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

[Old Stephania]

What am I even reading? Sure, it's not surprising that ISIS attacked Paris following the airstrikes, but that does not make French civilians "acceptable casualties" by any stretch.

If we were fighting the Nazis, would a bombing in Grand Central be considered an acceptable loss? Yeah, it would. The French government decided to go to war with ISIL just like the United States. As crass as it sounds, these terrorist attacks are the risks of deciding to get involved in the Syrian Civil War. The French government knew that risk and decided to go ahead with air strikes anyway.

And before you get all puffed up, no, no one deserved to die, but that is the risk the French government was willing to take.

No, the French government decided to aid people fighting against a psychopathic organisation bent on world domination that kills more of their own fellow Muslims than it does anybody else. Whether they should have expected a response or not to call the civilian casualties "acceptable" (even regrettably so) is patently absurd, and if anything only highlights the barbarity of these psychopaths and entirely justifies the aforementioned airstrikes.

[Salus Maior]

Yeah, what a horrible thing, the U.S actually investing in helping other people for a change.

I'd like to help, but American military interventions in the Middle East do not have a record of success. I see no reason in getting involved in another quagmire in the Middle East that will just perpetuate terror in the long run.

And not intervening is proving to be just as successful.

Look, we are at war with these organizations, and we need to fight these wars as we have fought all the other wars we've fought: With a determination to win, or to kill their will to fight us. It just can't work out any other way.

[Salus Maior]

If we were fighting the Nazis, would a bombing in Grand Central be considered an acceptable loss? Yeah, it would.

No, it wouldn't. Where the hell are you getting these ideas?

And are you seriously suggesting that ISIS would not have attacked the West if we didn't do airstrikes? Their entire ideology REVOLVES around conflict with the West.

[Eol Sha]

The Paris attacks were designed to spread terror. Not topple the French government. That's what I mean by "significant". ISIL is a real threat to Iraq and Syria. Not the United States or Belgium or France. Sure, they're a threat. Any terrorist group is. I'm not denying that. What I'm saying is that their "threat level" does not rise to the level of intervention with American ground forces. The KKK has a better chance of toppling the United States than ISIL.

Personally, I believe that Western-led intervention will just play to the narrative that the West is here to destroy Islam and give ISIL and other terrorist groups exactly what they want.

When I say "take the lead", I mean it must be the Arabs who pull together a real coalition designed to fight and destroy ISIL on the ground.

So, if China one day decided to arrange for spree-shooters in the U.S you wouldn't bat an eye? That'd just be totally acceptable to you? Again, it's idiotic and backwards to suggest that the safety of OUR OWN PEOPLE is not important enough for military intervention. The military doesn't exist to arbitrarily protect whatever big-wig is in the Capital building, or to protect itself, but to ensure the protection of the people. It's why we fought so hard against Al-Qaeda after 9/11 (a fight, which for the most part, we won. While Al-Qaeda unfortunately still exists, you have to admit it's far more diminished than it once was). And frankly, I find that kind of attitude profoundly disgusting.

My god, what an out of touch thing to say. Really? The KKK is more of a threat to you than the organization that has successfully committed attacks in the West with triple digit casualties? Nevermind the atrocities they're committing in their own country. Honestly, I'm not sure if I can take you seriously past this point.

What ISIS wants is for the West to turn against all Islam, which isn't going to happen. As Jamz said, what they want isn't going to happen just because we decide to curb stomp their organization. Hell, with ISIS defeated Islam as a whole would breathe a sigh of relief.

I think we both know that's not going to happen. Someone needs to stand against ISIS.

I'm sorry, but do you think it'd be a good idea to invade Qingdao in retaliation for such an attack on American soil?

And look where that fight has gotten us? Half a million dead Iraqis. A broken and horribly corrupt Afghanistan. Pakistan on the verge of societal breakdown. A corrupt and oppressive government in Baghdad currently trying to cozy up with Iran. Fucking ISIL! Yes, what a wildly successful adventure we went on. Right up there with Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark. Truly a victory to celebrate every day. Hmm, maybe October 7 should be a national holiday. Maybe May 2. Either way, we should really be commemorating the War on Terror as greatest military operation ever conducted.

I don't know how many time I've got to repeat myself, but I don't consider ISIL a significant enough threat to me or my fellow Americans to warrant a ground invasion of the territory they hold. I'm sorry that I don't want to get bogged down in the middle of a fucking civil war in a country who's government doesn't like us, whose rebels don't like, and whose major terrorist group doesn't like us. I'm sorry that I'd rather not see my fellow Americans dying in a war that will accomplish very little in the long run and won't stop terrorism. I'm truly sorry for having such radical thoughts and being rightfully suspicious of the US government's ability to avoid another military occupation in the Middle East. I'm sorry for understanding that needlessly killing women and children, the young and old is an unbelievably stupid way to fight terrorism.

Whether you take me seriously or not is immaterial. I'll continue to explain my position if you wish it.

Yeah, I'm sure with the defeat of ISIL it'll signal our final victory over Islamic terrorism. Or maybe, and I find this to be the more likely consequence of intervention, terrorists just find new places to crop up and continue to inflict death and destruction on innocents. And when a group becomes evil enough to warrant the attention of the US populace, we'll once again hear the calls for another intervention. And around and around we go. Forever stuck in a the vortex that is the Middle East and Islamic terrorism.

Someone does need to stand up to ISIL. It needs to be the Arabs and, to a lesser extent, the Muslim world. The United States will not succeed in the long-term effort of vanquishing Islamic terrorism. Only Muslims can do that.

[Eol Sha]

If we were fighting the Nazis, would a bombing in Grand Central be considered an acceptable loss? Yeah, it would.

No, it wouldn't. Where the hell are you getting these ideas?

And are you seriously suggesting that ISIS would not have attacked the West if we didn't do airstrikes? Their entire ideology REVOLVES around conflict with the West.

No, I'm not. I'm not an idiot. I'm suggesting that ISIL wouldn't be an issue if the US hadn't invaded Iraq in the first place. But, then, we already know that. So where will we go from here.

[Eol Sha]

I'd like to help, but American military interventions in the Middle East do not have a record of success. I see no reason in getting involved in another quagmire in the Middle East that will just perpetuate terror in the long run.

And not intervening is proving to be just as successful.

Look, we are at war with these organizations, and we need to fight these wars as we have fought all the other wars we've fought: With a determination to win, or to kill their will to fight us. It just can't work out any other way.

Except we already do lead an intervention so you're point is incorrect. It's not a ground intervention, but it is still an intervention in every sense of the word. And, as far as the success of the President's approach, reports indicate that ISIL is being pushed back by local forces. That they are losing ground, running out of money, and losing soldiers.

And how long will we have to fight in order to truly defeat ISIL, huh? They aren't clustered in Syria and Iraq anymore. They fight and die in a number of other countries that stretch from Libya to Nigeria to the Philippines to Yemen. Even if we kill their leader, we've learned that that alone doesn't defeat terrorist groups. You cut off one head and another three grow. You set the body alight and it's ashes eventually reform into smaller groups just as committed and just as barbaric as their "parent".

[Eol Sha]

If we were fighting the Nazis, would a bombing in Grand Central be considered an acceptable loss? Yeah, it would. The French government decided to go to war with ISIL just like the United States. As crass as it sounds, these terrorist attacks are the risks of deciding to get involved in the Syrian Civil War. The French government knew that risk and decided to go ahead with air strikes anyway.

And before you get all puffed up, no, no one deserved to die, but that is the risk the French government was willing to take.

No, the French government decided to aid people fighting against a psychopathic organisation bent on world domination that kills more of their own fellow Muslims than it does anybody else. Whether they should have expected a response or not to call the civilian casualties "acceptable" (even regrettably so) is patently absurd, and if anything only highlights the barbarity of these psychopaths and entirely justifies the aforementioned airstrikes.

I see we disagree. Look, it's not like I'm saying the attacks weren't tragic. They were. But invading Syria and destroying ISIL and then maintaining refugee safe zones like Jamz suggested, aren't going to defeat terrorism. ISIL isn't the only group delivering death and destruction in Syria and Iraq. They are one of many. Defeating them by ourselves will not stop the conflict and will not lead to peace.

[Old Stephania]

No, the French government decided to aid people fighting against a psychopathic organisation bent on world domination that kills more of their own fellow Muslims than it does anybody else. Whether they should have expected a response or not to call the civilian casualties "acceptable" (even regrettably so) is patently absurd, and if anything only highlights the barbarity of these psychopaths and entirely justifies the aforementioned airstrikes.

I see we disagree. Look, it's not like I'm saying the attacks weren't tragic. They were. But invading Syria and destroying ISIL and then maintaining refugee safe zones like Jamz suggested, aren't going to defeat terrorism. ISIL isn't the only group delivering death and destruction in Syria and Iraq. They are one of many. Defeating them by ourselves will not stop the conflict and will not lead to peace.

I don't think the airstrikes on ISIS are being done to stop the wider conflict and create peace, they are being done to assist in holding back ISIS and reclaiming territory. Rightfully so, because ISIS is a psychopathic group that is a threat to anyone who does not strictly conform to its ideology.

[The Northernmost Americas]

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/shadowy-marine-artillery-base-in-iraq-attacked-again-af-1766707053
First American casualties a couple of days ago. They're already there, maybe not in the numbers or role some here would like. I think they should stick to training and fire support. If the Iraqis can't finish this themselves, I'm not sure how capable they'll be once US ground troops leave. Prove that their previous habit of collapsing under pressure is gone and all. On the Syrian front the Russians ground forces have been doing exactly that for the Syrians: providing fire support, new equipment and training. It seems to be working, the Syrians are pushing ISIl back. They're in the process of recapturing Palmyra I believe.

[Eol Sha]

I see we disagree. Look, it's not like I'm saying the attacks weren't tragic. They were. But invading Syria and destroying ISIL and then maintaining refugee safe zones like Jamz suggested, aren't going to defeat terrorism. ISIL isn't the only group delivering death and destruction in Syria and Iraq. They are one of many. Defeating them by ourselves will not stop the conflict and will not lead to peace.

I don't think the airstrikes on ISIS are being done to stop the wider conflict and create peace, they are being done to assist in holding back ISIS and reclaiming territory. Rightfully so, because ISIS is a psychopathic group that is a threat to anyone who does not strictly conform to its ideology.

Look, I'm arguing against a ground intervention here. Not the one we have right now. I've got my issues with it and I wish the President hadn't decided to start funding rebel groups or really gotten involved with the civil war at all, but what's done is done.

There's nothing inherently wrong with trying to fight ISIL. I just think the Arabs need to take the lead and seriously deal with the problem themselves. The US can support them, but they have to be the ones fighting for the soul of Islam. Not the United States.

[Old Stephania]

I don't think the airstrikes on ISIS are being done to stop the wider conflict and create peace, they are being done to assist in holding back ISIS and reclaiming territory. Rightfully so, because ISIS is a psychopathic group that is a threat to anyone who does not strictly conform to its ideology.

Look, I'm arguing against a ground intervention here. Not the one we have right now. I've got my issues with it and I wish the President hadn't decided to start funding rebel groups or really gotten involved with the civil war at all, but what's done is done.

It's not entirely on topic but you're the one who brought up the airstrikes as a justification for your patently absurd statement that the civilian casualties in France and Belgium are acceptable (even if you did qualify it with "regrettably so"), I'm simply explaining to you why I think said airstrikes are happening and why they are justified.

There's nothing inherently wrong with trying to fight ISIL. I just think the Arabs need to take the lead and seriously deal with the problem themselves. The US can support them, but they have to be the ones fighting for the soul of Islam. Not the United States.

The Arab states are not going to do that, by saying this your answer is essentially to allow ISIS to fester and gain more territory in Iraq and Syria. Keep in mind that I voted against deploying ground forces.

[Lagendian Islands]

I'd like to help, but American military interventions in the Middle East do not have a record of success. I see no reason in getting involved in another quagmire in the Middle East that will just perpetuate terror in the long run.

And not intervening is proving to be just as successful.

Look, we are at war with these organizations, and we need to fight these wars as we have fought all the other wars we've fought: With a determination to win, or to kill their will to fight us. It just can't work out any other way.

Simple Military logic states that, for a nation (or organisation in this case) to continue war, they need to be both capable and willing to continue fighting. Will * Ability being the formula used most to measure the likelyhood of a nation to drop out of a war, meaning: if one or the other reaches zero,they'll be forced to stop the fight. IS(IS) is most vulnarable on the ability side. Trying to break their will is a bad military strategy and will not work against ISIS at all. We (being 'the West') need to make sure we break their ability before they break our will.

I've argued at allowing more Syrians in Europe and treating them better than we did until now after the bombings in Brussels (only 30 miles from me) to do just that, making sure their pool of potential combattants decreases in size. Apart from that, we need to create a stable middle East, not by adding ground forces.

[Cesicius]

Yes but if we do destroy isis, who will come next we always have had a threat constantly being there if not Isis then who else someone worse than them we're always going to be at War with someone no matter what we do maybe they will destroy themselves and why do we have to be constantly saving other people they never help us in return we fought so many battles for others why do we have to involve ourselves in all of them and plus if we deploy us military people on to defeat Isis then they could be killed and we will just keep sending more people constantly or they'll kill anybody Muslims they haven't done anything wrong.

[New haven america]

While I'm usually against things like US send ground forces to areas like the middle east... We caused ISIS, they're our responsibility to take care of, so we need to deal with them.

[Old Stephania]

While I'm usually against things like US send ground forces to areas like the middle east... We caused ISIS, they're our responsibility to take care of, so we need to deal with them.

Que?

[Eol Sha]

Look, I'm arguing against a ground intervention here. Not the one we have right now. I've got my issues with it and I wish the President hadn't decided to start funding rebel groups or really gotten involved with the civil war at all, but what's done is done.

It's not entirely on topic but you're the one who brought up the airstrikes as a justification for your patently absurd statement that the civilian casualties in France and Belgium are acceptable (even if you did qualify it with "regrettably so"), I'm simply explaining to you why I think said airstrikes are happening and why they are justified.

There's nothing inherently wrong with trying to fight ISIL. I just think the Arabs need to take the lead and seriously deal with the problem themselves. The US can support them, but they have to be the ones fighting for the soul of Islam. Not the United States.

The Arab states are not going to do that, by saying this your answer is essentially to allow ISIS to fester and gain more territory in Iraq and Syria. Keep in mind that I voted against deploying ground forces.

I'm not saying they weren't justifiable. They clearly were since the French government decided to engage in bombing missions against ISIL. Although, personally, I think Hollande was a tiny bit motivated to seem tough in the face of his sinking poll numbers. Baseless speculation, but whatever.

Except ISIL seems to be losing more and more territory to the Iraqi and Syrian armies and the Kurdish militas.

They very well may not decide to fight ISIL themselves. Even so, the current strategy seems to be working well enough.

If you did then what point are you trying to make if any at all? Honestly. I'm carrying three different conversations and am finding it a little hard to keep track of who is saying what.

[Old Stephania]

It's not entirely on topic but you're the one who brought up the airstrikes as a justification for your patently absurd statement that the civilian casualties in France and Belgium are acceptable (even if you did qualify it with "regrettably so"), I'm simply explaining to you why I think said airstrikes are happening and why they are justified.


The Arab states are not going to do that, by saying this your answer is essentially to allow ISIS to fester and gain more territory in Iraq and Syria. Keep in mind that I voted against deploying ground forces.

I'm not saying they weren't justifiable. They clearly were since the French government decided to engage in bombing missions against ISIL. Although, personally, I think Hollande was a tiny bit motivated to seem tough in the face of his sinking poll numbers. Baseless speculation, but whatever.

Except ISIL seems to be losing more and more territory to the Iraqi and Syrian armies and the Kurdish militas.

They very well may not decide to fight ISIL themselves. Even so, the current strategy seems to be working well enough.

If you did then what point are you trying to make if any at all? Honestly. I'm carrying three different conversations and am finding it a little hard to keep track of who is saying what.

It is precisely because of the supporting airstrikes that ISIS are losing territory and being forced into a defensive position, that is my entire point. The current strategy is working and that is why I am not in favour of sending ground troops. If it isn't broke, don't fix it.

Also please make use of the edit button. I keep writing a response to you and then my reply is lost because I get an error telling me your post does not exist.

[Eol Sha]

I'm not saying they weren't justifiable. They clearly were since the French government decided to engage in bombing missions against ISIL. Although, personally, I think Hollande was a tiny bit motivated to seem tough in the face of his sinking poll numbers. Baseless speculation, but whatever.

Except ISIL seems to be losing more and more territory to the Iraqi and Syrian armies and the Kurdish militas.

They very well may not decide to fight ISIL themselves. Even so, the current strategy seems to be working well enough.

If you did then what point are you trying to make if any at all? Honestly. I'm carrying three different conversations and am finding it a little hard to keep track of who is saying what.

It is precisely because of the supporting airstrikes that ISIS are losing territory and being forced into a defensive position, that is my entire point. The current strategy is working and that is why I am not in favour of sending ground troops. If it isn't broke, don't fix it.

Also please make use of the edit button. I keep writing a response to you and then my reply is lost because I get an error telling me your post does not exist.

Well, shit, I feel the same way.

I like to delete my posts if I can so others can read my post in full. Sometimes clarification edits are missed.

[Old Stephania]

It is precisely because of the supporting airstrikes that ISIS are losing territory and being forced into a defensive position, that is my entire point. The current strategy is working and that is why I am not in favour of sending ground troops. If it isn't broke, don't fix it.

Also please make use of the edit button. I keep writing a response to you and then my reply is lost because I get an error telling me your post does not exist.

Well, shit, I feel the same way.

Yay, we agree!

I like to delete my posts if I can so others can read my post in full. Sometimes clarification edits are missed.

Fair enough, I just thought you might want to know that if anyone is replying to it at the time their post gets eaten by the forum software.

[Eol Sha]

Well, shit, I feel the same way.

Yay, we agree!

I like to delete my posts if I can so others can read my post in full. Sometimes clarification edits are missed.

Fair enough, I just thought you might want to know that if anyone is replying to it at the time their post gets eaten by the forum software.

YEah. It's happened to me more than once. Sucks hard. I'll be a bit more careful.

[The Northernmost Americas]

It is precisely because of the supporting airstrikes that ISIS are losing territory and being forced into a defensive position, that is my entire point. The current strategy is working and that is why I am not in favour of sending ground troops. If it isn't broke, don't fix it.

They've just lost Palmyra to the Syrians. The Iraqis seem to be making progress too. Why in the world do some people want to barge in again?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35906568

[New haven america]

While I'm usually against things like US send ground forces to areas like the middle east... We caused ISIS, they're our responsibility to take care of, so we need to deal with them.

Que?

Creating instability in Iraq between the Shia and Sunni, letting Syria get as bad as it is now, the fact that quite a lot of ISIS's top members and their leader have prison records in US military prison camps in Iraq and Afghanistan on terrorism/suspected terrorism.

You haven't heard about any of this? We created this problem, we need to fix it.

[Old Stephania]

Que?

Creating instability in Iraq between the Shia and Sunni, letting Syria get as bad as it is now, the fact that quite a lot of ISIS's top members and their leader have prison records in US military prison camps in Iraq and Afghanistan on terrorism/suspected terrorism.

You haven't heard about any of this? We created this problem, we need to fix it.

How did we create instability between Shias and Sunnis? How did we "let" Syria fall into civil war? How is it the fault of the US if people choose to join ISIS?

I am genuinely curious but you keep repeating these opinions as fact without explaining how or why.

[New haven america]

Creating instability in Iraq between the Shia and Sunni, letting Syria get as bad as it is now, the fact that quite a lot of ISIS's top members and their leader have prison records in US military prison camps in Iraq and Afghanistan on terrorism/suspected terrorism.

You haven't heard about any of this? We created this problem, we need to fix it.

A. How did we create instability between Shias and Sunnis? B. How did we "let" Syria fall into civil war? C. How is it the fault of the US if people choose to join ISIS?

I am genuinely curious but you keep repeating these opinions as fact without explaining how or why.

A. We removed the only thing keeping the bloody country from tearing itself apart. Saddam was a terrible human, but he was good at keeping control of the area, we got rid of him and left a rather weak government in place (Despite our best efforts), which also happened to be run by the Islamic minority (Not counting the Kurdish). B. We helped Libya during thier civil war, which broke out around the same time as Syria, we could have easily helped them too, yet for some reason we didn't. Also, I never said we let them fall into civil war, I said we allowed it get as bad as it is currently, you seem to have missed that part. C.It's not our fault people choose to join ISIS, but when most of their top members, their own leader, and a pretty big chunk of their fighters have spent time in US prison camps (That are public, btw, hell, IIRC, CNN had a special talking about the time their leader spent in a US-Iraq prison camp) under charges of terrorism, suspected terrorism, and aiding terrorists/groups in the area, you can see a pretty obvious pattern/timeline forming from this, can't you? Or is that just an opinion to you?

And I'm genuinely curious at how you've never heard of any of this? Things and reports like this were all over the news and internet, and still are. Or did you not pay attention to any of this evidence?

[Imperializt Russia]

"Should"?

No. Slow down, Donald.

"Could"? Yeah, it's an option that exists somewhere. Not politically tenable though. The Iraqis don't want our ground forces and they've stated it. Western ground forces in Syria would be an actual act of war. We'd be in a three-front war fighting the Syrian state and the Islamist groups. With a nebulous coalition of "allied" rebel groups supposedly on our side. Plenty of them aren't happy with the west.