Islamic State Crisis Megathread (ISIS/ISIL/IS)

[Herargon]

Sunni body calls for the "killing, crucifixion, and chopping of the limbs of Islamic State terrorists".

Good call !

I disagree. Then we'd be no better than themselves, and it only gives them pain, thus making them martyrs and immortal in the eyes of ISIL. We need to break them morally, not to strenghten it. I prefer a quick and bloodless death. shrugs

[New Jordslag]

Okay... Jordan is going into full-on rage mode.

But still, the fact is that the Jordanian military alone isn't enough to destroy Daesh, even if they went in Blitzkrieg-style with all guns blazing.

110 000 troops who are considered some of the best trained and motivated (especially now) in the region? Sure, they'll probably work in conjuction with the others but I wouldn't bet against the Jordanians packing one hell of a punch.

Jordanian troops are actually known for their discipline. They are falling a bit behind in Modern Tech, but hey, so is ISIS. I'd say they are about equal in tech.

I expect a massive boost in Jordanian military funding, tons of eager new volunteers, and then a giant offensive into ISIS territory.

Seriously. Compared to Jordan, ISIS is nothing. It will get rekt.

ISIS has what, 50,000 fighters remaining? The Jordanian Army alone outnumbers them 3-1 counting reserves. Not to mention the Jordanian Air Force, the huge Iraqi military, and the badass Peshmerga. A three-pronged offensive. I give ISIS two months at most. Killing Al-Kasaesbeh has hastened it's own destruction.

The only way it possibly could have done worse is if they killed a pilot from Saudi Arabia. You do not kill Saudis, because then then Saudis will wreck you.

The Jordanians will, too, with their famous discipline.

[West Aurelia]

IS takes money meant for Iraqi government employees.

No surprises here.

[Zakuvia]

Where's the money trail for this? Which nations are paying ISIS? This can't be the equivalent of Kickstarter Killing.

[Bulgar Rouge]

Good call !

I disagree. Then we'd be no better than themselves, and it only gives them pain, thus making them martyrs and immortal in the eyes of ISIL. We need to break them morally, not to strenghten it. I prefer a quick and bloodless death. shrugs

I've addressed the "we're no better" remark in my previous post.

There should be only two objectives set forward: eliminate everyone associated with ISIS, and deter anyone who plans on joining them from doing so. A bloodless death is something that doesn't really have a deterring effect in the Middle East. Stop thinking in civilised terms.

[Zakuvia]

Don't get me wrong, there's no helping someone who's of the mind that putting a human in a cage and burning them to death, but shouldn't there be some sort of effort made to legitimately improve infrastructure so that impoverished locals aren't tempted by ISIS? I know this is just my being ten minutes away from sleep talking, but every study I've ever seen across cultural gaps has shown that improved quality of life has led to decreases in violent militancy of every stripe.

Yes, I'm not stupid enough to not know that ISIS is actively bombing these projects, but what about in places where it's less of an existential issue?

Ugh, if you want just ignore me, I'm not me when I'm tired. I get hopeful.

[Napkiraly]

Don't get me wrong, there's no helping someone who's of the mind that putting a human in a cage and burning them to death, but shouldn't there be some sort of effort made to legitimately improve infrastructure so that impoverished locals aren't tempted by ISIS? I know this is just my being ten minutes away from sleep talking, but every study I've ever seen across cultural gaps has shown that improved quality of life has led to decreases in violent militancy of every stripe.

Yes, I'm not stupid enough to not know that ISIS is actively bombing these projects, but what about in places where it's less of an existential issue?

Ugh, if you want just ignore me, I'm not me when I'm tired. I get hopeful.

At the very least corruption has to be tackled. Heavily. Issues surrounding Sunni/Shia divide is also another thing, at least for Iraq. I suspect we'll probably see the Kurds in Iraq either get independence or at the least more autonomy. The issue over support for sects like Wahhabism is also something I'd like to see addressed sooner rather than later.

I disagree. Then we'd be no better than themselves, and it only gives them pain, thus making them martyrs and immortal in the eyes of ISIL. We need to break them morally, not to strenghten it. I prefer a quick and bloodless death. shrugs

I've addressed the "we're no better" remark in my previous post.

There should be only two objectives set forward: eliminate everyone associated with ISIS, and deter anyone who plans on joining them from doing so. A bloodless death is something that doesn't really have a deterring effect in the Middle East. Stop thinking in civilised terms.

It's also an incredibly poor quality post whose convincibility quality can be summed up as utterly boring.

[Herargon]

I disagree. Then we'd be no better than themselves, and it only gives them pain, thus making them martyrs and immortal in the eyes of ISIL. We need to break them morally, not to strenghten it. I prefer a quick and bloodless death. shrugs

I've addressed the "we're no better" remark in my previous post.

There should be only two objectives set forward: eliminate everyone associated with ISIS, and deter anyone who plans on joining them from doing so. A bloodless death is something that doesn't really have a deterring effect in the Middle East. Stop thinking in civilised terms.

Never. If you were an ISIL member and you would be tortured very severely, would that help anything? No. You only would have pain, and pain. And you would be thinking that you are on the way to become an immortal martyr, thus giving others a morale boost ( 'they treat us inhumane, thus that's another reason to believe in Him, because he will reward us for going through this pain!').

That is not what we want. There was a female pilote if I recall correctly, and she was fighting against ISIL. The ISIL people fled for her because if you would be killed by a woman, according to the Qu'ran, you would not come into heaven and not have 72 virgings.

We need to demoralise them completely. Only then we will be able to slay them quickly, without much resistance.
Of course, this is hard however, since their belief is very strong. But that does not mean it is impossible; for instance, look at the Germans in WWII. They fought very hard for a man with a moustache, but ultimately they ended up in being completely demoralized and weak, and they eventually had to surrender.

If you want to win a war with an enemy, then you should know where he would be moving to, supplying or fighting. To know that, you can research and examine the territory by airplanes, drones, or by thinking ''what would he do? What would I do if I was that person?''.

Thus we will have to act as civilised people, but think as them.

So, in a way, you're right, but also wrong. Or that is what I would like to say to you.

Do you agree with this statement, Bulgar Rouge? The statement: ''we will have to act and handle as civilised people to stop them from becoming martyrs, but that we will have to think as them in order to know what they would be doing.''?

TL;DR: I think we better should act and handle as civilised people, but think as them to know what they'd be doing.

A thing, I think, we can all find common ground on, is that ISIL is a group of people that forms a monster, a danger.

[Connori Pilgrims]

Never. If you were an ISIL member and you would be tortured very severely, would that help anything? No. You only would have pain, and pain. And you would be thinking that you are on the way to become an immortal martyr, thus giving others a morale boost ( 'they treat us inhumane, thus that's another reason to believe in Him, because he will reward us for going through this pain!').

That is not what we want. There was a female pilote if I recall correctly, and she was fighting against ISIL. The ISIL people fled for her because if you would be killed by a woman, according to the Qu'ran, you would not come into heaven and not have 72 virgings.

We need to demoralise them completely. Only then we will be able to slay them quickly, without much resistance.
Of course, this is hard however, since their belief is very strong. But that does not mean it is impossible; for instance, look at the Germans in WWII. They fought very hard for a man with a moustache, but ultimately they ended up in being completely demoralized and weak, and they eventually had to surrender.

If you want to win a war with an enemy, then you should know where he would be moving to, supplying or fighting. To know that, you can research and examine the territory by airplanes, drones, or by thinking ''what would he do? What would I do if I was that person?''.

Thus we will have to act as civilised people, but think as them.

So, in a way, you're right, but also wrong. Or that is what I would like to say to you.

Do you agree with this statement, Bulgar Rouge? The statement: ''we will have to act and handle as civilised people to stop them from becoming martyrs, but that we will have to think as them in order to know what they would be doing.''?

TL;DR: I think we better should act and handle as civilised people, but think as them to know what they'd be doing.

A thing, I think, we can all find common ground on, is that ISIL is a group of people that forms a monster, a danger.

Do you know the things that needed to be done to force the Germans to surrender in WWII? To truly break the Germans the Allies and the Soviets had to invade them and fight them from Normandy and Moscow to Berlin for almost every inch, with all the civilian casualties and human rights atrocities that came with it during that time. There was nothing "quick" or "clean" about destroying them; just as there is no quick, clean and easy way to destroy Daesh.

Now I'm not advocating that we must resort to torture or pointless human rights violations to fight Daesh; militarily such methods are a simple waste of time and resources with nothing to show for it. But we must discard this naive notion that we (those who stand against Daesh) can fight them in morally justifiable ways, that we don't have to invade them or we can just beat them with precision air power or some other "painless" (for the West anyway) solution.

[Ostroeuropa]

What I don't get is, all these western terrorists who go out there to join up...

They've lived in the west.
How the fuck do they think killing civilians is going to accomplish anything?
They KNOW we can't really control our fucking governments.

I get why a middle easterner would make that mistake. Our governments constantly bang on about representing the people. I understand why a middle easterner would think that means we must in some way tacitly support the way they act.
But a westerner?
What?

They know full well that all it will accomplish is power-grabs by the elite. So all their rhetoric?

It's clearly fucking bollocks. they can't possibly believe this shit.
It's just an excuse to be a psychopath.

[Napkiraly]

Never. If you were an ISIL member and you would be tortured very severely, would that help anything? No. You only would have pain, and pain. And you would be thinking that you are on the way to become an immortal martyr, thus giving others a morale boost ( 'they treat us inhumane, thus that's another reason to believe in Him, because he will reward us for going through this pain!').

That is not what we want. There was a female pilote if I recall correctly, and she was fighting against ISIL. The ISIL people fled for her because if you would be killed by a woman, according to the Qu'ran, you would not come into heaven and not have 72 virgings.

We need to demoralise them completely. Only then we will be able to slay them quickly, without much resistance.
Of course, this is hard however, since their belief is very strong. But that does not mean it is impossible; for instance, look at the Germans in WWII. They fought very hard for a man with a moustache, but ultimately they ended up in being completely demoralized and weak, and they eventually had to surrender.

If you want to win a war with an enemy, then you should know where he would be moving to, supplying or fighting. To know that, you can research and examine the territory by airplanes, drones, or by thinking ''what would he do? What would I do if I was that person?''.

Thus we will have to act as civilised people, but think as them.

So, in a way, you're right, but also wrong. Or that is what I would like to say to you.

Do you agree with this statement, Bulgar Rouge? The statement: ''we will have to act and handle as civilised people to stop them from becoming martyrs, but that we will have to think as them in order to know what they would be doing.''?

TL;DR: I think we better should act and handle as civilised people, but think as them to know what they'd be doing.

A thing, I think, we can all find common ground on, is that ISIL is a group of people that forms a monster, a danger.

Do you know the things that needed to be done to force the Germans to surrender in WWII? To truly break the Germans the Allies and the Soviets had to invade them and fight them from Normandy and Moscow to Berlin for almost every inch, with all the civilian casualties and human rights atrocities that came with it during that time. There was nothing "quick" or "clean" about destroying them; just as there is no quick, clean and easy way to destroy Daesh.

Now I'm not advocating that we must resort to torture or pointless human rights violations to fight Daesh; militarily such methods are a simple waste of time and resources with nothing to show for it. But we must discard this naive notion that we (those who stand against Daesh) can fight them in morally justifiable ways, that we don't have to invade them or we can just beat them with precision air power or some other "painless" (for the West anyway) solution.

Most people here are fully aware it'll require a ground offensive to beat ISIS. Most of those people support said offensive and many wonder what's taking so long. However what we don't have to do is after killing them, cut up their bodies, burn them alive, crucifying them, etc. We are perfectly aware war is a nasty business. Just because we don't want to be pulling the same shit as them, does not mean we aren't prepared to have to go further than what is currently being done.

[The New Lowlands]

Never. If you were an ISIL member and you would be tortured very severely, would that help anything? No. You only would have pain, and pain. And you would be thinking that you are on the way to become an immortal martyr, thus giving others a morale boost ( 'they treat us inhumane, thus that's another reason to believe in Him, because he will reward us for going through this pain!').

That is not what we want. There was a female pilote if I recall correctly, and she was fighting against ISIL. The ISIL people fled for her because if you would be killed by a woman, according to the Qu'ran, you would not come into heaven and not have 72 virgings.

We need to demoralise them completely. Only then we will be able to slay them quickly, without much resistance.
Of course, this is hard however, since their belief is very strong. But that does not mean it is impossible; for instance, look at the Germans in WWII. They fought very hard for a man with a moustache, but ultimately they ended up in being completely demoralized and weak, and they eventually had to surrender.

If you want to win a war with an enemy, then you should know where he would be moving to, supplying or fighting. To know that, you can research and examine the territory by airplanes, drones, or by thinking ''what would he do? What would I do if I was that person?''.

Thus we will have to act as civilised people, but think as them.

So, in a way, you're right, but also wrong. Or that is what I would like to say to you.

Do you agree with this statement, Bulgar Rouge? The statement: ''we will have to act and handle as civilised people to stop them from becoming martyrs, but that we will have to think as them in order to know what they would be doing.''?

TL;DR: I think we better should act and handle as civilised people, but think as them to know what they'd be doing.

A thing, I think, we can all find common ground on, is that ISIL is a group of people that forms a monster, a danger.

Do you know the things that needed to be done to force the Germans to surrender in WWII? To truly break the Germans the Allies and the Soviets had to invade them and fight them from Normandy and Moscow to Berlin for almost every inch, with all the civilian casualties and human rights atrocities that came with it during that time. There was nothing "quick" or "clean" about destroying them; just as there is no quick, clean and easy way to destroy Daesh.

Now I'm not advocating that we must resort to torture or pointless human rights violations to fight Daesh; militarily such methods are a simple waste of time and resources with nothing to show for it. But we must discard this naive notion that we (those who stand against Daesh) can fight them in morally justifiable ways, that we don't have to invade them or we can just beat them with precision air power or some other "painless" (for the West anyway) solution.

WW2 was fought before precision munitions: strategic bombardment was responsible for most of the civilian casualties endured by the Germans.

In terms of fighting ISIS, strategic bombardment is:

i) not necessary (due to precision munitions)
ii) not effective (due to IS's lack of major industrial facilities to bomb, and the political perspective of winning the local civilian population to the coalition's side)

IS is not comparable to the Nazis (at least not in anything other than the contempt and disgust felt towards them.) They do not field major mechanised armies willing and able to pit themselves against Western or Eastern organised forces; Peshmerga and even Iraqi Army units are less likely to be perceived as "foreign crusaders" than US/EU/FUSSR troops and seem to be holding their own.

The much more major part of fighting IS will be re-establishing faith in the political establishment and enfranchising poor Sunni areas of Iraq, and it is there where major foreign efforts should be made. The BBC also released an interesting analysis– concluding that IS' lack of cohesive ideology will lead to it falling apart in the absence of major military victories. While such an analysis strikes me as optimistic, I don't think it's unbelievable.

[Galmarch]

Just saw the video where they murder the Jordanian pilot.
Sickening and making my blood boil.

I agree with the posters above, when the coalition against ISIS launches its offensive they should not do these things to them.
No more martyrs, just clean deaths, these monsters do not deserve martyrdom.

[Napkiraly]

Just saw the video where they murder the Jordanian pilot.
Sickening and making my blood boil.

I agree with the posters above, when the coalition against ISIS launches its offensive they should not do these things to them.
No more martyrs, just clean deaths, these monsters do not deserve martyrdom.

Clean deaths in war is kinda an oxymoron. Explosions tend to not be kind to the human body. That said, calls for mutilating them, summary executions, executing them in similar ways (such as crucifixtion) is ridiculous.

[Galmarch]

Just saw the video where they murder the Jordanian pilot.
Sickening and making my blood boil.

I agree with the posters above, when the coalition against ISIS launches its offensive they should not do these things to them.
No more martyrs, just clean deaths, these monsters do not deserve martyrdom.

Clean deaths in war is kinda an oxymoron. Explosions tend to not be kind to the human body. That said, calls for mutilating them, summary executions, executing them in similar ways (such as crucifixtion) is ridiculous.

True but meant more in line of hangings or firering squads if executions are to take place and not burning/beheadings/crucifixions etc.

[Ganos Lao]

Don't get me wrong, there's no helping someone who's of the mind that putting a human in a cage and burning them to death, but shouldn't there be some sort of effort made to legitimately improve infrastructure so that impoverished locals aren't tempted by ISIS? I know this is just my being ten minutes away from sleep talking, but every study I've ever seen across cultural gaps has shown that improved quality of life has led to decreases in violent militancy of every stripe.

Yes, I'm not stupid enough to not know that ISIS is actively bombing these projects, but what about in places where it's less of an existential issue?

Ugh, if you want just ignore me, I'm not me when I'm tired. I get hopeful.

What we need to do is not only defeat ISIS, but defeat what motivates them to do what they do, and to develop those areas that initially, with great eagerness, subscribed to ISIS doctrines (i.e. the Sunnis who felt disenfranchised by Maliki's seemingly pro-Shia bias).

Otherwise we'll just leave a hole for some other group to form. Granted that all history is cylical, I wouldn't be surprised if not long after we defeat ISIS, someone else steps in.

[Ganos Lao]

What I don't get is, all these western terrorists who go out there to join up...

They've lived in the west.
How the fuck do they think killing civilians is going to accomplish anything?
They KNOW we can't really control our fucking governments.

I get why a middle easterner would make that mistake. Our governments constantly bang on about representing the people. I understand why a middle easterner would think that means we must in some way tacitly support the way they act.
But a westerner?
What?

They know full well that all it will accomplish is power-grabs by the elite. So all their rhetoric?

It's clearly fucking bollocks. they can't possibly believe this shit.
It's just an excuse to be a psychopath.

Not only that, but plenty of them seem to be wanting to go home too because they miss, ironically enough, the luxuries of the West.

[Halstus]

Personally, I think they will be nothing but the next Nazi-reich if not stopped. ISIS has a blatant disregard for peace.

They seem to think they're fighting a holy war of some kind, but then they turn around and attack their own. They use their own women and children as sex-slaves and child soldiers. It's an establishment that is not Islamic --- they kill anything that disagrees with them, Muslims included. They want to turn the clock back at least a millennium.

I wanted to make a more intelligent reply but I think my anger and hatred of them just consumed the critical thinking portion of my brain. Point is I think it's the Middle Eastern attempt at Hitler incarnate.

[Baltenstein]

What I don't get is, all these western terrorists who go out there to join up...

They've lived in the west.
How the fuck do they think killing civilians is going to accomplish anything?
They KNOW we can't really control our fucking governments.

I get why a middle easterner would make that mistake. Our governments constantly bang on about representing the people. I understand why a middle easterner would think that means we must in some way tacitly support the way they act.
But a westerner?
What?

They know full well that all it will accomplish is power-grabs by the elite. So all their rhetoric?

It's clearly fucking bollocks. they can't possibly believe this shit.
It's just an excuse to be a psychopath.

Not only that, but plenty of them seem to be wanting to go home too because they miss, ironically enough, the luxuries of the West.

IS leadership is trying to improve the morale of its fighters the old-fashioned way: Summary executions.

[Bulgar Rouge]

It's also an incredibly poor quality post whose convincibility quality can be summed up as utterly boring.

Never. If you were an ISIL member and you would be tortured very severely, would that help anything? No. You only would have pain, and pain. And you would be thinking that you are on the way to become an immortal martyr, thus giving others a morale boost ( 'they treat us inhumane, thus that's another reason to believe in Him, because he will reward us for going through this pain!').

That is not what we want. There was a female pilote if I recall correctly, and she was fighting against ISIL. The ISIL people fled for her because if you would be killed by a woman, according to the Qu'ran, you would not come into heaven and not have 72 virgings.

Did I say torture all of them ? No. Kill them all regardless of ways, just torture and humiliate a few (few dozen or few hundred) and post videos, just like ISIS does it. You're wrong that we'll make them "martyrs". They will only become "martyrs" in the eyes of ISIS itself, and probably its shitty following. Normal Muslims and Middle Eastern people do have a very strong sense of vengeance and will never view Daesh suffering as a sign of martyrdom. They'll view it as just punishment.

We need to demoralise them completely. Only then we will be able to slay them quickly, without much resistance.
Of course, this is hard however, since their belief is very strong. But that does not mean it is impossible; for instance, look at the Germans in WWII. They fought very hard for a man with a moustache, but ultimately they ended up in being completely demoralized and weak, and they eventually had to surrender.

These people are not Nazis. What drives them is an unshakeable and extensively codified belief in afterlife and its rewards. Their doctrine is not centred around Al-Baghdadi or anyone else, it is centred around that very belief and its ways of explaining reality. If you plan to "demoralise" them, well good luck - it just won't happen. Every action of ours will be viewed as either an expected sting of the "infidel" and anything short of combat will be viewed by them as weakness which they will mock and exploit.

The only way to put an end to them is physical destruction through military means while denying them of manpower through deterrence/intimidation of would-be jihadists.

If you want to win a war with an enemy, then you should know where he would be moving to, supplying or fighting. To know that, you can research and examine the territory by airplanes, drones, or by thinking ''what would he do? What would I do if I was that person?''.

Thus we will have to act as civilised people, but think as them.

That's what the coalition and the militaries of Iraq and Syria are doing.

Do you agree with this statement, Bulgar Rouge? The statement: ''we will have to act and handle as civilised people to stop them from becoming martyrs, but that we will have to think as them in order to know what they would be doing.''?

TL;DR: I think we better should act and handle as civilised people, but think as them to know what they'd be doing.

A thing, I think, we can all find common ground on, is that ISIL is a group of people that forms a monster, a danger.

I agree with that and I generally support fighting an enemy through civilised means. But the stick never works on rabid dogs.

[Herargon]

Never. If you were an ISIL member and you would be tortured very severely, would that help anything? No. You only would have pain, and pain. And you would be thinking that you are on the way to become an immortal martyr, thus giving others a morale boost ( 'they treat us inhumane, thus that's another reason to believe in Him, because he will reward us for going through this pain!').

That is not what we want. There was a female pilote if I recall correctly, and she was fighting against ISIL. The ISIL people fled for her because if you would be killed by a woman, according to the Qu'ran, you would not come into heaven and not have 72 virgings.

We need to demoralise them completely. Only then we will be able to slay them quickly, without much resistance.
Of course, this is hard however, since their belief is very strong. But that does not mean it is impossible; for instance, look at the Germans in WWII. They fought very hard for a man with a moustache, but ultimately they ended up in being completely demoralized and weak, and they eventually had to surrender.

If you want to win a war with an enemy, then you should know where he would be moving to, supplying or fighting. To know that, you can research and examine the territory by airplanes, drones, or by thinking ''what would he do? What would I do if I was that person?''.

Thus we will have to act as civilised people, but think as them.

So, in a way, you're right, but also wrong. Or that is what I would like to say to you.

Do you agree with this statement, Bulgar Rouge? The statement: ''we will have to act and handle as civilised people to stop them from becoming martyrs, but that we will have to think as them in order to know what they would be doing.''?

TL;DR: I think we better should act and handle as civilised people, but think as them to know what they'd be doing.

A thing, I think, we can all find common ground on, is that ISIL is a group of people that forms a monster, a danger.

Do you know the things that needed to be done to force the Germans to surrender in WWII? To truly break the Germans the Allies and the Soviets had to invade them and fight them from Normandy and Moscow to Berlin for almost every inch, with all the civilian casualties and human rights atrocities that came with it during that time. There was nothing "quick" or "clean" about destroying them; just as there is no quick, clean and easy way to destroy Daesh.

Now I'm not advocating that we must resort to torture or pointless human rights violations to fight Daesh; militarily such methods are a simple waste of time and resources with nothing to show for it. But we must discard this naive notion that we (those who stand against Daesh) can fight them in morally justifiable ways, that we don't have to invade them or we can just beat them with precision air power or some other "painless" (for the West anyway) solution.

That's true...

[Herargon]

It's also an incredibly poor quality post whose convincibility quality can be summed up as utterly boring.

Never. If you were an ISIL member and you would be tortured very severely, would that help anything? No. You only would have pain, and pain. And you would be thinking that you are on the way to become an immortal martyr, thus giving others a morale boost ( 'they treat us inhumane, thus that's another reason to believe in Him, because he will reward us for going through this pain!').

That is not what we want. There was a female pilote if I recall correctly, and she was fighting against ISIL. The ISIL people fled for her because if you would be killed by a woman, according to the Qu'ran, you would not come into heaven and not have 72 virgings.

Did I say torture all of them ? No. Kill them all regardless of ways, just torture and humiliate a few (few dozen or few hundred) and post videos, just like ISIS does it. You're wrong that we'll make them "martyrs". They will only become "martyrs" in the eyes of ISIS itself, and probably its shitty following. Normal Muslims and Middle Eastern people do have a very strong sense of vengeance and will never view Daesh suffering as a sign of martyrdom. They'll view it as just punishment.

We need to demoralise them completely. Only then we will be able to slay them quickly, without much resistance.
Of course, this is hard however, since their belief is very strong. But that does not mean it is impossible; for instance, look at the Germans in WWII. They fought very hard for a man with a moustache, but ultimately they ended up in being completely demoralized and weak, and they eventually had to surrender.

These people are not Nazis. What drives them is an unshakeable and extensively codified belief in afterlife and its rewards. Their doctrine is not centred around Al-Baghdadi or anyone else, it is centred around that very belief and its ways of explaining reality. If you plan to "demoralise" them, well good luck - it just won't happen. Every action of ours will be viewed as either an expected sting of the "infidel" and anything short of combat will be viewed by them as weakness which they will mock and exploit.

The only way to put an end to them is physical destruction through military means while denying them of manpower through deterrence/intimidation of would-be jihadists.

If you want to win a war with an enemy, then you should know where he would be moving to, supplying or fighting. To know that, you can research and examine the territory by airplanes, drones, or by thinking ''what would he do? What would I do if I was that person?''.

Thus we will have to act as civilised people, but think as them.

That's what the coalition and the militaries of Iraq and Syria are doing.

Do you agree with this statement, Bulgar Rouge? The statement: ''we will have to act and handle as civilised people to stop them from becoming martyrs, but that we will have to think as them in order to know what they would be doing.''?

TL;DR: I think we better should act and handle as civilised people, but think as them to know what they'd be doing.

A thing, I think, we can all find common ground on, is that ISIL is a group of people that forms a monster, a danger.

I agree with that and I generally support fighting an enemy through civilised means. But the stick never works on rabid dogs.

Well, they indeed will become martyrs in the eyes of ISIL itself. But only ISIL? No. They will be martyrs in the eyes of ISIL-aligned groups and ISIL-supporters too. That is why it is not only a national, but a worldwide problem.

It is correct that ISIL people are not Nazis and don't fight for Al-Baghdadi, but it may be the case that Al-Baghdadi is the so-called ''Caliph'' of ISIL, of which many nations don't recognise him as a Caliph. The fact that their belief in their version of Allah is so strong, is a big problem indeed, and hard to eradicate without using physical means. However, if physical damage works, why won't we try demoralisation too? Demoralisation does not bring crucifixion, beheadings or slavery with, in this war. So, at least we could try it. If demoralisation happens not to work after a few years, we'll have to say ''fuck it'' and then just proceed with regular bombings.

Although, that also might make them martyrs. I've recently heard an ISIL supporter say that killing people by only shooting them dead or by bombing them directly, won't work - instead, it only would highen their support because 'the west is all evil, sodom and gomorra hurr durr', and such.

That problem could be caused because low-educated immigrants (no offence) from islamic countries expect the West to give them jobs when they arrive, and that the West would be accepting of almost everything, even sharia, that is an integral aspect in their own homelands.
But that is not what autochtones in Western countries want. No, they despise and even hate sharia.
Because of this cultural and religious difference, these immigrants feel insulted and grow to hate the West.

Now I will not say that hating the West is not good - you may hate us, hoho - but hating others unreasonable is not good.

''What thou don't want that happens to thou, shalt thou not do to others'', is the case in this context.

It's true that the coalition against ISIL is acting civilised but thinks as them to get to know what ISIL's next step would be.
You indeed agreed with me on that.

And what did you mean with that a stick won't work on a rabid dog? That they would continue fighting?
Why not smash 'em knock-out? That rabid dog won't be able to move anymore, and can then be slept in, without fear.

I feel spite for those poor people that have to fight, struggle, to live, even if they're not politicians or ISIL people, but most certainly I feel spite for these normal people trying to live a normal life despite all this sadness.

[Connori Pilgrims]

WW2 was fought before precision munitions: strategic bombardment was responsible for most of the civilian casualties endured by the Germans.

In terms of fighting ISIS, strategic bombardment is:

i) not necessary (due to precision munitions)
ii) not effective (due to IS's lack of major industrial facilities to bomb, and the political perspective of winning the local civilian population to the coalition's side)

IS is not comparable to the Nazis (at least not in anything other than the contempt and disgust felt towards them.) They do not field major mechanised armies willing and able to pit themselves against Western or Eastern organised forces; Peshmerga and even Iraqi Army units are less likely to be perceived as "foreign crusaders" than US/EU/FUSSR troops and seem to be holding their own.

The much more major part of fighting IS will be re-establishing faith in the political establishment and enfranchising poor Sunni areas of Iraq, and it is there where major foreign efforts should be made. The BBC also released an interesting analysis– concluding that IS' lack of cohesive ideology will lead to it falling apart in the absence of major military victories. While such an analysis strikes me as optimistic, I don't think it's unbelievable.

Yet strategic bombardment despite the heavy civilian casualties did little to break the will of the German people. It was the advancing Allied and Soviet Armies coming that slowly broke them. The Japanese people during WWII likewise did not break under the American bomber offensive; the nuclear weapons came closest and even then it could be argued that the nukes merely gave them a fantastical face-saving way out. The relative resilience of the Viet Minh and North Vietnam to the US Linebacker bomber offensives also bears this out.

And while the Kurdish Peshmerga and Iraqi Army are holding their own, they need much, much more than that to win, especially since it is quite possible that while they defeat Daesh in Iraq they may well win in Syria (they already control a frighteningly huge swath of the place)... even if the West were to do an about face regards its policy with Assad (I'm not necessarily for it, but its too late for that now anyway).

The US/EU/FUSSR need not send troops this time; but realpolitik will make it extremely difficult to convince any Middle-Eastern army that isn't Jordan and Iraq to work together to actually attack them in Syria - and a Jordanian/Iraqi/Kurdish invasion of Syria is at the moment unfathomable.

Re: rebuilding Iraq - indeed restoring the legitimacy of political institutions to the Sunni minority is important, however given the depth and the sheer amount of ill-will that has been built up between the Sunnis and the Shiites exacerbated by Daesh' madness, the likelihood of a "win-win" scenario playing out is indeed sadly too optimistic.

[Geilinor]

Jordan vows a strong response.

[Herargon]

I find that when Syria and Iraq have been released from ISIL influence, - depending on if Syria still would be under Assad then, which I doubt, since the US is fighting Assad too - these countries will have to be under a brief period of occupation, if anarchy remains. Remember Libya? There was and still is anarchy, because the new government wasn't able to disarm the remaining weaponized groups.

To disarm these people, a strong army is required, and to make lifes better again for these people, the forces need to rebuild things and demolish destroyed buildings that aren't on the World heritage List, and to distribute money, food and such to these people to stimulate them building new houses and such, to live in.

However, it should not be a real, direct occupation. More like a decentralised occupation; military of the occupying powers will still be present there, and there will be a secular government. If the majority of these people prefer having sharia however, then that may be implemented - but only on the lowest levels, and without medieval methods of execution. The occupation should be that of an higher power -> federal governments -> local governments and communities.

A war can be won, but the remains of the war can't be erased from history until the damage that has been present there is repaired.
And a reparation can't be done if there is anarchy. However, we also should refrain from intervening too much in their own affairs -- let them punish their own criminals as they wish for the time of the occupation. After this they may create a secular constitution that allows freedom for all these people.


... And the Kurdish question? I'm afraid I can't answer it. But I support independence. And if I were to rule over one of these occupying powers, I would make them be granted the Kurdish Autonome region+Syrian Kurdish region, including a stroke of land to connect the internal syrian kurdish regions.

But I also know that the Syrians and Iraqesians could have a feeling of revanchism... that is dangerous. This is also why we need to rebuild them and to help them. We must make sure that the Kurds will be a friend of Syria in the first years, will they have to survive as a sovereign nation.