5 ms·

Because there's no other way around this but to be political, can't we sort out our crumbling infrastructure, education, and healthcare systems before worrying

by vippy 11y ago

Because there's no other way around this but to be political, can't we sort out our crumbling infrastructure, education, and healthcare systems before worrying about blowing up a middle-age, middle eastern cult? Can we not let them get the better of us? Or have we entirely sold out to the arms industry?

enlightenedfool 11y ago
I think the saner view being minority, it isn't possible unfortunately.
oconnore 11y ago
They've already launched direct attacks on our allies, and more recently inspired attacks on US soil. They are holding territory, are self funded (generously), and are recruiting around the globe. Arguably they are more dangerous than Al-Qaeda ever was. Doesn't this merit a military response? If not, what on earth would?
- cerebrum 11y ago
  No. Just stop supllying them weapons and buying their oil.
- npunt 11y ago
  If you want to cut off the snake at its head, cut the money supply. Its not like we live in some great era of terrorism - there's always been deranged people who wish to destroy and whom get a few followers. The difference between that phenomenon and ISIS is they've secured some land that produces oil, and have a buyer - Turkey. This suggests hard-nosed diplomacy before military intervention, especially as the result of the latter 10 years ago is literally the reason we have this current mess.
  - hnamazon123 11y ago
    Islamic State needs oil money to sustain its military, not the terrorists that it sends into Europe. The most expensive cost there is airfare and weapons/munitions. Additionally, cutting off funding doesn't solve the issue of homegrown terrorism, a la Sayed Farook who is a salaried employee and set up an IED factory in his home. He probably paid for that himself.
    - npunt 11y ago
      First, I'd bet that ISIS money is spent on a lot more than military - what about providing a cushy experience for previously recruited western radicals, so that they tell others back home how great it is? Can't find the link, but varieties in accommodations for recently recruited western radicals vs others is causing some internal strife. If you came over to ISIS from some nice first world place like London, only to find yourself in a very uncomfortable, foreign desert environment eating crap food, you probably wouldn't send message back that everything's great. That costs money. Second, you assume the cost of propaganda is 0, which it is not. ISIS has gone so far as to publish a very high production value magazine [0] and high quality recruitment videos. You can bet that there are tons of people on message boards and other corners of the net that are on ISIS payroll out there trying to radicalize as many people as possible, offering a (twisted) sense of purpose and meaning in their lives. And people collecting and disseminating content on how best to make IEDs, kill people, etc. They undoubtedly have many social media managers. In my first comment I was going to add another point which was that if we were able to completely wipe out ISIS that will not all of a sudden stop people from being radicalized, it will only stop those being radicalized by ISIS. ISIS happens to recruit better than most (due to their money), but there will always be people, often marginalized, who will fall prey to radicalization - and some who seek it out. Sayed seems like he was that kind of guy, ISIS or no. Everyone's all up in arms about ISIS because we're being blanketed by news about them, which is not proportional to the threat they actually pose to us. Paris was a manifestation of longstanding troubles with european countries integrating muslim immigrants which likely created necessary conditions for radicalization by [insert crazy people]; San Bernardino was very likely a manifestation of mental health issues and cultural marginalization/domestic political climate. These issues are unlikely to go away when ISIS does - the latter we have an example of from just the week prior with the Planned Parenthood shooter. [0] http://www.clarionproject.org/news/islamic-state-isis-isil-propaganda-magazine-dabiq http://www.clarionproject.org/news/islamic-state-isis-isil-p...
- jacquesm 11y ago
  A military response plays directly into their hands so no, this does not merit a military response. What it does merit is isolating them and making sure they have no further access to weapons or funds and to assist those that want to flee.
  - hnamazon123 11y ago
    You can't tackle the threat already within the borders without a France-style state of emergency, unfortunately.
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      And that may be what it will take for a while. But that's a different problem than what to do about IS on territory that they currently hold. One thing that we can do is make it impossible for IS supporters abroad to go to their territory to receive training.
- pj_mukh 11y ago
  False. This is exactly what they want. With an idea as "viral" as theirs that is about the dumbest thing you can do i.e. give them more evidence of their bankrupt cult-ish ideas. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isi... tl;dr: The Islamic State awaits the army of “Rome,” whose defeat at Dabiq, Syria, will initiate the countdown to the apocalypse.
  - hnamazon123 11y ago
    Copy pasting this from below: Who gives a fuck what Islamic State wants us to do? This is the most intellectually bankrupt argument tossed around. It literally makes no sense at all. We need to do what is strategically sound. If that happens to be what IS wants, why should that matter one iota beyond the strategic calculus?
    - pj_mukh 11y ago
      Because bombing the shit outta them, won't fix it? Boots on the ground means a larger surge of extremists turning into combatants rushing into the place to make their apocalyptical dreams come true (that is the connection to 'what they want'). For America (or Europe) to rush in seems like the most intellectually bankrupt and strategically inept thing to do. A ground war has barely ever solved a problem in that region. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda (the last targets of our ground wars) are both alive and well and would be flourishing even more if it wasn't for ISIS sucking up new recruits.
      - Turing_Machine 11y ago
        "A ground war has barely ever solved a problem in that region." Sure it has. Ever heard of the Ottoman Empire? Where is it now? What happened to it? What happened to Pharaonic Egypt? The Crusader States? The Achaemenid Empire? Carthage? Troy? Akkadia? Babylonia? Many others could be named; the history of the region is rife with examples of ground wars quite decisively solving problems in the region.
- enlightenedfool 11y ago
  Who do you think created ISIS? It's US allies including funding, hardware. Cut them instead. You murder far too many civilians than terrorists with military response which in turn creates more terrorists.
- bcoates 11y ago
  But enough about Saudi Arabia, what's your opinion about ISIS?
- propogandist 11y ago
  When US Forces decided to engage an ISIS convoy transporting Illegal oil - they first droppped leaflets warning ISIS of the incoming attack. US forced then used weapons (mostly machine guns) to destroy Just 116 out of 300 trucks. But then US FORCES RAN OUT OF AMMO WHEN DESTROYING ISIS' ILLEGAL OIL TANKER CONVY and US military did Not bother to send drones or additional Air Support to destory the oil tankers which is the BIGGEST SOURCE OF REVENUE for ISIS. -- > "So these trucks were -- they were just sitting there, not moving. So, you know, we dropped the leaflets. We did a low pass. We chased any of the -- you know, the truck drivers away, and we destroyed them. So, they weren't moving. They were all, as you saw on the video, they were all stationary. Nothing was driving anywhere. So it was a pretty straightforward, you know, attack." ... "Just three quick clarifications on the trucks again. If -- sorry if I missed it, but why didn't you guys go back on the other trucks? There were 300, I think, to begin with, and then you hit 116. Why didn't you go back?" [0] "So, on the other trucks, so -- frankly, the -- the -- the aircraft expended 24 500-pound bombs, and -- and all of their ammunition. So they -- they shot everything they had and then they had to go home." [0] Why would US military do this? Well this week, we got this news about the Oil tankers [1] Keep in mind all "ISIS propoganda" and news comes Exclusively out of a single group - SITE Intelligence group. It's worthwhile to look into the background of the founder & CEO of this group. [0] http://www.defense.gov/News/News-Transcripts/Transcript-View/Article/630393/department-of-defense-press-briefing-by-col-warren-via-dvids-from-baghdad-iraq http://www.defense.gov/News/News-Transcripts/Transcript-View... [1] www.reuters.com/article/2015/12/02/us-mideast-crisis-russia-turkey-idUSKBN0TL19S20151202
hnamazon123 11y ago
They've already gotten the better of us because they're within our borders. Now the choice is between doing nothing, thereby accepting the risk of us or our loved ones getting blown up or shot going while we go about our daily routine (see: Israel during the second intifada) or trade liberties for security (see: Brussels and France today) until we come up with a more sustainable solution (see: Israel today). They've already gotten the better of us because they are here and they will kill us because their ideology is fundamentally opposed to Western concepts such as freedom of speech, press, religion, and association. Not to mention gay people existing and women having independence. This is a real choice we must make. I doubt most will choose the first one once its them or someone they know that gets murdered/maimed in this way.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  > Now the choice is between doing nothing, thereby accepting the risk of us or our loved ones getting blown up or shot going while we go about our daily routine (see: Israel during the second intifada) or trade liberties for security (see: Brussels and France today) until we come up with a more sustainable solution (see: Israel today). That risk will always be there no matter what we do. > They've already gotten the better of us because they are here and they will kill us because their ideology is fundamentally opposed to Western concepts such as freedom of speech, press, religion, and association. Not to mention gay people existing and women having independence. No, that's not why they kill people. They kill people because it serves their goals indirectly, it allows them to recruit, get more funding and credibility. > This is a real choice we must make. I doubt most will choose the first one once its them or someone they know that gets murdered/maimed in this way. As unfortunate as it is sometimes solutions are not simple, easy and quick. This on is complex, will be very difficult and will take a lot of time (likely: a generation or more). Of course that's not going to get you voted in anywhere so instead we'll act rashly, counterproductive and quick and in the process we will be a willing partner of IS doing exactly what they want us to do.
  - hnamazon123 11y ago
    > That risk will always be there no matter what we do. Yeah, you're correct. I meant significant risk. It's always a risk. > They kill people because it serves their goals indirectly, it allows them to recruit, get more funding and credibility. The stated goal of Islamic State is to establish a caliphate across the world. The stated values and de facto policy of Islamic State is in opposition to Western values such as freedom of speech, press, religion, and association. Yes, these attacks also double as recruiting tools. > we will be a willing partner of IS doing exactly what they want us to do. Who gives a fuck what Islamic State wants us to do? This is the most intellectually bankrupt argument tossed around. It literally makes no sense at all. We need to do what is strategically sound. If that happens to be what IS wants, why should that matter one iota beyond the strategic calculus?

by vippy 11y ago

enlightenedfool 11y ago

I think the saner view being minority, it isn't possible unfortunately.

oconnore 11y ago

They've already launched direct attacks on our allies, and more recently inspired attacks on US soil. They are holding territory, are self funded (generously), and are recruiting around the globe. Arguably they are more dangerous than Al-Qaeda ever was. Doesn't this merit a military response? If not, what on earth would?

cerebrum 11y ago
No. Just stop supllying them weapons and buying their oil.
npunt 11y ago
If you want to cut off the snake at its head, cut the money supply. Its not like we live in some great era of terrorism - there's always been deranged people who wish to destroy and whom get a few followers. The difference between that phenomenon and ISIS is they've secured some land that produces oil, and have a buyer - Turkey. This suggests hard-nosed diplomacy before military intervention, especially as the result of the latter 10 years ago is literally the reason we have this current mess.
- hnamazon123 11y ago
  Islamic State needs oil money to sustain its military, not the terrorists that it sends into Europe. The most expensive cost there is airfare and weapons/munitions. Additionally, cutting off funding doesn't solve the issue of homegrown terrorism, a la Sayed Farook who is a salaried employee and set up an IED factory in his home. He probably paid for that himself.
  - npunt 11y ago
    First, I'd bet that ISIS money is spent on a lot more than military - what about providing a cushy experience for previously recruited western radicals, so that they tell others back home how great it is? Can't find the link, but varieties in accommodations for recently recruited western radicals vs others is causing some internal strife. If you came over to ISIS from some nice first world place like London, only to find yourself in a very uncomfortable, foreign desert environment eating crap food, you probably wouldn't send message back that everything's great. That costs money. Second, you assume the cost of propaganda is 0, which it is not. ISIS has gone so far as to publish a very high production value magazine [0] and high quality recruitment videos. You can bet that there are tons of people on message boards and other corners of the net that are on ISIS payroll out there trying to radicalize as many people as possible, offering a (twisted) sense of purpose and meaning in their lives. And people collecting and disseminating content on how best to make IEDs, kill people, etc. They undoubtedly have many social media managers. In my first comment I was going to add another point which was that if we were able to completely wipe out ISIS that will not all of a sudden stop people from being radicalized, it will only stop those being radicalized by ISIS. ISIS happens to recruit better than most (due to their money), but there will always be people, often marginalized, who will fall prey to radicalization - and some who seek it out. Sayed seems like he was that kind of guy, ISIS or no. Everyone's all up in arms about ISIS because we're being blanketed by news about them, which is not proportional to the threat they actually pose to us. Paris was a manifestation of longstanding troubles with european countries integrating muslim immigrants which likely created necessary conditions for radicalization by [insert crazy people]; San Bernardino was very likely a manifestation of mental health issues and cultural marginalization/domestic political climate. These issues are unlikely to go away when ISIS does - the latter we have an example of from just the week prior with the Planned Parenthood shooter. [0] http://www.clarionproject.org/news/islamic-state-isis-isil-propaganda-magazine-dabiq http://www.clarionproject.org/news/islamic-state-isis-isil-p...
jacquesm 11y ago
A military response plays directly into their hands so no, this does not merit a military response. What it does merit is isolating them and making sure they have no further access to weapons or funds and to assist those that want to flee.
- hnamazon123 11y ago
  You can't tackle the threat already within the borders without a France-style state of emergency, unfortunately.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    And that may be what it will take for a while. But that's a different problem than what to do about IS on territory that they currently hold. One thing that we can do is make it impossible for IS supporters abroad to go to their territory to receive training.
pj_mukh 11y ago
False. This is exactly what they want. With an idea as "viral" as theirs that is about the dumbest thing you can do i.e. give them more evidence of their bankrupt cult-ish ideas. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isi... tl;dr: The Islamic State awaits the army of “Rome,” whose defeat at Dabiq, Syria, will initiate the countdown to the apocalypse.
- hnamazon123 11y ago
  Copy pasting this from below: Who gives a fuck what Islamic State wants us to do? This is the most intellectually bankrupt argument tossed around. It literally makes no sense at all. We need to do what is strategically sound. If that happens to be what IS wants, why should that matter one iota beyond the strategic calculus?
  - pj_mukh 11y ago
    Because bombing the shit outta them, won't fix it? Boots on the ground means a larger surge of extremists turning into combatants rushing into the place to make their apocalyptical dreams come true (that is the connection to 'what they want'). For America (or Europe) to rush in seems like the most intellectually bankrupt and strategically inept thing to do. A ground war has barely ever solved a problem in that region. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda (the last targets of our ground wars) are both alive and well and would be flourishing even more if it wasn't for ISIS sucking up new recruits.
    - Turing_Machine 11y ago
      "A ground war has barely ever solved a problem in that region." Sure it has. Ever heard of the Ottoman Empire? Where is it now? What happened to it? What happened to Pharaonic Egypt? The Crusader States? The Achaemenid Empire? Carthage? Troy? Akkadia? Babylonia? Many others could be named; the history of the region is rife with examples of ground wars quite decisively solving problems in the region.
enlightenedfool 11y ago
Who do you think created ISIS? It's US allies including funding, hardware. Cut them instead. You murder far too many civilians than terrorists with military response which in turn creates more terrorists.
bcoates 11y ago
But enough about Saudi Arabia, what's your opinion about ISIS?
propogandist 11y ago
When US Forces decided to engage an ISIS convoy transporting Illegal oil - they first droppped leaflets warning ISIS of the incoming attack. US forced then used weapons (mostly machine guns) to destroy Just 116 out of 300 trucks. But then US FORCES RAN OUT OF AMMO WHEN DESTROYING ISIS' ILLEGAL OIL TANKER CONVY and US military did Not bother to send drones or additional Air Support to destory the oil tankers which is the BIGGEST SOURCE OF REVENUE for ISIS. -- > "So these trucks were -- they were just sitting there, not moving. So, you know, we dropped the leaflets. We did a low pass. We chased any of the -- you know, the truck drivers away, and we destroyed them. So, they weren't moving. They were all, as you saw on the video, they were all stationary. Nothing was driving anywhere. So it was a pretty straightforward, you know, attack." ... "Just three quick clarifications on the trucks again. If -- sorry if I missed it, but why didn't you guys go back on the other trucks? There were 300, I think, to begin with, and then you hit 116. Why didn't you go back?" [0] "So, on the other trucks, so -- frankly, the -- the -- the aircraft expended 24 500-pound bombs, and -- and all of their ammunition. So they -- they shot everything they had and then they had to go home." [0] Why would US military do this? Well this week, we got this news about the Oil tankers [1] Keep in mind all "ISIS propoganda" and news comes Exclusively out of a single group - SITE Intelligence group. It's worthwhile to look into the background of the founder & CEO of this group. [0] http://www.defense.gov/News/News-Transcripts/Transcript-View/Article/630393/department-of-defense-press-briefing-by-col-warren-via-dvids-from-baghdad-iraq http://www.defense.gov/News/News-Transcripts/Transcript-View... [1] www.reuters.com/article/2015/12/02/us-mideast-crisis-russia-turkey-idUSKBN0TL19S20151202

hnamazon123 11y ago

They've already gotten the better of us because they're within our borders. Now the choice is between doing nothing, thereby accepting the risk of us or our loved ones getting blown up or shot going while we go about our daily routine (see: Israel during the second intifada) or trade liberties for security (see: Brussels and France today) until we come up with a more sustainable solution (see: Israel today). They've already gotten the better of us because they are here and they will kill us because their ideology is fundamentally opposed to Western concepts such as freedom of speech, press, religion, and association. Not to mention gay people existing and women having independence. This is a real choice we must make. I doubt most will choose the first one once its them or someone they know that gets murdered/maimed in this way.

jacquesm 11y ago
> Now the choice is between doing nothing, thereby accepting the risk of us or our loved ones getting blown up or shot going while we go about our daily routine (see: Israel during the second intifada) or trade liberties for security (see: Brussels and France today) until we come up with a more sustainable solution (see: Israel today). That risk will always be there no matter what we do. > They've already gotten the better of us because they are here and they will kill us because their ideology is fundamentally opposed to Western concepts such as freedom of speech, press, religion, and association. Not to mention gay people existing and women having independence. No, that's not why they kill people. They kill people because it serves their goals indirectly, it allows them to recruit, get more funding and credibility. > This is a real choice we must make. I doubt most will choose the first one once its them or someone they know that gets murdered/maimed in this way. As unfortunate as it is sometimes solutions are not simple, easy and quick. This on is complex, will be very difficult and will take a lot of time (likely: a generation or more). Of course that's not going to get you voted in anywhere so instead we'll act rashly, counterproductive and quick and in the process we will be a willing partner of IS doing exactly what they want us to do.
- hnamazon123 11y ago
  > That risk will always be there no matter what we do. Yeah, you're correct. I meant significant risk. It's always a risk. > They kill people because it serves their goals indirectly, it allows them to recruit, get more funding and credibility. The stated goal of Islamic State is to establish a caliphate across the world. The stated values and de facto policy of Islamic State is in opposition to Western values such as freedom of speech, press, religion, and association. Yes, these attacks also double as recruiting tools. > we will be a willing partner of IS doing exactly what they want us to do. Who gives a fuck what Islamic State wants us to do? This is the most intellectually bankrupt argument tossed around. It literally makes no sense at all. We need to do what is strategically sound. If that happens to be what IS wants, why should that matter one iota beyond the strategic calculus?