIS controls a territory in Iraq/Syria larger than the size of Great Britain.
-
Actually what people don't want is war where the costs exceed the benefits. Or where the benefits were exaggerated to begin with. "Hippies" didn't just come into existence for no reason.
I think LSD had a lot to do with it
-
Brandx is correct. If Pakuni's list was a list of Muslim GOVERNMENTS fighting ISIS, they would not exist. Instead we have selected groups (mainly that hate Sunnis) fighting them which is why ISIS controls a territory in Iraq/Syria larger than the size of Great Britain.
Muslim GOVERNMENTS fighting ISIS:
Syria (obviously)
Turkey
Iraq (obviously)
Jordan
Iran
United Arab Emirates
Bahrain
Saudi Arabia is not "fighting," but providing training facilities for the Syrian opposition
-
Muslim GOVERNMENTS fighting ISIS:
Syria (obviously)
Turkey
Iraq (obviously)
Jordan
Iran
United Arab Emirates
Bahrain
Saudi Arabia is not "fighting," but providing training facilities for the Syrian opposition
You need qualifiers for all of these, Pakuni - even Iran. And even there, it is just part of an overall battle to be the dominant player in the Middle East.
-
You need qualifiers for all of these, Pakuni - even Iran. And even there, it is just part of an overall battle to be the dominant player in the Middle East.
With all due respect, it sounds like you're the one in need of qualifiers to defend your previous statement.
Fact is, all these countries are and have been involved in actual fighting against ISIS. This, again, is demonstratively true.
It seems you want to place qualifiers on the level of and/or motivations for their involvement.
And do you truly believe that the non-Muslim countries involved (Russia, U.S., etc.) are doing it out of purely altruistic motives, or might they also have some self-interest and desire to become a dominant player in the Middle East?
-
You managed to Godwin the post in just over 72 minutes. Figures.
Actually, if you're going to cite Godwin, you've got to give it to Hards... after all, he did post the link to the article that contained reference to Hitler.
-
With all due respect, it sounds like you're the one in need of qualifiers to defend your previous statement.
Fact is, all these countries are and have been involved in actual fighting against ISIS. This, again, is demonstratively true.
It seems you want to place qualifiers on the level of and/or motivations for their involvement.
And do you truly believe that the non-Muslim countries involved (Russia, U.S., etc.) are doing it out of purely altruistic motives, or might they also have some self-interest and desire to become a dominant player in the Middle East?
What I think you are missing is context. Everything in the Middle East now needs to be seen through the lens of a contest between Iran and Saudi Arabia for dominance in the region. That is the reason they are both involved in the fight against ISIS.
For Iran, it is a Sunni- Shia deal. Simple as that. They are not anti-terrorism. They, along with Saudi arabia, are among the world's biggest sponsors of terrorism. Iran views this as a Sunni-Shia conflict.
Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, is a player because they don't want Iran being the guy-in-charge.
Iraq is fighting (what little fighting they are doing) only for the preservation of the Maliki government. And Iraq is fighting more because so much of the country is opposed to Maliki.
Turkey is using the fight against ISIS for the same reason it does almost everything - to fight the Kurds.
The Kurds - who may have the best intentions - are still fighting for self-preservation.
So there will be no organized Middle East effort to rid themselves of ISIS - now or in the future.
As far as non-muslim countries involved, I agree with you completely.
-
Brandx is correct. If Pakuni's list was a list of Muslim GOVERNMENTS fighting ISIS, they would not exist. Instead we have selected groups (mainly that hate Sunnis) fighting them which is why ISIS controls a territory in Iraq/Syria larger than the size of Great Britain.
Glad we got our one point that we will agree on for the week out of the way quickly. 8-)
-
Muslim GOVERNMENTS fighting ISIS:
Syria (obviously)
Turkey
Iraq (obviously)
Jordan
Iran
United Arab Emirates
Bahrain
Saudi Arabia is not "fighting," but providing training facilities for the Syrian opposition
If this is true, they are all failing and eventually all these countries fall and become part of the Caliphate.
-
Perhaps you need to read up a little more on World War I, when the French fought with remarkable courage, despite the overwhelming advantages the Germans had in personnel, weaponry, technology and resources.
ELAN!
-
Actually, if you're going to cite Godwin, you've got to give it to Hards... after all, he did post the link to the article that contained reference to Hitler.
lol I KNEW someone would see that!
-
ELAN!
And ANYTHING that happened outside of Belgium in the first 5 months of WWI......the French basically saved the world.
Dan Carlin's Hardcore History "Blueprint for Armageddon" podcast episodes on iTunes (thanks to Scooper rmi) does an amazing job of showing this.
-
And ANYTHING that happened outside of Belgium in the first 5 months of WWI......the French basically saved the world.
Dan Carlin's Hardcore History "Blueprint for Armageddon" podcast episodes on iTunes (thanks to Scooper rmi) does an amazing job of showing this.
They were courageous, but god damn they were stupid. The Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman is a great (if dry at times) recap of the start of the war.
-
With all due respect, it sounds like you're the one in need of qualifiers to defend your previous statement.
Fact is, all these countries are and have been involved in actual fighting against ISIS. This, again, is demonstratively true.
It seems you want to place qualifiers on the level of and/or motivations for their involvement.
And do you truly believe that the non-Muslim countries involved (Russia, U.S., etc.) are doing it out of purely altruistic motives, or might they also have some self-interest and desire to become a dominant player in the Middle East?
Pakuni, here's a nice breakdown of the situation from Col. Jack Jacobs while talking on the Colbert show. I post this because it backs up what I have said. 8-)
http://crooksandliars.com/2015/11/colonel-jack-jacobs-brilliantly-explains