ISIS

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

Or we could do like digital asshole, and bend over for them believing if we let them fuck us, they will like us.

Forget all of that nonsense about pig pieces.  Let's just send Karl over there with a megaphone and have him start talking about himself.  Those who don't kill themselves will immediately surrender and beg to be taken to Guantanamo, and out of earshot.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

Did you get beat up a lot in school? I bet you did, huh?

I fucked guys like you in prison.

[Quick Karl]

Of course not. ISIS needs to be eradicated. If I knew the solution to this mess I'd join Arafat and Obama as a Peace Prize recipient.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

if the claim is Pershing simply would not have done this, ok.

Pershing went out of his way to avoid provocative acts against religious fanatics, because he realized it would be counter-productive.  Sort of the way the recent beheading is going to backfire on the ISIS.

[Quick Karl]

The lack of evidence is not exactly definitive, but if the claim is Pershing simply would not have done this, ok.  People usually stay in character.

That this may be a myth, originated from an early movie is a little like some of what's attributed to Sarah Palin being actually said by Tina Fey on SNL

I doubt that lacking solid evidence, the Government would admit if he did it. I have no doubt that lots of things happened in War that the government won't acknowledge -- I mean, they used to say Area 51 didn't exist...

But I guess if its on the internet, then its a fact, right?

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

short of nuking the entire area which obviously is not going to happen.

Hey hey hey, don't be so quickkarl to take that option off the table.  We did it once to shorten a war and save lives.  There's precedent.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

I doubt that lacking solid evidence, the Government would admit if he did it.

Just because it's not true doesn't mean that you have to stop beating off while thinking about it.  So calm down.

[Quick Karl]

Hey hey hey, don't be so quickkarl to take that option off the table.  We did it once to shorten a war and save lives.  There's precedent.

Except that traitors like you would be out screaming in the street over it -- safe in the fact you don't have the courage to ever do anything to protect anyone.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

Except that traitors like you would be out screaming in the street over it -- safe in the fact you don't have the courage to ever do anything to protect anyone.

[psssst...earth to dumfuk: i already proposed doing it, earlier today.  you even posted in that thread, remember?]

[jazmunda]

Hey hey hey, don't be so quickkarl to take that option off the table.  We did it once to shorten a war and save lives.  There's precedent.

Different circumstances. I don't believe even nuking an area would stop groups like ISIS from arising. Unfortunately it is an ideological war that can never be won.

[Quick Karl]

Different circumstances. I don't believe even nuking an area would stop groups like ISIS from arising. Unfortunately it is an ideological war that can never be won.

I disagree, it can be won - but it won't be won by anyone like Obama.

We have to unleash "our" warriors, and shut up and let them do what they are trained to do.

[Quick Karl]

[psssst...earth to dumfuk: i already proposed doing it, earlier today.  you even posted in that thread, remember?]

Actually I forget the things you post in about 3-second after I respond to them - like when I kill a mosquito - I don't dwell on it after...

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

Actually I forget the things you post in about 3-second after I respond to them

Ah, "senior moments."  Poor Karl and his camo walker.

[jazmunda]

I disagree, it can be won - but it won't be won by anyone like Obama.

We have to unleash "our" warriors, and shut up and let them do what they are trained to do.

Just playing devils advocate here and I don't want to sound too lefty but "we" go over there (your hundred thousand troops, our 1000 troops if that) and we conduct air strikes, destroy infrastructure (what's left), kill civilians (collateral damage) and leave. What happens then? The kids that are left, the disaffected teenagers, get brainwashed by the muftis and the remaining fighters that we didn't kill and the whole process starts again. That's a simplified version but you get the drift.

How do we stop the ISIS from rising again. If we keep our soldiers there we will be seen as an occupying force and resentment will build. It would be great if we could rebuild their shit holes and show them that they too can have the good life but once we leave and give them "democracy" the corruption starts, the rot starts, their unskilled armies can't keep control, and the whole process starts again.

Short of laying waste to the area and starting again, I can't see us ever "winning" over there.

Is it better for us to be fighting them over there rather than at home?

[Quick Karl]

Just playing devils advocate here and I don't want to sound too lefty but "we" go over there (your hundred thousand troops, our 1000 troops if that) and we conduct air strikes, destroy infrastructure (what's left), kill civilians (collateral damage) and leave. What happens then? The kids that are left, the disaffected teenagers, get brainwashed by the muftis and the remaining fighters that we didn't kill and the whole process starts again. That's a simplified version but you get the drift.

How do we stop the ISIS from rising again. If we keep our soldiers there we will be seen as an occupying force and resentment will build. It would be great if we could rebuild their shit holes and show them that they too can have the good life but once we leave and give them "democracy" the corruption starts, the rot starts, their unskilled armies can't keep control, and the whole process starts again.

Short of laying waste to the area and starting again, I can't see us ever "winning" over there.

Is it better for us to be fighting them over there rather than at home?

What did "we" do after WWII, after "we" decimated Germany and Japan?

What are Germany and Japan now?

That's what "we" should do! 

If all we do is give them a bloody nose then come home because pussies are rioting in the streets, we'll have to keep sending 20-yr old kids to have their legs blown off.

We we should do, is send the pussies that are rioting in first, as cannon fodder...

[jazmunda]

What did "we" do after WWII, after "we" decimated Germany and Japan?

What are Germany and Japan now?

That's what "we" should do! 

If all we do is give them a bloody nose then come home because pussies are rioting in the streets, we'll have to keep sending 20-yr old kids to have their legs blown off.

We we should do, is send the pussies that are rioting in first, as cannon fodder...

Not sure that plan would go down well with the UN but I'm positive you don't care about that lame duck organization. Luckily for the US the international court in The Hague is just a kangaroos court. Who know's maybe North Korea, Iran or China will school you on Human Rights violations if it's their turn to head the commission and if they're not too busy chastising Israel that week and turning a blind eye to Muslim on Muslim atrocities.

[Quick Karl]

Not sure that plan would go down well with the UN but I'm positive you don't care about that lame duck organization. Luckily for the US the international court in The Hague is just a kangaroos court. Who know's maybe North Korea, Iran or China will school you on Human Rights violations if it's their turn to head the commission and if they're not too busy chastising Israel that week.

You're so cynical 

"Stoicism is the wisdom of madness and cynicism is the madness of wisdom.” - Bergen Evans.

[jazmunda]

You're so cynical 

Reported.

[Quick Karl]

Reported.

Oh noooo! 

[PB the Deplorable]

... How do we stop the ISIS from rising again...

The Middle East is mostly uncivilized.  We certainly can't hand them a functioning democracy and expect that to take hold.  They are not post WWII Germany or Japan.

Look who the stable rulers are and have been:  Saddam Hussein, King Hussein in Jordan, the Assads, the Saudi Royal family and the various kings, sultans, emirs, etc in Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE, and Oman.  Mubarak, the Shah, Khadafy after we inflicted enough pain on him, etc.  Most of the military strongmen or their processors overthrew a line of royal families.  Even Afghanistan had a king in the not so distant past.

The threat to the outside world has mostly come when radicals gain a foothold:  Arafat, the Ayatollahs in Iran, the Taliban, and the non-government groups - the Moslem Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, and dozens of other mostly smaller terror groups - many of them Palestinian.


I think arming and backing Assad and the Kurds as two already existing armies in the area would be useful.  Finding out if Iran sincerely wants to be useful, at least in helping and protecting the Shia in Southern Iraq.  Are Egypt, the Saudi's, Jordan and Israel interested is some sort of coalition?  It's too bad Turkey appears gone, but perhaps they would be interested - they also had hopes of a caliphate run by them, i.e., bringing back the old Ottoman Empire, and can't be happy that it's ISIS doing it. 

Let's let them do the fighting and spending for awhile.  Perhaps other secular strongmen will emerge, or perhaps Syria and Iraq will splinter into numerous pieces for a time.

I'm not convinced we have to get ass deep in this again, at least with a big military presence.

Get off the golf course and pull this together Mr President.  Or resign and let someone else do it.

[Quick Karl]

The Middle East is mostly uncivilized.  We certainly can't hand them a functioning democracy and expect that to take hold.  They are not post WWII Germany or Japan.

Look who the stable rulers are and have been:  Saddam Hussein, King Hussein in Jordan, the Assads, the Saudi Royal family and the various kings, sultans, emirs, etc in Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE, and Oman.  Mubarak, the Shah, Khadafy after we inflicted enough pain on him, etc.  Most of the military strongmen or their processors overthrew a line of royal families.  Even Afghanistan had a king in the not so distant past.

The threat to the outside world has mostly come when radicals gain a foothold:  Arafat, the Ayatollahs in Iran, the Taliban, and the non-government groups - the Moslem Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, and dozens of other mostly smaller terror groups - many of them Palestinian.


I think arming and backing Assad and the Kurds as two already existing armies in the area would be useful.  Finding out if Iran sincerely wants to be useful, at least in helping and protecting the Shia in Southern Iraq.  Are Egypt, the Saudi's, Jordan and Israel interested is some sort of coalition?  It's too bad Turkey appears gone, but perhaps they would be interested - they also had hopes of a caliphate run by them, i.e., bringing back the old Ottoman Empire, and can't be happy that it's ISIS doing it. 

Let's let them do the fighting and spending for awhile.  Perhaps other secular strongmen will emerge, or perhaps Syria and Iraq will splinter into numerous pieces for a time.

I'm not convinced we have to get ass deep in this again, at least with a big military presence.

Get off the golf course and pull this together Mr President.  Or resign and let someone else do it.

Sooner or later we ARE going to have to go over there and kill so many people that they surrender - just like we did in WWII; I'd rather get it over with now.

No amount of hand-wringing or pathetic college-poindexter bullshit will ever solve this problem.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

Sooner or later we ARE going to have to go over there and kill so many people that they surrender - just like we did in WWII; I'd rather get it over with now.

No amount of hand-wringing or pathetic college-poindexter bullshit will ever solve this problem.

Keep your pants on Karl.  I just know you're itching to fight this war with your keyboard.

[SciFiAuthor]

Isis seems to be doing what al-Qaeda did on a much more massive scale: appealing to the perceived disaffected. Unfortunately, in our modern world disaffected is often just a euphemism for lazy and looking to justify it. That's what gangsta rap always was, just morons that refused to take advantage of the advantages given by civilization and instead embraced violence, turf-wars, and bullshit. Isis appeals to that mindset, the fake idea that the world is against you so you need to be against the world.

I agree partially with Karl in that if the middle east radicals wish to see us as crusaders, then we ought to behave as crusaders and respond with brute force and steamroller tactics that ignore our own cultural sensibilities. We are right, we know that we're right, we know that they're wrong, so crush them on their terms. Trying to be better than them in hopes of defeating them is an illusion, they don't care and they simply use it to their advantage because in that condition it becomes a demonstration of weakness. That sort of shit works on enlightened people like us, but it doesn't on savages, see Putin and the tactics he uses on his own people to maintain power.  But that's only going to work with the locals, it won't work for the western gangstas going over to have a good time beheading people because the stupid fucking violent rap gangsta culture is so deeply flawed. We need our pop culture to convince them that they are idiots, what they're doing is not cool, it's counterproductive for everyone, and if they come back we can deal with them on a legal basis. But if not, hunt them down with a drone and shoot a hellfire missile at them for the good of our society and the benign locals they are beheading and terrorizing.

It's time for reality. Isis is potentially the new Nazi party and if they continue to gain power, territory and influence, we will be fighting a war of necessity rather than choice in a few years and losing a whole hell of a lot of people over something that we could have fixed early on by not being so politically correct.

[Quick Karl]

Isis seems to be doing what al-Qaeda did on a much more massive scale: appealing to the perceived disaffected. Unfortunately, in our modern world disaffected is often just a euphemism for lazy and looking to justify it. That's what gangsta rap always was, just morons that refused to take advantage of the advantages given by civilization and instead embraced violence, turf-wars, and bullshit. Isis appeals to that mindset, the fake idea that the world is against you so you need to be against the world.

I agree partially with Karl in that if the middle east radicals wish to see us as crusaders, then we ought to behave as crusaders and respond with brute force and steamroller tactics that ignore our own cultural sensibilities. We are right, we know that we're right, we know that they're wrong, so crush them on their terms. Trying to be better than them in hopes of defeating them is an illusion, they don't care and they simply use it to their advantage because in that condition it becomes a demonstration of weakness. That sort of shit works on enlightened people like us, but it doesn't on savages, see Putin and the tactics he uses on his own people to maintain power.  But that's only going to work with the locals, it won't work for the western gangstas going over to have a good time beheading people because the stupid fucking violent rap gangsta culture is so deeply flawed. We need our pop culture to convince them that they are idiots, what they're doing is not cool, it's counterproductive for everyone, and if they come back we can deal with them on a legal basis. But if not, hunt them down with a drone and shoot a hellfire missile at them for the good of our society and the benign locals they are beheading and terrorizing.

It's time for reality. Isis is potentially the new Nazi party and if they continue to gain power, territory and influence, we will be fighting a war of necessity rather than choice in a few years and losing a whole hell of a lot of people over something that we could have fixed early on by not being so politically correct.

Thank you - it's as if we have the same mind, but you write better, and have the patience to do so.

[Yorkshire pud]

Back to the title of the thread; who says so? British Intelligence agencies haven't revealed who they think it is yet, so how does anyone else know?

As for the overall crises. Just how do you wage war on a philosophy? Nuking...who? Draw a line from the west coast of the Med, down around the Persian gulf, up and across, all of Afghanistan, around and back west to all the Arab states and back down again west of Syria.


And make it all glass? Yep, that'll work.

I'm sure someone will come along and say why it won't.

[WOTR]

Get off the golf course and pull this together Mr President.  Or resign and let someone else do it.

I think most people ralize that he is a rubber stamp (any president is.)  I have managed projects of varying sizes and I can tell you that the larger and more complex a project, the more I rely on those working with me for their expertise.  Imagine running a country?  What would you have him do?  Make another speech?  Let the generals do their work and he can sign the paper between rounds.

Back to the title of the thread; who says so? British Intelligence agencies haven't revealed who they think it is yet, so how does anyone else know?

As for the overall crises. Just how do you wage war on a philosophy? Nuking...who? Draw a line from the west coast of the Med, down around the Persian gulf, up and across, all of Afghanistan, around and back west to all the Arab states and back down again west of Syria.


And make it all glass? Yep, that'll work.

I'm sure someone will come along and say why it won't.

I suppose the word genocide springs to mind.  We prosecute nations, rulers and soldiers for their part in genocide and then commit the largest ever?  Good plan.

[WOTR]

I am really curious if anybody knows what would happen if they actually bothered to capture the guy rather than kill him?  Is there any law or any way in Britain that he would face the death penalty?  If not, it really might serve as a wake up call when he arrives on the shore and faces a life of relative luxury in prison for what he did.  I would actually encourage them to pick the guy up rather than leave him dead if it did not put people in extreme danger.  Can anybody imagine what would happen when the judge gives him 25 years for this?

On the other hand, citizens of Norway seemed to be alright with Breivik getting 21 years for killing 77 people, mostly youth (he can get an additional 4 years at a time if he is still "a threat to society" at the end...)

[Yorkshire pud]

I am really curious if anybody knows what would happen if they actually bothered to capture the guy rather than kill him?  Is there any law or any way in Britain that he would face the death penalty?

It wouldn't surprise me if the spooks know what their prime targets are (Foley's murderer is one of many) , and it leaves the options doesn't it? Get a high altitude UAV up, identify said targets and blow them up...OR send in SF and extract the prime subjects; far more risky and has the added danger of a soldier being captured and executed online.

Theoretically (at least I believe it's still the case) treason still carries the death penalty, but we don't have an infrastructure to do and executions. MP's from all sides are suggesting taking away citizenship...even though they're born here. This would leave the murderous thug without a country to turn to. So quite how they decide which place to extradite them to is anyone's guess...personally I'd just cut them up slowly with a blunt scalpel, but then I'm down to their level. What is therefore likely to happen is they will be tried and if found guilty sent to prison without any chance of release. They'll naturally be in maximum security.

If not, it really might serve as a wake up call when he arrives on the shore and faces a life of relative luxury in prison for what he did.  I would actually encourage them to pick the guy up rather than leave him dead if it did not put people in extreme danger.  Can anybody imagine what would happen when the judge gives him 25 years for this?

On the other hand, citizens of Norway seemed to be alright with Breivik getting 21 years for killing 77 people, mostly youth (he can get an additional 4 years at a time if he is still "a threat to society" at the end...)

He will get a lot longer than 25 years..he'll never be released (The legislation for it was passed not too long ago). The much wider problem is him being made a martyr to his deluded comrades. They'll still be those wanting to follow along. When I'm king, I'll make sure the bastards 'fall' out of the aeroplane on their way to the middle east.

[jazmunda]

When I'm king

I knew I voted against the Monarchy in our referendum back in 1999 for a reason.

God Save the King my arse!

[Yorkshire pud]

I knew I voted against the Monarchy in our referendum back in 1999 for a reason.

God Save the King my arse!

I'll be the first atheist king. Religion will be abolished. Even in the colonies.