The ISIS offensive in Iraq

[Chris]

I doubt they're bothered by it. He just sounds like an idiot.

Dudes are chopping off heads like it's the French revolution and we're worried about what the president is calling them?

 

[The Oi]

Dudes are chopping off heads like it's the French revolution and we're worried about what the president is calling them?

The idea of thinking they're insane and need to be caught and killed isn't mutually exclusive to the idea of Obama sounding like an idiot when he calls them ISIL.

 

[Chris]

The idea of thinking they're insane and need to be caught and killed isn't mutually exclusive to the idea of Obama sounding like an idiot when he calls them ISIL.

Yeah, well, I don't really like Obama at all I just don't care what he calls them. Just saying...any more interesting news on these guys lately? lol.

 

[The Oi]

Next time they kill someone I guess. Seems like we're looking at weekly beheadings at this rate.

 

[Coyote850]

Wanna solve the problem? A few days of this and they''ll all run home or be dead.

 

[TyGuy]

Shit like this makes me thankful that not only do I exist, but I live in a place where you can pretty much safely do whatever you please as long as you aren't hurting anybody or offending anybody.

It is truly hard to believe that humans behave like this considering how far we have come.

 

[gourimoko]

Islamic extremism isn't going anywhere. Reading this thread has simply demonstrated to me that Americans in general do not understand what drives the jihadist.

If we really want an end to this perpetual conflict weer should withdraw from the middle east entirely.

 

[Simmy]

I find it ironic that they so despise the west, yet use western technologies and western ideas to translate their messages of hatred.

I mean, the dude that's executing everyone is suppose to be a British rapper for crying out loud. And I'm pretty sure rap music wasn't founded on the Islamic faith.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

ISIS was terrorizing and killing people -- and capturing journalists -- when there weren't any American soldiers in Syria or Iraq. We tried the Blame America First, "maybe it's just that they hate us so we'll try the hands-off approach", and the result was that ISIS power and influence surged.

 

[The Oi]

How about this as a solution...

How about if our journalists and contractors stop fucking going over there? What the hell can they be getting done over there that they can't do some form of here or in some other war-torn country that hates us slightly less?

You couldn't pay me enough to go anywhere in the Middle East, literally anywhere.

There is no value being a journalist over there. They're not accomplishing anything.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

How about this as a solution...

How about if our journalists and contractors stop fucking going over there? What the hell can they be getting done over there that they can't do some form of here or in some other war-torn country that hates us slightly less?

You couldn't pay me enough to go anywhere in the Middle East, literally anywhere.

There is no value being a journalist over there. They're not accomplishing anything.

They do have a value in that they keep the public over here informed of what his happening over there. It's imperfect, and not always accurate, but some information is better than none.

I'd also point out that we didn't have a single soldier in Afghanistan when the Taliban facilitated AQ's strike on 9/11.

 

[macbdog]

An old saying- when your enemies fight, you take the opportunity to weaken both. The US has to walk this careful line in deciding how they fight ISIS and how they assemble this 'Coalition of the Willing'. The US has already seen arms we both made and paid for end up in ISIS hands, so they have to decide who they really want to be arming. Fueling up the rebels in Syria who have already gotten their ass kicked by ISIS doesn't seem like the optimal plan to me. The US couldn't trust those groups a year ago with the same task, why all of a sudden now? You are jumping dumping arms onto the black market if you do that. Outfitting the Kurds and bolstering Jordan makes much more sense. Either way though, I hope the administration and the hawks do not say something stupid like they will never put boots onthe ground- because in the end, you don't finish anything like this off without doing so. Would just be a false promise.

 

[The Oi]

They do have a value in that they keep the public over here informed of what his happening over there. It's imperfect, and not always accurate, but some information is better than none.

I'd also point out that we didn't have a single soldier in Afghanistan when the Taliban facilitated AQ's strike on 9/11.

How can these people be protected better?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

How can these people be protected better?

I don't think they can be.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Fueling up the rebels in Syria who have already gotten their ass kicked by ISIS doesn't seem like the optimal plan to me. The US couldn't trust those groups a year ago with the same task, why all of a sudden now? You are jumping dumping arms onto the black market if you do that. Outfitting the Kurds and bolstering Jordan makes much more sense. Either way though, I hope the administration and the hawks do not say something stupid like they will never put boots onthe ground- because in the end, you don't finish anything like this off without doing so. Would just be a false promise.

I think you're dead-on with all this. There may have been a window to help the moderate Syrian opposition, but I think that's gone. Biggest mistake was leaving Iraq without making arrangements for continued air support for the Iraqi Army. And when ISIS started surging, we waited too long to start air strikes. I think we can prevent them from taking significantly more territory with close air support, but if the goal is to roll them back, that's not going to be enough.