I'll call them by their original call letters, ISIS, even though they tend to go by ISIL more nowadays.

This groups is sweeping across Iraq and threatens adjoining countries, using terror tactics that would have made Nazi storm troopers blush. They force conversion with threats of torture and death.Committing war crimes they joyfully document in videos (NSFW or weak stomachs) they gleefully distribute via the Internet. Just google on "isis executions" in google video if you think you can stand to watch.

They arm themselves both with captured weapons (usually high-quality American made weapons) and they purchase more weapons with money obtained by raiding currency and gold and other valuables stolen from banks in their conquered territories.

Should the US stand by and watch ISIS sweep across the Middle East and possibly even Europe, or is it time to nip this thing in the bud before it reaches Madrid, Paris, Rome, London, and the White House?

Should Obama let the chips fall where they may? or should he put American boots on the ground? or did he wait too long?

What will be the price if we go down the road of isolationism?

Tags: crimes, isil, isis, war, weapons

Views: 1017

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

@steenkh:

"You opposed my statement about this not being a fight between the Western world and Islam by stating that it was the religion of Muhammad that was the problem. It was not clear that you were only referring to ISIS."

It's more like the Modern World against the idiotic, repressive, retarded, hateful, ideology of Muhammad and his mentally regressive followers, fit only for the sewer.

ISIS is just the current poster child, Hamas, Taliban, Muslim Brotherhood and the rest are of the same ilk.  It is the political/religious ideology of the murderous pedophile bandit Muhammad that they take solace in.  And the shameful tacit tolerance and acceptance by the "moderate Muslim" (and their sympathizers) of that ideology, is not without blame.

The culture of Islam is poison to peace and progress in the modern world and should be expunged from the minds of those infected by it.

"...they need to be exterminated. It is just a question of how."

Yep, what to do, what to do, what to do?

"I think it is important that it will be done by Muslims in a way that this will not spawn more extremist groups."

LOL, good luck with that pipe dream.

"...it will be necessary to cut the flow of money to extremists..."

Or the flow of blood to their brain cavity, I think both are required.

"Boots on the ground" doesn't work. It doesn't even look like what I assume most people think it looks like. You send soldiers (a rather costly operation in all) and then what? Firefights in the streets leading to some "storm Normandy" scenario ending in distinguishable victory, or even one where a faction of this group in a given region is eliminated? In my experience, that's not what happens. At best it throws away money and wastes a lot of people's time. Even in a Restrepo situation, a "take the hill" outcome, victory is temporary and extremely costly (as far as soldiers' lives go). It's just an unsustainable strategy. This isn't the way to win. The best defense is not a good offense, because a good offense isn't on the plate. What you're talking about when you say boots on the ground is a shitty offense.

As far as I can throw my pennies, the answer's hearts & minds and special operations groups. I think a coalition effort revolving around hearts and minds with a nice dose of SOGs would be most effective. Coalition forces cannot destroy fundamentalist Islam with a giant costly rotating land force operation (I'd argue they can't do it with an air force operation all that well either). I'm thoroughly convinced they can destroy fundamentalist Islam by 1) spreading the above all very, sometimes nauseatingly, effective virus that is America-- beer and McDonald's and pornography and Disneyland-- and 2) SOGs. Those guys are very effective at sneaking around killing people when really given the opportunity.

More than anything, I think some crafty isolationism looks secure.
Good news - I think …
There is one problem: special operations are by their very nature secret, and secret operations are not something that you flaunt about in the media. This seems to be more of a psy op, i.e. something designed to influence the enemy's will to fight, in this case probably trying to make them afraid and start worrying about assassins everywhere. But if there are actual special forces on the way to kill the Khalif himself, making him take precautions in advance is not going to help.

It seems the British are close to naming the ISIS guy who does the talking and beheading. Being able to make their stocking mask useless is probably even more frightening to them than the prospect of having to face enemy soldiers in battle. If he had wanted his identity known, he would have done it with the mask off.

RSS

Blog Posts

What do you do with the anger?

Posted by dataguy on September 20, 2014 at 5:12pm 3 Comments

Aftermath

Posted by Belle Rose on September 20, 2014 at 2:42am 5 Comments

Ads

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service