Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

{ This reminds me those several wedding airstrikes but that’s another story. }

It's not really another story, it perfectly exposes the problem with ever our super special advanced modern aircraft. After the Wech Baghu wedding in 2008 the Afghan President blatantly said, "We cannot win the fight against terrorism with airstrikes -- this is my first demand of the new president of the United States -- to put an end to civilian casualties." The US admitted after the 2009 Granai airstrike that we just do not have the capability to discern civilians from non-civilians in captured territories, and we don't have the capability to limit collateral damage from airstrikes in a situation where terrorists hide in civilian houses and schools when jets approach specifically for that reason.

This situation will never end if we don't start treating the war we're actively participating in like an actual war.

{ The free speech/draw Muhammad conflict mentioned in the opening post or the viability of US military involvement in the mideast? }

This thread was never about the free speech event, that was just a recent tie-in event to open the discussion, which was supposed to be why we use "religious tolerance" to justify ignoring fundamentalist Islamic countries that support terror and violate human rights while supplying them with aid and business. The reason "we're casually ignoring it because we don't want to fight in another large war" came up which prompted the whole "we're already in a war" so what we should be doing to stop ISIS instead of relying on the "religious tolerance' excuse.

Seems like a fairly natural direction for the discussion to go, these things are all linked. Religious tolerance isn't a good enough reason to ignore horrific human rights violations, and those violations are only increased by our current hands-off method of fighting ISIS. If these countries can get rid of the violent fundamentalists once and for all, they'd at least have to pretend to be willing to compromise on basic rights or they'd genuinely risk global ramifications.

It'd probably be easier if we all approach my topics as ever-evolving discussions rather than single topic debates. I prefer the open format, talk through your ideas and we might all learn something even if we disagree kind of short essay format rather than an I say this because this specific source said so well no I say this because this specific source says so kind of debate which ultimately goes nowhere. It kinda requires a little more effort to fact check what someone else is saying but it's really not that big a deal and you usually end up reading something related that they may have missed or you didn't know.

>"What alternative are you suggesting here?"

You think I can give you a legitimate reason for dealing with ISIS? there are people in the military and other positions of power whose job it is to assess foreign issues and act on them, not with shoddy news articles but with first-hand intelligence and findings gathered from the field. These people know of the dangers of direct military intervention and the impact it will have. They aren't keyboard warriors who have been struck with the fear of "terrorist" but tacticians and politicians with a correct understanding of their enemy. In short, with the information I am given I am incapable of forming a solution for ISIS problem and so are you yet direct attack is not an option. If it was then America would already be there, boots on the ground (as if it isn't already)

What your suggesting is laughable, a direct military intervention, do you have any clue what they would look like on the world stage? America launching its full military might at the middle-east with the prime goal of wiping out Islamic extremists? with the only thing it would succeed in doing is kicking up the biggest shit-storm of the 21st century and a massive displacement of civilians caught in the crossfire. To me this option seems to be the only thing your capable of producing, war, that's all it is with you. You are a broken record.

You must be a lot of fun at the Christmas dinner?

>"a global social network propaganda campaign that has been successfully used to convert and lure thousands of foreign fighters to Syria are underground?"

Extremism is a state of mind, attacking it will drive it underground and make it worse because you are giving it a good solid reason to continue its fight. It doesn't take petty social media bullshit to do that so get that out of here…

The first world has provoked a monster (with these draw Mohammed events and other typical ridicule) and now has the audacity to call for war on it. It is bullying behaviour on a international scale where you are threatening a specific group of people with destruction of their culture and, as a bi-product of war, their homeland aswell. This alone is enough to drive people to "extremism" to drive people to a common cause.

With the death of Osama and Saddam massive power vacuums had been created and since filled by people who are multiple times worse. In a way the people of the middle east are answering for America's previous military interventions with their own blood.

I couldn't care less about your families history I am talking about you and what you represent and if the only option you can dredge up is 'war' then I (and everyone else here by the looks of it) are quite frankly bored of hearing it.

Daily reminder you can use <blockquote> quoted text </blockquote> It makes looking through the posts much easier and neater.

lisabombs said:

When the Nazi movement began capturing territories and slaughtering tens of thousands of people, the world responded with war.

The world actually started with appeasement. The Rhineland, Czechoslovakia, Austria, etc. It wasn't until Poland was invaded that the world responded with war.

Why wont another large war fix things?

I'd argue that wars tend to create bigger clusterfucks than they solve. Depose a dictator and instill muh freedoms and it leads to ISIS because of sectarianism and debaathification. Try to strip Germany of its ability to make war and it feels humiliated and wants another go.

ISIS right now is basically part of the wider proxy battles between Shiite and Sunni governments. I say, if they want to fight their little proxy war over who really succeeded Muhammad, then let them.

RyumaruBorike said:

Where is this poll that samples the entire Muslim world?

That's not how polls work. As a general rule, the bigger the sample size, the more accurate the poll's statistics. Most polls use about 1500 or so in their sample size, which gives about a 3% margin of error. Pew, the polling company lisabombs is citing, is a very reputable one, so those percentages are likely accurate.

jarbox said:

Are you twelve? Are you just an idiot?

Spare the ad hominems. It only makes your argument weaker.

Do you think their armed forces would last under the withering firepower of the modern (and now, unmanned) air force of any western superpower

They have. Quite well, actually. Despite 3,222 airstrikes (and that was just up to January), ISIS has still taken control of ancient Syrian cities and struck a big blow against the Iraqi militias.

Also, that "outdated Russian equipment" seems to include at least 184 humvees.

Laika said:

With the death of Osama and Saddam massive power vacuums had been created…

I'd replace Osama with Gaddafi. Bin Laden's death did next to nothing with regards to Al Qaeda's power structure. Little changed from before to after. Gaddafi was sort of like a mini Saddam. It didn't create nearly the same level of clusterfuck as Saddam did, but Libya's totally imploded and will probably take decades to recover--just like Iraq.

{ You think I can give you a legitimate reason for dealing with ISIS? }

Why are you in a discussion thread if you don't actually want to participate in the discussion? I'm not asking for a 100% perfect answer that totally solves the whole world's problems, I just want to know what you think we should try to be doing instead of what we're doing now.

{ If it was then America would already be there, boots on the ground (as if it isn’t already) }

They're not, don't you recall Obama's crowning glory nationwide announcement that the troops will be home in time for Christmas~ Iraqi officials and our own defense leaders begged him not to go through with it. We told those countries we would be there to defend them from ISIS and help them finish them off once and for all, then we completely abandoned them and ISIS took advantage.

{ “Now, Iraq is not a perfect place, Obama said. “It has many challenges ahead. But we’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people. We’re building a new partnership between our nations. And we are ending a war not with a final battle, but with a final march toward home. }

We left behind an freshly trained army with new technology that have all bet fled in fear when ISIS fighters came knocking. That's why they have so much of the Iraqi Army's equipment.

Of course, when ISIS gained tremendous power in the region, Obama was quick to abandon his responsibility.

{ When he was running for re-election in 2012, President Barack Obama repeatedly took credit for ending the war in Iraq and bringing all U.S. troops home from that country. At the White House on Saturday, however, when talking about his decision to use military force against the al-Qaida-related ISIS terrorist group in Iraq, Obama said removing all U.S. troops from Iraq was not “my decision.” }

{ America launching its full military might at the middle-east with the prime goal of wiping out Islamic extremists? }

That's what their officials have been asking us to do.

{ and a massive displacement of civilians caught in the crossfire. }

You mean like the 200,000+ Syrian civilians already killed by government airstrikes? :|

{ The first world has provoked a monster }

Are you now attempting to blame "the West" for Islam's actions? These people have been waging holy wars since long before there was a first world to intervene.

I'm asking for alternatives to war and you say you can't provide any. ¯\(ツ)/¯

My suggestion is a multi-nation ground troop assault that wipes them all out in one confrontation.

What is your suggestion?

That’s not how polls work. As a general rule, the bigger the sample size, the more accurate the poll’s statistics. Most polls use about 1500 or so in their sample size, which gives about a 3% margin of error. Pew, the polling company lisabombs is citing, is a very reputable one, so those percentages are likely accurate.

You missed the point of what I meant. What I meant was a poll that samples from the entire Muslim world, not a single part of it. I wasn't asking for a poll comprising every single Muslim in the world. Give me some credit please _"
I was also asking for one that asked the question "Who supports Isis?" that samples most of the Muslim world

So what should we do?

Well, according to you, we should send in a bunch of tanks, artillery pieces, cruise missiles, and incendiary bombs to temporarily chase away a jihadist group so that they can come back as soon as the troops leave the region.

Nor was I implying that the US air force was the indestructible hand of God. Rather, it was to show how idiotic your understanding of ISIS's military force is (oh NO, they have as many warm bodies as FRANCE! WE'RE DOOMED UNLESS EVERY COUNTRY ON EARTH INVADES THEM RIGHT NOW!!!!!!)

I don't like how block quotes look. Separating it with double spaced lines is easiest for me, idk if it's just because I always 1.5 space everything by default but this forum looks really squished together to me.

{ The world actually started with appeasement. }

Do you think we haven't been appeasing the Middle Eastern countries? We've barely lifted the WW2 sanctions off of Japan, but we think Iran has proven to the world that they're ready for nuclear technology? Are we serious?

{ I say, if they want to fight their little proxy war over who really succeeded Muhammad, then let them. }

That's another option, but I would like a solution that spares as many innocent/potentially moderate lives as possible. After constant assault from fundamentalists like this, these people are ready to be modernized, the oppressed minorities over there have been begging for help, I don't think it's right to leave them trapped there when we have the ability to do something about it.

{ Also, that “outdated Russian equipment” seems to include at least 184 humvees. }

& they took every single one of them from Mosul, and as of 8 hours ago we're now hearing reports that the number is 2,300. That's the English version of a Lebanese paper.

{ temporarily chase away }

Now that is not what I said at all. I said end them for good, not stop once they turn around and run away.

I said end them for good, not stop once they turn around and run away.

How the fuck is that going to work?

We've occupied these territories before. It wasn't enough. Do you want troops to comb out every single building, every single cave, and execute any civilian with potential extremist leanings?

EDIT:

Also

After constant assault from fundamentalists like this, these people are ready to be modernized, the oppressed minorities over there have been begging for help

Yeah, the same poor minorities who you just said were polled to support Shariah law and one interpretation of Islam? I'm sure they're just begging for your help.

{ We’ve occupied these territories before. }

We have been acting primarily alone with a bit of half-assed assistance from Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. The UK refuses to participate, France doesn't want to get involved with Syria for the most part, Belgium only sent six jets, we have never had the support we need to end this. And they're no longer a ragtag group hiding in caves, they're actively capturing territories and moving through the countries, and we have greater intelligence on their leaders, this is our best opportunity.

{ Yeah, the same poor minorities who you just said were polled to support Shariah law and one interpretation of Islam? }

The oppressed minorities are not the people voting in polls that women should have less rights and Sharia should rule the land. They're the people who have been standing up for their rights and being cut down because of it, they're the people who need our help.

And they’re no longer a ragtag group hiding in caves, they’re actively capturing territories and moving through the countries, and we have greater intelligence on their leaders, this is our best opportunity.

Where do you think they're going to go once someone says they're going to invade? Paris?

The oppressed minorities are not the people voting in polls that women should have less rights and Sharia should rule the land.

So, most Muslims are not extremists, then? So, it's wrong to judge them all as jihadists?

{ most Muslims are not extremists, }

I don't understand what you're missing about oppressed minority.
That would imply not the most. We've already seen how the majority votes.

{ Where do you think they’re going to go once someone says they’re going to invade? Paris? }

Why are you assuming they would abandon everything they've spent the last few years gaining and working toward to run away? They're on a conquest now, they've got billions of dollars, they've got enough equipment to be a serious threat, they've been successfully sabotaging major oil refineries and effecting the entire world. They're taking action, we're letting them.

I don’t understand what you’re missing about oppressed minority.

But you said that they weren't voting on the polls, and if they were voting, they would be noticed. Given how lean the majority is for those issues ~(66%), adding them in would make them a very large minority.

Why are you assuming they would abandon everything they’ve spent the last few years gaining and working toward to run away?

Because the alternative would be annihilation. They aren't stupid.

Are you now attempting to blame “the West” for Islam’s actions? These people have been waging holy wars since long before there was a first world to intervene.

Umm, what about the Crusades? If I remember correctly, the Crusades had a hell of an impact on the area.

@Lisaombs

I do agree that ISIS, Taliban, and any other Muslim terrorist must be stop. But, I don't like that you think that military conquest is the only answer. You want to know why Germany and Japan is so riches? because of the Marshall Plan

If America (or any other western country) want to start another second Marshall Plan in the middle east, then attack away. If not, you soon to repeat history

Note: English is not my first language, so sorry for the gramar

{ But you said that they weren’t voting on the polls, }

Where did I say Middle Eastern minorities didn't take part in the Pew Forum survey?
The whole point of the survey was to see if the majority was as fundamentalist as ISIS, and the majority are.

{ Because the alternative would be annihilation. They aren’t stupid. }

They haven't been annihilated so far. In fact, they've only become more powerful.

ISIS is not the same group of inept losers as three years ago, I don't know why you refuse to accept this.

{ The tension between the smooth, Western-style production and the extremist content shows how far the hardcore Islamic propaganda machine has come since 2012, when an aging Frenchman posed in front of a jihadi flag and threatened France in the name of al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb. The footage was grainy, with minimal production values, and released on a relatively obscure website. By contrast, Al-Bayan (ISIS' official radio broadcast) reaches thousands of listeners every day via links shared on social networks, helping to swell the ranks of Westerners -- projected this year to reach up to 10,000 -- fighting for the Islamic State group in Syria and Iraq. }

{ Anyone, from anywhere, can recruit for Islamic State. A March study by Brookings Institute researchers J.M. Berger and Jonathon Morgan found more than 46,000 active Twitter accounts supporting Islamic State in a two-month period. As soon as one account is shut down, more emerge.

Meanwhile, Western government warnings about the dangers of joining Islamic State have barely dented the rate of departures. Those who have lived unhappily under IS rarely offer a competing narrative, in mortal fear of retaliation. And Western nations are having a hard time combatting rhetoric that they -- and the Western media that IS so successfully mimics -- are untrustworthy. }

{ Isis rounded up civilians trapped in Palmyra and forced them to watch 20 people be executed in the historic city’s ancient amphitheatre, a Syrian monitoring group has claimed.

The Unesco World Heritage site was overrun by militants last week, threatening the future of 2,000 year-old monuments and ruins. More than 230 men, women and children have been killed by militants in total since 16 May in Deir Ezzor and Palmyra. Isis is now in control of an estimated 95,000 square kilometres of land in Syria – more than half of the country. }

{ The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria has ramped up its activities in Southeast Asia so effectively that there is now an entire military unit of terrorists recruited from Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, according to Singapore's prime minister.

“Southeast Asia is a key recruitment center for ISIS,” Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said at the Shangri-La Dialogue here in Singapore Friday. He noted that this included more than 500 Indonesians and dozens of Malaysians. “ISIS has so many Indonesian and Malaysia fighters that they form a unit by themselves -- the Katibah Nusantara -- Malay Archipelago Combat Unit,” he added.

*“This is why Singapore takes terrorism, and in particular ISIS, very seriously,” Lee said. “The threat is no longer over there, it is over here.” *}

What are we waiting for? The threat to come to us? ISIS isn't turning back and hiding anymore, they're ready for the war you all deny could possibly happen.

{ But, I don’t like that you think that military conquest is the only answer. }

You've suggested a Marshall Plan solution, though, which takes place after military intervention. Or are you saying you're okay with military intervention so long as we remain there to help the region recover when we're done?

Where did I say Middle Eastern minorities didn’t take part in the Pew Forum survey?

Here.

The oppressed minorities are not the people voting in polls that women should have less rights and Sharia should rule the land.

--

They haven’t been annihilated so far. In fact, they’ve only become more powerful.

And they haven't had the full might of a western army fighting them either. That's obvious fucking cause and effect.

ISIS is not the same group of inept losers as three years ago,

So what?

{ The oppressed minorities are not the people voting in polls that women should have less rights and Sharia should rule the land. }

The oppressed minorities are the people voting in polls that women should have more rights and Sharia should not rule the land.

Does that help you.

{ And they haven’t had the full might of a western army fighting them either. That’s obvious fucking cause and effect. }

So then why should we not set the full might of Western army on them???

Our current half-assed attempts have failed, the group has grown massive and been allowed to spread even further than it was when we had ground troops there, and when I suggest sending ground troops back you say…… no? Leave it as it is? I don't know what you think, you haven't suggested another option, you've just said mine is awful.

{ So what? }

So the way we deal with them can no longer be the same as it was three years ago.

So how should we deal with them?

(Formatting my posts, TSG is right these look terrible)

You mean like the 200,000+ Syrian civilians already killed by government airstrikes? :|

And you think that is a big number? the death toll would be tremendous if the whole western world invaded, not only deaths on Irag's part but the deaths of many many soldiers who have gone to war for a pointless cause. It's a war crime.

We told those countries we would be there to defend them from ISIS and help them finish them off once and for all, then we completely abandoned them and ISIS took advantage.

Well obviously, this is the cornerstone of an underground movement. They aren't a massive super-organised professional army. Ofcourse they are going to scatter when America approaches, the fact that you think that you can kill them all in one swoop is an incredibly immature and misguided view. What are you suggesting? auditing each and every person you come across for thought-crime?

Jarbox said: 'Do you want troops to comb out every single building, every single cave, and execute any civilian with potential extremist leanings?'

This is a very true statement that you just happily brushed aside.

Are you now attempting to blame “the West” for Islam’s actions? These people have been waging holy wars since long before there was a first world to intervene.

"These people"……"these people"…..Yes I suppose the middle east is tribe-like in comparison to your perfect world of social networking, pointless desk jobs and costa-fucking-coffee.

Have you not heard of the Crusades then? because what you have said here implies that the west has had zero intervention in the ME on a historical level? the Pope calling for Holy Wars to reclaim Jerusalem and such? no?

Do you not think that "these people" see western military incursions as modern day crusades? the armies of the first-world go to war mainly as a career, for the money, some are as fanatic as yourself and go there to "kill me some rag-heads" but ISIS and other "terrorist" organisations are warring over religious purposes, its a lifestyle. How can you not see that the west has fanned the flames and has made this situation worse with their pretentious actions?

My suggestion is a multi-nation ground troop assault that wipes them all out in one confrontation

.

What is your suggestion?

Well you can probably see that I don't condone this utter drivel your coming out with.

Don't invade, don't intervene. Anything is better than invasion. Act in defence.

After constant assault from fundamentalists like this, these people are ready to be modernized, the oppressed minorities over there have been begging for help, I don’t think it’s right to leave them trapped there when we have the ability to do something about it.

"We must liberate them from their own lands and give them a welfare state, a proper real religion and McDonald's. Look at them, they are begging to become Americans, they simply can't stand be so degenerate and undeveloped. Those poor souls, they are an endangered species"

Now that is not what I said at all. I said end them for good, not stop once they turn around and run away.

I want to hear your exact plan on how you intend to vet each and every civilian in the middle east for extremist tendencies. What is it?

We have been acting primarily alone with a bit of half-assed assistance from Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. The UK refuses to participate,

Britain went to war against Afghanistan for 14 years and has only just left, It dominated the BBC News throughout its entirety. The British public never supported the invasion in the first place and called for nothing but an end to it during the whole conflict. Tony Blair is a war criminal.

You really think the British public, no, anyone wants to follow you to war again?

I can almost picture the scene, a letter appears on Mr Cameron's desk, its from America:

"Please help me completely wipe out Islamic extremism in the Middle East and everywhere else it is to be found. think of the children, think of the those poor people living in their mud houses just begging for modernisation. Forget about the Afghan war and all the shit that caused and blindly follow me into another pointless conflict. Don't forget about the children"

So then why should we not set the full might of Western army on them???

Literally the most childish shit I've seen on the serious debate forum, how do you get this dilluded.

First of all:

{ how you intend to vet each and every civilian in the middle east for extremist tendencies }

{ Please help me completely wipe out Islamic extremism in the Middle East }

Me and everybody else in this thread have been talking about ISIS and treacherous governments. :| idk how you convinced yourself I'm suggesting some genocidal manhunt through the general population, but I would really like to know.

{ And you think that is a big number? }

Considering it's the largest amount of civilians ever "unintentionally" slaughtered by a modern government, yeah, me and the rest of the world consider that an outrageous number. The US commander says ~8500 ISIS fighters total have been killed in Iraq and Syria, since 2011 there have been 641 troop deaths, and more than 200,000 unrelated Syrian civilians alone caught in the "crossfire" (I mean, sitting in their houses when bombs fell out of the air on top of them).

{ They aren’t a massive super-organised professional army. }

They're not? Their recruiting methods in the last three years have amassed nearly 10,000 purely Western fighters who left their countries to join ISIS in Syria, it's estimated to rise over 10k this year. They're capturing city after city after city and forcing the civilians there to conform to fundamental Islam or be lined up by the thousands (actual ISIS video warning, it shows 1500 Iraqi Army POWs being lined up and shot in the head point blank) and shot at the same time, specifically to show off the numbers you doubt for some reason. They control ~1/2 of Iraq and Syria at this point, including UN protected heritage sites that they're threatening to destroy.

What exactly makes them not a super organized professional army in your eyes?

{ Do you not think that “these people” see western military incursions as modern day crusades }

They people who do are not the people who remain oppressed. The minorities, the women and the Christians and the Hindis and every other non-Islamic group unfortunate enough to end up in the Middle East, are begging us to come back through every outlet available. They're the people getting shot at by male fundamentalists when they give speeches about human rights, they're the people getting cut down by their own family in the middle of public streets for daring to choose their own partner, the girls who are doused in acid for raising their eyes from the ground but have nowhere else to go.

But no, you're right, we should ignore all of those people, we should ignore the lack of basic rights and human dignity being prescribed by governments who collect billions in aid and business from us annually, we'll turn the other cheek because we have to respect their culture of oppression instead of barging in to spread our terrible equality around.

So then why should we not set the full might of Western army on them???

Because they'll run away, melt into the surrounding cities and wilderness, and come back as soon as we leave.

Again, are you fucking twelve? Do you not see that that was the SAME FUCKING THING the Taliban did when we invaded Afghanistan? Do you honestly think all those ISIS guys are going to line up to die in direct warfare against the world's number 1 military power???

So how should we deal with them?

Let the middle east deal with its own problems. Far from a perfect solution, but it's the only one that offers a long term hope for the region instead of being yet another bandaid fix that will stop working after 5-10 years.

Look, I don't have much patience for online debates, especially ones in which I can see are not debates and just spewing confirmation bias, worthless polls (which even as a current intro to statistics student makes this seem very very silly), and overall just no one wanting to come to an understanding, so I'll just make my point of view very clear and leave it at that.

I find most everything you're spewing highly morally deplorable and at times so naive it makes me giggle. In fact the way you see war through the mentality of an uneducated child almost makes it even scarier that if you had any real power you would legitimately cause all this blood-shed. Even scarier is the fact that your point of view is not extreme, but the view of millions in the US as well as a large portion of the current politicians in office and running for it. You see this as a "good guys vs bad guys" situation where the good guys will easily come on top and as a history fan this saddens me. Anyone who's even bothered to delve into even a high school level history class would know that the world is a very black and white place. Now I do admit that in the case of ISIS and terrorists they are a darker grey of course. But the thing is invading helps nothing. For one thing the entire middle east isn't just full of terrorists. There's an entire culture and millions upon millions of civilians over there and you refuse to acknowledge this seeing it as "us vs. them". The soldiers perishing and the civilian death toll would be insane. You're asking for World War 3 and even admitted it. The fact that you're so open about your insatiable thirst for blood and war mongering makes me physically ill.

Even more despicable is the fact that you do it from the safety of a keyboard completely detached from the real world behind your opinion polls. As I previously referenced which you have yet to rebut, if you believe this is the right path to "freedom and 'murica" and such, why aren't you rushing to fight? What happened if they started up a draft and put you in or people you were close to? Your "just cause" would turn on you instantly. It's almost sociopathic the way you talk about this so emotionlessly and simplistically. You see soldiers as units meant to do your dirty work and fix your cultural agendas and not individual people with families of their own. As I said if you were to serve your point of view would shift at the drop of a hat. You see the civilians as nothing but nuisances and part of the so-called "terrorist culture". Everything is technical, you talk about this like it's some video game about battle strategy. Listen, it's not that simple, not one minute bit. Try living in the real world sometime where humans, emotions, life, death, cultures and everything else exists and not your fantasy land where America and its allies are utterly invincible superheroes eliminating terrorist scourge with the flick of a finger. Again showing your complete ignorance of history, not one of our campaigns in the Middle East or in general overseas has worked in the last 50 or 60 years.

So yes, I find your viewpoint and attitude sickening in many many ways as not only myself but Laika, jarbox, Jimmy, etc have been pointed out but it's clear you're only interested in winning internet debates so I see no more reason to continue seeing this has been going on in circles for almost two pages now. Go ahead and "win" "debates" all you want but that won't change the sickness that lies within your mind.

(Going for the short responses seeing as none of this is getting through)

idk how you convinced yourself I’m suggesting some genocidal manhunt through the general population

I didn't have to convince myself of anything, you've already said it all.in your own thread. Extremism is a state of mind that can't be killed with any gun yet you don't understand this.

Have you forgotten what you've wrote? this thread is a goldmine of quotes.

The US commander says ~8500 ISIS fighters total have been killed in Iraq and Syria, since 2011 there have been 641 troop deaths, and more than 200,000 unrelated Syrian civilians alone caught in the “crossfire” (I mean, sitting in their houses when bombs fell out of the air on top of them).

In comparison to the death toll that will be incurred by (in your words again) a " a multi-nation ground troop assault that wipes them all out in one confrontation" this number is incredibly meagre in comparison.

{ They aren’t a massive super-organised professional army. }
They’re not?

No they aren't. They lack stable logistics, proper organisation, proper education and have zero democratic presence.

in the last three years have amassed nearly 10,000 purely Western fighters

Russia currently has 771,000 active personnel with just over 2 million in reserve and they are currently ranked 5th in the world when it comes to the size of their standing military with a budget of about 70 million dollars.

You mean to tell me that ISIS is on par with Russia in any area of its military sector? or any superpower nations for that matter.

But no, you’re right, we should ignore all of those people, we should ignore the lack of basic rights and human dignity

You're not getting it. Direct military intervention by everyone will make the situation worse. Kick up massive shit storm. Promoting war in the middle east. No nation wants to go to war for this cause because their responsibilities lie with their own people.

We should sit back, maybe cordon of this entire situation and care for our own nations for once instead of ones overseas.

{ Because they’ll run away, melt into the surrounding cities and wilderness, and come back as soon as we leave. }

Where are 50,000-200,0000 ISIS fighters going to magically disappear to? This time they've established actual bases in cities they continue to defend, they control the surrounding cities and wilderness right now, they're forming a global caliphate they plan to hold on to, and thanks to the Iraqi Army fleeing at the first sight of ISIS (so much for the sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq Obama left behind) they've got the equipment to do so. What makes you so confident they would just turn tail and abandon everything?

Today they used three of their 2300 US Humvees to kill another 41 and injure 63, suicide car bombs, their fav.

{ Let the middle east deal with its own problems. }

The Middle East's problems have leaked out to South Asia and North Africa already, where do you draw the line? When they establish themselves somewhere near you? I don't agree, I don't think we should stand back and watch this group grow more and more significant just because they haven't laid roots here yet, that's the most xenophobic thing I've read thus far. Isolation solves nothing.

What's wrong with the idea I think Sgt. Green was attempting to bring up? Nobody else is even talking to each other in this thread lmao, you're all just trying to "prove me wrong" in a discussion that has no right or wrong answers.

Where are 50,000-200,0000 ISIS fighters going to magically disappear to?

The same places the Taliban went to. The same places Al-Queda was hiding. Places where they won't be found.

Do you have no concept of hindsight?

Remember Afghanistan. Remember what fucking happened in Afghanistan? That's what's going to happen with ISIS.

The Middle East’s problems have leaked out to South Asia and North Africa already

Yes, keep spouting the bullshit rhetoric about Boko Haram and ISIS and every jihadist group ever all being the same. Maybe some people will start believing it.

{ Have you forgotten what you’ve wrote? this thread is a goldmine of quotes. }

You go ahead and go back through this thread and quote me suggesting genocide. I am so willing to wait. I've been talking about terrorists and government since the OP.

{ Extremism is a state of mind }

That is easily controlled when the largest active movement in support of it no longer exists. Extremism is surging among fundamentalists because they're seeing an extreme fundamentalist group rise to power and do what they're saying they're gonna do. We have extremists fundamentalists here but they aren't joining together to slaughter everybody else, they get together to hold angry signs all day.

{ You mean to tell me that ISIS is on par with Russia in any area of its military sector? or any superpower nations for that matter. }

Australia to France, depending on which government's estimations you go with. It's 50k-200k (and both estimates are outdated). What makes you think Russia would stand against them anyway? Russia, who has pledged its support to Iran, who both literally just pulled their 100 advisers and finances out of Syria which leaves the Syrian Army nearly completely on its own literally as ISIS and their rapidly rising umbrella group Jaysh al-Fatah approaches? Russia also announced a few hours ago that they will begin construction on a second new nuclear plant for Iran, in addition to the one already in progress. Are you even keeping up with this stuff or are you going on what you heard two years ago?

{ No nation wants to go to war for this cause because their responsibilities lie with their own people. }

That may have been true three years ago when nobody thought anything would come of ISIS, they were globally underestimated, the US was using its overreaction as an excuse to get oil, blah blah blah. Now the governments of the world are changing their opinions. OPEC is meeting this week to discuss ISIS' recent advance on and fires started at oil refineries across the region, they're making enough of an impact of late for the Gulf States to take notice. Singapore's Prime Minister recently summed up this very point of view: “This is why Singapore takes terrorism, and in particular ISIS, very seriously,” Lee said. “The threat is no longer over there, it is over here.”

We, the people with the ability to take them out, get to sit back and "let them take care of their own problems" because it's still over there not over here. Convenient!

{ The same places Al-Queda was hiding }

Al-Q joined with ISIS in an official statement last year to form a superpower in the region, which is why so many umbrella orgs have been able to form.

The Taliban was, at its largest, half the size of the low estimates of ISIS' fighters from two years ago (are you starting to grasp that there's a real difference to this one yet?). It has, however, also started to pick up in activity again as ISIS grows in notoriety, but luckily they and ISIS formally declared jihad on each other.

Honestly, that you compare 2011-now to Afghanistan really just shows you don't understand what has happened over there in the last four years. The situations are completely different.

{ Yes, keep spouting the bullshit rhetoric about Boko Haram and ISIS and every jihadist group ever all being the same. Maybe some people will start believing it. }

I posted the Prime Minister of Singapore's quotes on how significant ISIS has become in South Asia and you completely ignored it. Boko Haram's leader pledged allegiance to ISIS' leader, which he formally accepted. All of this happened publicly within the last four months, you're the one that missed it.

Al-Q joined with ISIS in an official statement last year to form a superpower in the region

What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

The Taliban was, at its largest, half the size of the low estimates of ISIS’ fighters from two years ago (are you starting to grasp that there’s a real difference to this one yet?).

If you knew anything at all about the military situation you would understand that how many people they have means JACK SHIT. 50 thousand? They'd get crushed by the west. 200 thousand? It'd be a lot bloodier, but the outcome would be the same. They know that too, and they wouldn't dare risk a direct confrontation.

Honestly, that you compare 2011-now to Afghanistan really just shows you don’t understand what has happened over there in the last four years. The situations are completely different.

A fundamentalist group controls the region, and idiotic neocon hawks want us to dive right in and "set things straight" because it's the way of True American Justice.

Not gonna fucking happen.

I posted the Prime Minister of Singapore’s quotes on how significant ISIS has become in South Asia and you completely ignored it. Boko Haram’s leader pledged allegiance to ISIS’ leader, which he formally accepted.

Are ISIS troops marching on Singapore? Are they campaigning in Algeria? Or are they just doing the same terrorist shit they did before, only with a different cause backing them?

{ What the fuck does that have to do with anything? }

You're the one who brought them up, it sounded like you thought they were all spread out and done for when all they did was join ISIS.

{ It’d be a lot bloodier, but the outcome would be the same. They know that too, and they wouldn’t dare risk a direct confrontation. }

We are all aware of this, but we're all also aware that we're not going to do anything. They don't think we're going to respond, they agree with you. I'm saying we should do it while we have the chance, don't let them run away, get an overpowered multinational effort to surround them in the large territory they've managed to amass and are willing to defend so far and end it. Maybe they'd even surrender, but they're more likely to try and take as many people as they can down with them. That is going to be the end result, no matter when it happens or who it involves. I say the most efficient and well-equipped nations of the world should do it now.

{ Are ISIS troops marching on Singapore? }

like I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Isis' South-east Asia arm poses major threat to Singapore

and before you say that looks like a blog, that is the English-language version of Singapore's second-highest circulated newspaper.

I'll post this again, maybe you'll read it this time.

{ Cameramen themselves are heroes in this information war: Media, an unnamed fighter says in a video dedicated to these PR mujahedeen, is "half of the battle, if not its majority."

An April video calling for doctors to join IS shows physicians in immaculate scrubs, as well as clean and functioning medical equipment. It features a clean-shaven, blue-eyed Australian moving about in a pristine neo-natal ward, promising new recruits that they will be helping Muslims who suffer from "a lack of qualified medical care." The video has the feel of a daytime television public-service message.

In an exchange on social networking service Ask.fm the same week, a person identifying himself as a British resident of Islamic State territories promised newcomers free medical school with minimal entry requirements. Meanwhile, in a series of tweets, another person purporting to be a Briton praises subsidized gas, free water and dental care superior to anything offered in the West. }

I’m saying we should do it while we have the chance, don’t let them run away, get an overpowered multinational effort to surround them in the large territory they’ve managed to amass and are willing to defend so far and end it.

When I read this, I can only think these words come from the mind of a stupid child.

"Well, if our plan didn't work before, it was because we weren't trying hard enough! It'll work now if we just throw more money and more people and more equipment at it!"

More invasions, more reasons to piss off the locals who will go on to join the next jihadist movement, and then we're back at the same situation in five to ten years.

and before you say that looks like a blog, that is the English-language version of Singapore’s second-highest circulated newspaper.

Circulation doesn't mean a damn to me. Fox News and MSNBC sure have a lot of circulation, but that doesn't make them any less unbiased.

I'm just gonna pop in, say something, and leave because this debate seems really intense and would stress me out if I stayed.
It seems like everyone is assuming the only two options are war and not doing anything. It isn't – it never is. While it may not be the best option in some cases, there are many non-violent options for pushing back. No form of government can be upheld if ~3.5% of the citizens resist it, after all.

I know you said you were leaving but part of the problem is that the people currently under fundamentalist rule are too scared/unable to resist. They're just blatantly killing anyone who does in the territories they've captured, I'm pretty sure PRI did a radio interview about what life is currently like under ISIS rule and how it's even more horrifying than we imagined. It's fundamental Islam at its most extreme.

We can discuss it without it being a wall-o-text war.

{ More invasions, more reasons to piss off the locals who will go on to join the next jihadist movement, and then we’re back at the same situation in five to ten years. }

What exactly do you think it's like for the locals right now? Why do you think they're able to casually ignore all this for some reason, like we'd be some inconvenience?

Good opportunity to find the PRI story.

Life under ISIS rule is worse than we ever imagined

The locals have been utterly devastated by our airstrikes, yet that's what we choose to keep doing. Right now they're getting too widespread for their own good, Mosul took a heavy toll, they're waiting for reinforcements and new recruits. The recent admission by Iraq and the US that the ~200 Humvees they lost was actually 1300 (edit I was wrong it was 2,300 ) is sure to help morale. We need to do something about it before the next wave of reinforcements and new recruits rolls in.

What exactly do you think it’s like for the locals right now?

What, the locals, the majority of whom, you claimed, are all extremists? The ones who would be the first to join a resistance group once the foreign invaders roll in?

Do you even read what you're typing?

RyumaruBorike said:

What I meant was a poll that samples from the entire Muslim world, not a single part of it.

That's a pretty good sample size of the "Muslim world." I really don't think expanding it to include Iran and Saudi Arabia would have changed the percentages very much.

To the best of my knowledge, there hasn't been a detailed poll done yet over ISIS support. Al Jazeera had the online one with 80% support--but it's an online poll.

jarbox said:

Where do you think they’re going to go once someone says they’re going to invade?

That's actually pretty easy to answer. They'd organize at Dabiq, Syria. Thanks to the belief that their version of Armageddon will happen there once they defeat the "armies of Rome [the West]."

…the Crusades had a hell of an impact on the area…

The only real things the Crusades did was introduce Europe to China via the silk road and trigger the collapse of the Byzantine Empire. By the 1400s, the Ottomans had fully seized control of the Middle East and were knocking on Vienna's door.

Laika said:

Britain went to war against Afghanistan for 14 years and has only just left, It dominated the BBC News throughout its entirety. The British public never supported the invasion in the first place and called for nothing but an end to it during the whole conflict. Tony Blair is a war criminal.

I think you mean Iraq. Britain had to go to war against Afghanistan as Article 5 (if one country's attacked, they're all attacked) of the Washington Treaty was invoked by 9/11. The Afgan war was was also fully authorized by the UN in Resolution 1386.

{ you claimed, are all extremists? }

I proved they are largely fundamentalists.

You're not differentiating between fundamentalists and extremist fundamentalists while I have been, maybe that's why you keep misinterpreting everything I post.

Where are 50,000-200,0000 ISIS fighters going to magically disappear to?

Do you think they have "terrorist" tattooed onto their foreheads?

What don't you get about them being underground.
What don't you get about extremism being a state of mind

When in the face of complete destruction they will disappear in plane sight like they always have done and disseminate back into the national population.

You go ahead and go back through this thread and quote me suggesting genocide. I am so willing to wait. I’ve been talking about terrorists and government since the OP.

>"Why wont another large war fix things?"

>"it’s in our interest to demolish the other side entirely and move on with modern society."

>" I’m talking WW3."

>"Not every single person in each country agreed with their country’s actions, yet they share in the punishment. That’s how the cookie crumbles."

>"My suggestion is a multi-nation ground troop assault that wipes them all out in one confrontation"

I needn't go one because you have already twisted my words. I never suggested a genocide (where did you get that?) I believe my exact words were…

I want to hear your exact plan on how you intend to vet each and every civilian in the middle east for extremist tendencies. What is it?

A question you still haven't answered.

Why are you assuming they would abandon everything they’ve spent the last few years gaining and working toward to run away?

You really think they would attack a developed EU country directly? like an invasion?

they’ve got billions of dollars, they’ve got enough equipment to be a serious threat,

No they haven't, not to the EU.

Australia to France, depending on which government’s estimations you go with. It’s 50k-200k (and both estimates are outdated). What makes you think Russia would stand against them anyway? Russia, who has pledged its support to blah blah blah…..

I didn't state anywhere that Russia would go to war in the Middle-East, I don't believe anyone would. You seemed to believe that ISIS was comparable in its military capability as a super-power nation and I gave you a quick summary of Russia's armed forces

Are you even keeping up with this stuff or are you going on what you heard two years ago?

Are you keeping up with what I or anyone has posted in your own thread?

We, the people with the ability to take them out, get to sit back and “let them take care of their own problems” because it’s still over there not over here. Convenient!

Crying out loud…how are you suppose to "take them out"? try answering the question for once without spouting more "joint-miliatary western supuh strike so we can anihalte every1"

You are almost like a clone of Jolly Jew in that you are incredibly narcissistic, stubborn and arrogant. You wonder why people in your thread are all attacking you and yet you don't understand that its because you completely unbalance the debate with your overly-bashful view on the subject matter whilst at the same time taking in nothing of what people are saying to you.

Your loud and painfully ridiculous posts topple the conversation time and time again with how much they take the thread by storm. You link up your articles, quote your speeches and drag up your charts but its all overshadowed by the shit-storm of text surrounding it. It's odd how you lack the ability to take a break and self-evaluate. The fact that you have this brickwall approach to debate is so bad that it's starting to derail me from the actual subject.

This thread is more of a preaching if anything. "listen to me and what I have to say! you are wrong! this is why you are wrong! [link]"

Hey, you know what? Isn't it weird that the side supposedly for "free speech" is against somebody else's faith because they feel like theirs is the only true one? Makes you wonder

The side for free speech isn't protesting Islam's existence, they're protesting censorship in favor of Islam. Like people say don't draw Muhammad because you're disrespecting a religion, but there are thousands of artworks featuring Jesus in highly offensive/controversial scenarios. They're saying be Muslim, but don't expect us to censor free speech just because your religion doesn't like what's being said or done.

> When the Nazi movement began capturing territories and slaughtering tens of thousands of people, the world responded with war.

Are you kidding? The world turned a blind eye to the slaughter of innocents for years. Hell, it was hardly known by anything what happened in the Holocaust until after the fact, in 1945. It was mentioned only in a handful of newspapers in the middle of page 17. Nobody cared, and this is such a historically inaccurate depiction of genocide that it's laughably pathetic. More confusingly, the fact that it was ignored would be a greater lesson if you want to draw an analogy, you could say that it's an example of why we must respond now. Oh well

>The side for free speech isn’t protesting Islam’s existence, they’re protesting censorship in favor of Islam.

Yeah, that's why so many of them tear pages from Islamic scripture, eat pork (as some sort of joke about dietary restrictions, not because they just happen to pick pork to eat) or hold up signs that say "fuck sand people" at these rallies, because they don't want censorship. Real convincing, lombs.

{ The world turned a blind eye to the slaughter of innocents for years. }

We've already covered appeasement, which is exactly what we've been doing to the Middle Eastern countries. Like I said, we've been babysitting Japan for how long now? We still basically occupy the country. Iran? Hey, they haven't proved they're willing to play political ball with the rest of the world, but we're going to go ahead and help them build nukes anyway (Russia is already constructing the second new nuclear facility in Iran).

{ at these rallies }

At any rally/protest that could possibly involve a religion, you mean? Are you conveniently ignoring the Bibles that have been ripped up and burned at LGBT protests over the years? Even the American flag is routinely burned and stomped on during protests. The actions of the individuals who choose to protest in such a way are within free speech no matter what cause is behind them.

Laiks, I didn't even see you post! & here I thought this thread had died. My b.

{ What don’t you get about them being underground. }

What, these people? Sooooo underground, I can't even.

idk why I have to keep reiterating that this is not the same ragtag group from three years ago.

{ >"My suggestion is a multi-nation ground troop assault that wipes them all out in one confrontation" etc }

None of those refer to sweeping through the general population and slaughtering regular citizens who do not align themselves with terrorist groups.

{ I want to hear your exact plan on how you intend to vet each and every civilian in the middle east for extremist tendencies. What is it? }

A question I haven't answered because that's not at all what I've been suggesting.

Fundamentalists are not all extremists, first of all. While the majority of ME Muslims are in fact fundamentalist, the percentage that supports extremist action is relatively small, especially in countries that are not governed by Islamic law. The Pew Forum survey I posted earlier in this thread confirms it.

We don't need to be concerned with civilians who merely think or voice their support for extremist tendencies but aren't willing to leave the comfort of their normal lives and join a terrorist movement. They're exactly the same as the fundies here who talk about society's downfall and getting rid of all the gays/blacks/whatever they're against, you roll your eyes and say k grandpa I think it's time for you to go to bed.

{ No they haven’t, not to the EU. }

Do you realize you're the only one who thinks this way? How ISIS Threatens Europe. EU countries could hire PR firms to beat back ISIS. Up to 6,000 Europeans joined ISIS in Syria – EU. British Prime Minister David Cameron reveals at least six serious attacks planned against member states of the European Union by the self-declared Islamic State. Europe Tries to Stop Flow of Citizens Joining Jihad.

The EU is taking the threat they know ISIS represents very seriously.

{ how are you suppose to “take them out”? try answering the question for once without spouting more “joint-miliatary western supuh strike so we can anihalte every1” }

I've answered this multiple times. A united Western military confrontation that surrounds them in their captured territories and eliminates them. They're all in one region right now, we could just as easily drop bombs on the lot of them, but that would kill civilians as well, which is why we haven't and why ISIS keeps their supplies in houses and schools. A ground effort allows us to limit civilian casualties.

The rest of your post is a pretty basic piece of empty rage, so I ignored it.

A united Western military confrontation that surrounds them in their captured territories and eliminates them.

Or, "I have no understanding of logistics whatsoever."

Why don't you explain the logistics I don't get instead of insisting I don't get them? :)

For comparison, read up on Operation Barbarossa. Being the largest land invasion in the history of the world, it did succeed in encircling many of the border Russian armies and forcing them to abandon their equipment. However, millions of the Russian soldiers escaped their pockets into the countryside and continued to fight as partisans.

So, what you're asking for (not only eliminating ISIS as a military force for the time being, but capturing and killing all of their soldiers) is completely stupid.

You're talking about an individual battle of that overall operation, and the Germans were only slowed down by the weather. If storms hadn't turned the entire area to mud and they were able to advance more quickly and completely surround the Russians, the ones that did wouldn't have gotten away. & they still captured more than were able to run.

The whole operation was on overwhelming success for Germany, who managed to capture high priority economic locations within Russia. Had they not ultimately run out of supplies and been caught up in a Russian fall/winter in Moscow, things may have gone very differently.

I don't anticipate a modern effort between three or four of the most advanced militaries running into weather and supplies issues, so all your comparison has done is prove that the idea is solid when all other variables are accounted for.

edit: and it wasn't millions of soldiers you cow, they captured 300k while 200k managed to flee.

The whole operation was on overwhelming success for Germany, who managed to capture high priority economic locations within Russia.

Which isn't what you're asking for. You want a complete and total victory eliminating extremism entirely from the middle east so that it doesn't return as soon as western forces leave.

I don’t anticipate a modern effort between three or four of the most advanced militaries running into weather and supplies issues

Because that's exactly what happened when we did the same fucking thing in Afghanistan, right? It's good to know that extremism doesn't exist there anymore!

Yeah, and as I asked Laika, you go ahead and quote me saying in this thread that the goal is to eliminate all extremism from the Middle East. I'll wait again~

That is not what happened in Afghanistan, which has had its tyrannical government overthrown and led to the return of nearly 6 million refugees who had previously fled. This goal can't be accomplished on a country by country basis when the terrorist networks run deep between them, that's why my suggestion is to address the entire region at once.

PSA: the number of civilian deaths in Syria alone is at least 4x the total number of deaths overall contributed to the 2001-2014 Afghanistan War.

Yeah, and as I asked Laika, you go ahead and quote me saying in this thread that the goal is to eliminate all extremism from the Middle East.

You did want all the ISIS soldiers in the region eliminated, which is unrealistic.

That is not what happened in Afghanistan, which has had its tyrannical government overthrown and led to the return of nearly 6 million refugees who had previously fled.

And said tyrannical government is currently in the process of retaking the region. Much progress has been made, clearly.

that’s why my suggestion is to address the entire region at once.

Oh yes, invade every single country in the region, even the ones that aren't actually participating in the conflict. That'll convince them.

Why would we not include countries participating in the conflict??

Right, the Taliban just recently took a city by attacking it from all four sides at once. They've been allowed to make gains because 1 . we're gone and 2. no single country in the region can stabilize while large, active terrorist coalitions exist.

Soooo what do we do?

Why would we not include countries participating in the conflict??

Countries that have terrorist groups operating illegally in their borders would be very angry with us if we used that as casus belli (and would probably see a large upsurge in people joining said organizations). Compare Nixon bombing Cambodia because of the Ho Chi Minh trail.

They’ve been allowed to make gains because 1 . we’re gone and 2. no single country in the region can stabilize while large, active terrorist coalitions exist.

So, the only way to stabilize the region is to occupy the entire region under such brutal conditions (as Iraq was under Saddam Hussein) that no terrorist group can occupy there?

That's both immoral and fucking absurd.

Soooo what do we do?

Let them solve their problems.

So… you suggest we just move our troops out and leave them to their own devices? That will just let them grow…. I can't believe I'm saying this, but perhaps occupying the region might not be such a bad idea. Yea, sure, it's immoral. But it would probably get the job done…. Aside from that, only thing I see working is a nuke.

wahahahaha I love seeing Obama's terrible foreign policy backfire.

U.S. prepares plans for more troops, new base in Iraq: officials

Still just another busload of trainers though, he's so adamant that US troops must not fight on the front lines. Gee, I wonder why ISIS has been allowed to greatly expand since the US/Western military all pulled out?

{ you suggest we just move our troops out and leave them to their own devices? That will just let them grow }

That's literally already what happened, there are no combat troops left in Iraq and Syria, these lil high school kids just can't comprehend the real world. All of ISIS' progress came post-2011/12 when Obama got on national television and declared all the troops would be home by Christmas~ he left about 3,000 advisers to train the Iraqi Army but they're not allowed to actually fight with them. We were making great progress in the ME before the Democrats took over, but all these kids know are played down stories by the liberal US media. The rest of the world is not so content to let terrorists have their way.

{ Countries that have terrorist groups operating illegally in their borders would be very angry with us if we used that as casus belli }

Those countries are asking us to be there. They've all changed their tune after the troops pulled out, now they're begging us to come back and help as ISIS racks up territory. Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Jordan, sort-of-Egypt, even Iraq whose public opinion chased us out of the country is crying to have us back. Doesn't really help that Biden and Obama try to take the pressure off their actions by blaming our ME "allies" for the rise of ISIS.

{ Al Otaibi {UAE ambassador} said the United States already has produced a model that could work to stabilize security situation in the Middle East. It “invented the containment strategy in the Cold War” that stopped Soviet expansion in Europe without a nuclear war. }

whhaaaaat, the ME countries are advising the exact same ground troop surround-n-slaughter effort I've been putting forward? impossibru1!!1!!

{ So, the only way to stabilize the region is to occupy the entire region under such brutal conditions }

{ Clips also show mosques and shrines being destroyed. Residents speak of brutal punishments for anyone contravening the jihadists' interpretation of Islamic law, which is imposed across the "caliphate" whose creation they proclaimed weeks after seizing Mosul.

Theft is punished by amputating a hand, adultery by men by throwing the offender from a high building, and adultery by women by stoning to death. The punishments are carried out in public to intimidate people, who are often forced to watch.

IS takes a quarter of everyone's salary as a contribution towards paying for rebuilding the city. People can't say no because they would face harsh punishments. The group controls everything. Rent is paid to it and the hospitals are for its members' exclusive use.

IS knows the army will try to retake Mosul, so they're taking precautions. They've destroyed the city by digging tunnels, building barricades, planting mines and bombs, and filling the city with snipers, which will make it very difficult for the army. }

Fuck 'em. Let them sort out their own problems.
We wouldn't want to go around causing brutal conditions or anything.