Islamic State Crisis Megathread (ISIS/ISIL/IS) II

[Gauthier]

I wish we could, but we did that in Afganistan. Got us 9-11. We cannot let it burn without getting caught in the flames. Let it burn in we get economic dusruptions, make the refugee crisis ten times worse, and terror attacks.

I cannot in good conscience advocate nuclear carpet bombing. But that would be the only way to make it not a problem.

No good choices.

No, what happened in Afghanistan was America put fuel on the fire (funding the mujahideen) to get yet another one up on the Soviets. 9-11 was simply the Cold War back and forth biting the US on the ass. If America just let it burn in Afghanistan, that country would look rather differently today.

And sadly, yes, nuclear carpet bombing is the only way to fix things. And no one could approve that, no doubt. Instead, we must settle for inept politicians gorging themselves on the misery of the region's inhabitants, all the while getting convenient moments in the spotlight to go "see, see, we need to do this, guys!" when it bites them in the ass (Paris, San Bernardino, etc).

People wonder why the right wing are getting more and more uppity these days, why the migrants are flocking to European countries, etc, etc. It is all part of the self-serving cycle that these insipid morons have created. Orwell once wrote that if you want to imagine the future, imagine a human boot stepping on a human face.

What's going on is that people are literally laying down and eagerly awaiting that boot.

And how will nuclear carpet bombing not bite the West in the ass again?

[Ganos Lao]

No, what happened in Afghanistan was America put fuel on the fire (funding the mujahideen) to get yet another one up on the Soviets. 9-11 was simply the Cold War back and forth biting the US on the ass. If America just let it burn in Afghanistan, that country would look rather differently today.

And sadly, yes, nuclear carpet bombing is the only way to fix things. And no one could approve that, no doubt. Instead, we must settle for inept politicians gorging themselves on the misery of the region's inhabitants, all the while getting convenient moments in the spotlight to go "see, see, we need to do this, guys!" when it bites them in the ass (Paris, San Bernardino, etc).

People wonder why the right wing are getting more and more uppity these days, why the migrants are flocking to European countries, etc, etc. It is all part of the self-serving cycle that these insipid morons have created. Orwell once wrote that if you want to imagine the future, imagine a human boot stepping on a human face.

What's going on is that people are literally laying down and eagerly awaiting that boot.

And how will nuclear carpet bombing not bite the West in the ass again?

Don't take that statement as an endorsement, but rather as a cynical observation.

To paraphrase DarkSydePhil, there's nothing we can do. Bugged regional politics mechanics. Bombing everything with nukes, sure, that'd work, but not exactly in the way people would expect.

[Novus America]

I wish we could, but we did that in Afganistan. Got us 9-11. We cannot let it burn without getting caught in the flames. Let it burn in we get economic dusruptions, make the refugee crisis ten times worse, and terror attacks.

I cannot in good conscience advocate nuclear carpet bombing. But that would be the only way to make it not a problem.

No good choices.

No, what happened in Afghanistan was America put fuel on the fire (funding the mujahideen) to get yet another one up on the Soviets. 9-11 was simply the Cold War back and forth biting the US on the ass. If America just let it burn in Afghanistan, that country would look rather differently today.

And sadly, yes, nuclear carpet bombing is the only way to fix things. And no one could approve that, no doubt. Instead, we must settle for inept politicians gorging themselves on the misery of the region's inhabitants, all the while getting convenient moments in the spotlight to go "see, see, we need to do this, guys!" when it bites them in the ass (Paris, San Bernardino, etc).

People wonder why the right wing are getting more and more uppity these days, why the migrants are flocking to European countries, etc, etc. It is all part of the self-serving cycle that these insipid morons have created. Orwell once wrote that if you want to imagine the future, imagine a human boot stepping on a human face.

What's going on is that people are literally laying down and eagerly awaiting that boot.

Afganistan was going to shit as soon as the Soviets occupied. Sure we threw some fuel on during the 80s but did not start the fire. But I am talking about leaving it to burn in the 90s. Leaving the Middle East will not undo our past involvement either. So it is the same. We cannot undo our involvement just by ignoring it.

And nuclear genocide is cleary not acceptable.

[Novus America]

No, what happened in Afghanistan was America put fuel on the fire (funding the mujahideen) to get yet another one up on the Soviets. 9-11 was simply the Cold War back and forth biting the US on the ass. If America just let it burn in Afghanistan, that country would look rather differently today.

And sadly, yes, nuclear carpet bombing is the only way to fix things. And no one could approve that, no doubt. Instead, we must settle for inept politicians gorging themselves on the misery of the region's inhabitants, all the while getting convenient moments in the spotlight to go "see, see, we need to do this, guys!" when it bites them in the ass (Paris, San Bernardino, etc).

People wonder why the right wing are getting more and more uppity these days, why the migrants are flocking to European countries, etc, etc. It is all part of the self-serving cycle that these insipid morons have created. Orwell once wrote that if you want to imagine the future, imagine a human boot stepping on a human face.

What's going on is that people are literally laying down and eagerly awaiting that boot.

And how will nuclear carpet bombing not bite the West in the ass again?

People cannot cause problems when they are dead. Occupying an area makes some people mad. Killing some might make more angry. Killing everyone breaks the cycle forever. Nobody is left to be angry. But obviously that is far too horrible and inhumane and disproportionate.

[Ganos Lao]

No, what happened in Afghanistan was America put fuel on the fire (funding the mujahideen) to get yet another one up on the Soviets. 9-11 was simply the Cold War back and forth biting the US on the ass. If America just let it burn in Afghanistan, that country would look rather differently today.

And sadly, yes, nuclear carpet bombing is the only way to fix things. And no one could approve that, no doubt. Instead, we must settle for inept politicians gorging themselves on the misery of the region's inhabitants, all the while getting convenient moments in the spotlight to go "see, see, we need to do this, guys!" when it bites them in the ass (Paris, San Bernardino, etc).

People wonder why the right wing are getting more and more uppity these days, why the migrants are flocking to European countries, etc, etc. It is all part of the self-serving cycle that these insipid morons have created. Orwell once wrote that if you want to imagine the future, imagine a human boot stepping on a human face.

What's going on is that people are literally laying down and eagerly awaiting that boot.

Afganistan was going to shit as soon as the Soviets occupied. Sure we threw some fuel on during the 80s but did not start the fire. But I am talking about leaving it to burn in the 90s. Leaving the Middle East will not undo our past involvement either. So it is the same. We cannot undo our involvement just by ignoring it.

And nuclear genocide is cleary not acceptable.

I didn't exactly say America started the fire. What I said was that they didn't bother to put it out, you know? And indeed, leaving the Middle East entirely will still not be the end of it. I've said as much before.

And of course it's not acceptable. I never said it was. There's no real solution to the problem. Centuries of problems cannot be solved in a few years or so.

[Gauthier]

And how will nuclear carpet bombing not bite the West in the ass again?

People cannot cause problems when they are dead. Occupying an area makes some people mad. Killing some might make more angry. Killing everyone breaks the cycle forever. Nobody is left to be angry. But obviously that is far too horrible and inhumane and disproportionate.

No way everyone from the region can be killed off completely with a single nuclear volley. There *will* be survivors from the region, and they will all be pissed. Plus there's that whole problem of nuking The Only Shining Beacon of Democracy in the Middle East™, Israel.

[Ganos Lao]

And how will nuclear carpet bombing not bite the West in the ass again?

People cannot cause problems when they are dead. Occupying an area makes some people mad. Killing some might make more angry. Killing everyone breaks the cycle forever. Nobody is left to be angry. But obviously that is far too horrible and inhumane and disproportionate.

Exactly. Besides, you can't profit off the dead as much as you could if they're living.

[Novus America]

Afganistan was going to shit as soon as the Soviets occupied. Sure we threw some fuel on during the 80s but did not start the fire. But I am talking about leaving it to burn in the 90s. Leaving the Middle East will not undo our past involvement either. So it is the same. We cannot undo our involvement just by ignoring it.

And nuclear genocide is cleary not acceptable.

I didn't exactly say America started the fire. What I said was that they didn't bother to put it out, you know? And indeed, leaving the Middle East entirely will still not be the end of it. I've said as much before.

And of course it's not acceptable. I never said it was. There's no real solution to the problem. Centuries of problems cannot be solved in a few years or so.

I know. We agree on this.

[Ganos Lao]

People cannot cause problems when they are dead. Occupying an area makes some people mad. Killing some might make more angry. Killing everyone breaks the cycle forever. Nobody is left to be angry. But obviously that is far too horrible and inhumane and disproportionate.

No way everyone from the region can be killed off completely with a single nuclear volley. There *will* be survivors from the region, and they will all be pissed. Plus there's that whole problem of nuking The Only Shining Beacon of Democracy in the Middle East™, Israel.

Israel, after all, has a particular option it can unleash as its trump card, can it not?

Inb4 someone argues for "strategic glassing"....

[Ganos Lao]

I didn't exactly say America started the fire. What I said was that they didn't bother to put it out, you know? And indeed, leaving the Middle East entirely will still not be the end of it. I've said as much before.

And of course it's not acceptable. I never said it was. There's no real solution to the problem. Centuries of problems cannot be solved in a few years or so.

I know. We agree on this.

Exactly, but I still had to mention it, for conversation's sake.

At any rate, all we can do is sit back and watch it all burn. Just pray to whatever God you believe in, if any, that the future generations have at least a handful of bright young minds not yet dulled by all the bullshit. Hope they can do something different for a change.

[Novus America]

People cannot cause problems when they are dead. Occupying an area makes some people mad. Killing some might make more angry. Killing everyone breaks the cycle forever. Nobody is left to be angry. But obviously that is far too horrible and inhumane and disproportionate.

No way everyone from the region can be killed off completely with a single nuclear volley. There *will* be survivors from the region, and they will all be pissed. Plus there's that whole problem of nuking The Only Shining Beacon of Democracy in the Middle East™, Israel.

Who said a single nuclear volley? Plus the survivors would starve or die from radiation.

But yes. Cleary it is a horrible idea. I am not advocating it.

[Gauthier]

No way everyone from the region can be killed off completely with a single nuclear volley. There *will* be survivors from the region, and they will all be pissed. Plus there's that whole problem of nuking The Only Shining Beacon of Democracy in the Middle East™, Israel.

Who said a single nuclear volley? Plus the survivors would starve or die from radiation.

But yes. Cleary it is a horrible idea. I am not advocating it.

You were assuming that everyone from that region would stay in that region, and not be elsewhere in the world.

[Novus America]

I know. We agree on this.

Exactly, but I still had to mention it, for conversation's sake.

At any rate, all we can do is sit back and watch it all burn. Just pray to whatever God you believe in, if any, that the future generations have at least a handful of bright young minds not yet dulled by all the bullshit. Hope they can do something different for a change.

Yeah but then it burns us too. Refugee crisis and terrorism still happen. Then the isse of securing strategic infrastructure like the Suez Canal.

[Novus America]

Who said a single nuclear volley? Plus the survivors would starve or die from radiation.

But yes. Cleary it is a horrible idea. I am not advocating it.

You were assuming that everyone from that region would stay in that region, and not be elsewhere in the world.

Well yes, they would stay when they are dead. If you really wanted to you could kill anyone trying to leave. Again it is not a good idea. In theory death is the solution to all problems. But obviously that does not make it a good thing.

[Gauthier]

You were assuming that everyone from that region would stay in that region, and not be elsewhere in the world.

Well yes, they would stay when they are dead. If you really wanted to you could kill anyone trying to leave. Again it is not a good idea. In theory death is the solution to all problems. But obviously that does not make it a good thing.

Assuming that none of them left to begin with.

[Novus America]

Well yes, they would stay when they are dead. If you really wanted to you could kill anyone trying to leave. Again it is not a good idea. In theory death is the solution to all problems. But obviously that does not make it a good thing.

Assuming that none of them left to begin with.

You could kill them too. But again while killing people keeps them from causing problems this does not make it good.

[Seraven]

It is true. And Assad's regime is cleary not stable. If it was no one would care about him.

Wasn't Iraq stable under Saddam? So why didn't people not care about him?

Saddam oppressed the majority, he's Sunni and the people he oppressed is Shia.

So you know, you won't get enough caring from them. Especially since Shia 65%, and Sunni is 35%.

Of course at that time, Saddam kept the terrorists underground and weak, but once he's gone....well....all hell broke loose.

[Gauthier]

Wasn't Iraq stable under Saddam? So why didn't people not care about him?

Saddam oppressed the majority, he's Sunni and the people he oppressed is Shia.

So you know, you won't get enough caring from them. Especially since Shia 65%, and Sunni is 35%.

Of course at that time, Saddam kept the terrorists underground and weak, but once he's gone....well....all hell broke loose.

And once Saddam was out of the picture certain Shias took it upon themselves to Return the Favor™ to the Sunnis and that of course resulted in the rise of Daesh.

[Seraven]

Saddam oppressed the majority, he's Sunni and the people he oppressed is Shia.

So you know, you won't get enough caring from them. Especially since Shia 65%, and Sunni is 35%.

Of course at that time, Saddam kept the terrorists underground and weak, but once he's gone....well....all hell broke loose.

And once Saddam was out of the picture certain Shias took it upon themselves to Return the Favor™ to the Sunnis and that of course resulted in the rise of Daesh.

Yep. A total recipe for disaster.

[Ganos Lao]

Wasn't Iraq stable under Saddam? So why didn't people not care about him?

Saddam oppressed the majority, he's Sunni and the people he oppressed is Shia.

So you know, you won't get enough caring from them. Especially since Shia 65%, and Sunni is 35%.

Of course at that time, Saddam kept the terrorists underground and weak, but once he's gone....well....all hell broke loose.

Saddam wasn't exactly a nice person, sure, but like you said, he kept the terrorists weak and all, hence my observation about stability.

But:

Saddam oppressed the majority, he's Sunni and the people he oppressed is Shia.

So you know, you won't get enough caring from them. Especially since Shia 65%, and Sunni is 35%.

Of course at that time, Saddam kept the terrorists underground and weak, but once he's gone....well....all hell broke loose.

And once Saddam was out of the picture certain Shias took it upon themselves to Return the Favor™ to the Sunnis and that of course resulted in the rise of Daesh.

Exactly. But this won't be recorded in the history books. You are very likely to find such truths to be regulated to the "oh, you're just being anti-American" side of any argument.

[Ganos Lao]

In theory death is the solution to all problems. But obviously that does not make it a good thing.

That was exactly my point. If you want to "fix" things, you know, without any actual thought process involved, why not one up your other dimwitted yokels in the national capitals of the relevant countries by glassing the hell out of the region?

Put them out of the misery that's sure to come to them over the next several decades or so.

[American Imperial State]

One must ask ones self in regards to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant; What would Hitler do?

[The Alma Mater]

Exactly. But this won't be recorded in the history books. You are very likely to find such truths to be regulated to the "oh, you're just being anti-American" side of any argument.

*raises eyebrow*. This has been mentioned in just about any in-depth article on the crisis sofar.. why do you believe it would be regulated ?

Of course - you seem to imply it is 'all Americas fault for removing Saddam'. That, of course, is nonsense. The guilty party is and always has been the Daeshbags.

[Ganos Lao]

Exactly. But this won't be recorded in the history books. You are very likely to find such truths to be regulated to the "oh, you're just being anti-American" side of any argument.

*raises eyebrow*. This has been mentioned in just about any in-depth article on the crisis sofar.. why do you believe it would be regulated ?

Of course - you seem to imply it is 'all Americas fault for removing Saddam'. That, of course, is nonsense. The guilty party is and always has been the Daeshbags.

There are numerous guilty parties in my humble opinion, from the West, to Nouri al-Maliki, all the way down to the Daeshbags themselves. It is silly to pin the blame on one group when what we have here is the utter failure of countless groups to do what the right things. All the Daeshbags even did was take advantage of a golden opportunity. They are guilty, yes, but overall would never have had a chance to be what they are were it not for al-Maliki and his merry band of Shiite oligarchs, their Western backers, and the meddlesome Iranians.

And what makes me feel they'd be regulated is that if people highlight the truth about al-Maliki, that he was backed by the United States (and company) despite doing all that he did, that it will be seen as "anti-American" by quite a bit of people. A handful of articles don't matter to me anyway. I appreciate their authors, no doubt, but what will truly matter is al-Maliki put on trial for his actions, along with anyone and everyone else in his government who tagged along.

If the Middle East has any chance of improvement, those who are responsible for its problems must be dealt with. Leaving al-Maliki as the Vice President of Iraq will only tell the people that there's no real reason for them to trust any reformist efforts.

As for Saddam, well, the US didn't exactly do any favors. Are we supposed to be surprised that a war conducted under flimsy pretenses and convenient goalpost switching ended up making a country already said to be languishing under a dictator's tyranny even worse?

I'm not saying yeah, Saddam, he was a great man. If anything, I'm saying what exactly was the point of removing him and that maybe, if you wanted to remove him so much, you'd have at least done it right. Why do you think he's brought up so much when Assad is discussed?

It's because once again, America, the West overall, is making the same exact mistakes. And when Syria ends up a failed state like Iraq, what then?

It's incredibly myopic and downright ignorant to go "it's all America's fault," when, in reality, it's everyone's fault.

[Ganos Lao]

One must ask ones self in regards to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant; What would Hitler do?

I'd wager Hitler would personally meddle in the affairs of his generals like he did the last time and screw up the whole war effort again.