A
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes it is time this is as great of a threat as hitler supposedly was
I would think any being of rational thought on this planet would be against this group of idiots.
Doesn't matter what country you love or live in, the thought of extermination just for the **** of it at any time of the day is beyond reason.
Sucks to have to do it, but it's time to arm up and swat assholes.
The logistics are impossible. Where do you go to fight them? How do you know them when you see them?
How long will it take if for every one you kill, two more new ones pop up somewhere else? It's a Whack-a-Mole game from your most grotesque nightmares.
Will the rest of the world have to eradicate a billion-member world religion?
The logistics are impossible. Where do you go to fight them? How do you know them when you see them?
How long will it take if for every one you kill, two more new ones pop up somewhere else? It's a Whack-a-Mole game from your most grotesque nightmares.
Will the rest of the world have to eradicate a billion-member world religion?
These guys aren't hard to find. They have a caliphate with physical borders and a capital city.
ISIS and Al Queda? And every splinter group of wanna be martyrs around the world? Where?
Just to play mental gymnastics: what if for every 1 you kill, it can be demonstrated that not 2, but 0.25 pop up? Then what?
So basically there is no solution and religion as a whole is the problem?
Treat their cities like Dresden.
There will be innocents just like there were in WWWII.
It was a war crime then and would be today. Only difference is our stomach for it.
Is it a natural time for World War?
This question depends entirely upon which definition of war you are referring too. If you are referring to conventional war, which is what the two world wars were, then no. This is not a war using conventional weapons, tactics, or well-defined sides in open confrontation. So long as we approach this as some kind of conventional war we will continue to lose ground. Air strikes, small fighting units, Special Forces, covert actions, are all a waste of time IMO and history is trending to prove exactly that (sure, we kill "high value targets" and party cheerleaders boast of the latest success of their dear leader, but they are easily replaced and all we've done is inadvertently help their cause). All these actions do is lend credence to the recruiting effort of these cells because those negatively affected by our intervention see exactly what their recruiters told them they'd see. They've been very clear about their goals for quite sometime; that our intervention is a motivator, that it's a religious war, that we are weak and unwilling to sustain casualties, and that if they spread this war to as many fronts as possible we will run around chasing these fronts to the point of bankruptcy.
If the definition to which you are referring is that of total war, then maybe. The problem is that 1st world nations don't have the stomach for total war (which is a recruiting tactic employed by these cells). Total war requires that we view non-combatants as targets, the people as a whole regardless of whether its a sick elderly person or a three year old child. Total war in this situation will also require an extremely large force (talking million plus boots on ground), the willingness to sustain heavy casualties, the willingness to kill without bias, a total disregard of conventional rules of war, and sacrifice by all citizens for the effort. I'm sorry, but I do not believe that we have the stomach for such an undertaking.
So what are our options as I see it? A. Continue to fight this with a conventional war approach until bankrupt, B. Commit to total war, or C. Pull back, secure our boarders, and take a responsible foreign policy approach. Two of these options result in the enemy declaring victory. The other option results in us, and our allies, being branded as war criminals in the mold of Adolf Hitler hell bent on genocide
Those of you calling for war need to sit down and actually take the time to think and research what kind of war will be required in order to meet the success you believe can occur through such an action. Because I can assure you that nothing less than total war is the answer should we pursue that path as a nation. What happened in Paris will happen in other 1st world nations including the U.S. What is the correct approach; total war or sustained foreign policy (this also requires a very strict immigration policy)? I don't have that answer, I just ask that we all have a seat and discuss the true ramifications and cost of whatever action we choose to take. There is no easy answer but a rush to action could be a grave mistake.
Treat their cities like Dresden.
There will be innocents just like there were in WWWII.
It was a war crime then and would be today. Only difference is our stomach for it.
This question depends entirely upon which definition of war you are referring too. If you are referring to conventional war, which is what the two world wars were, then no. This is not a war using conventional weapons, tactics, or well-defined sides in open confrontation. So long as we approach this as some kind of conventional war we will continue to lose ground. Air strikes, small fighting units, Special Forces, covert actions, are all a waste of time IMO and history is trending to prove exactly that (sure, we kill "high value targets" and party cheerleaders boast of the latest success of their dear leader, but they are easily replaced and all we've done is inadvertently help their cause). All these actions do is lend credence to the recruiting effort of these cells because those negatively affected by our intervention see exactly what their recruiters told them they'd see. They've been very clear about their goals for quite sometime; that our intervention is a motivator, that it's a religious war, that we are weak and unwilling to sustain casualties, and that if they spread this war to as many fronts as possible we will run around chasing these fronts to the point of bankruptcy.
If the definition to which you are referring is that of total war, then maybe. The problem is that 1st world nations don't have the stomach for total war (which is a recruiting tactic employed by these cells). Total war requires that we view non-combatants as targets, the people as a whole regardless of whether its a sick elderly person or a three year old child. Total war in this situation will also require an extremely large force (talking million plus boots on ground), the willingness to sustain heavy casualties, the willingness to kill without bias, a total disregard of conventional rules of war, and sacrifice by all citizens for the effort. I'm sorry, but I do not believe that we have the stomach for such an undertaking.
So what are our options as I see it? A. Continue to fight this with a conventional war approach until bankrupt, B. Commit to total war, or C. Pull back, secure our boarders, and take a responsible foreign policy approach. Two of these options result in the enemy declaring victory. The other option results in us, and our allies, being branded as war criminals in the mold of Adolf Hitler hell bent on genocide
Those of you calling for war need to sit down and actually take the time to think and research what kind of war will be required in order to meet the success you believe can occur through such an action. Because I can assure you that nothing less than total war is the answer should we pursue that path as a nation. What happened in Paris will happen in other 1st world nations including the U.S. What is the correct approach; total war or sustained foreign policy (this also requires a very strict immigration policy)? I don't have that answer, I just ask that we all have a seat and discuss the true ramifications and cost of whatever action we choose to take. There is no easy answer but a rush to action could be a grave mistake.
I'm OK with option B from the perspective that I'll do anything to secure safety for my son's future.
The suspension of morality has been necessary before.
Treat their cities like Dresden.
There will be innocents just like there were in WWWII.
It was a war crime then and would be today. Only difference is our stomach for it.
Insightful. The problem is our preoccupation with zero collateral damage.
problem is, (A) will fuel the problem until (B) becomes an unavoidable necessity.
Ideally the answer is C but we will never do that for fear of losing the Latino vote.
I agree that (A) will fuel the problem and that (B) could be an unavoidable necessity, but I think (B) will be off the table due to economic factors caused by (A). Therefore, we will scurry to do the best we can with option (C) and fail miserably.
I disagree that extremely violent retaliation will play into their hands. Anyone can be broken.
I'm not hitting those limits in thinking. The message is "you'll be next if you don't drop it."The problem here is that you are only thinking of those being bombed directly. Sure, they can be broken. You're not considering those that are being recruited elsewhere and only indirectly affected (or even unaffected but under the belief their way of life is affected through propaganda by recruiters).
Agreed, but it's gonna be a $hitty year or two for a lot of people before we can put them down. The much longer term issue, and extremely difficult issue, is how you put into place governmental structures in the middle east whose primary purpose isn't "avenge grievances". Hell, we had thousands of diplomats and lawyers in Iraq for over a decade and still managed to put a government in place the equivalent of the Bad News Bears.A couple random thoughts: It's such a shocking deal, perspective is easy to lose. There have been so many terrorist attacks through the years that rivaled or surpassed the destructiveness of this.... 911, Munich, Lockerbie, Murrah bombing, Spain train deal, a couple in London, we can go on and on.
Thor, I don't think your options are all mutually exclusive. I would think lots and lots of arab intel and sabotage would greatly accelerate ISIS' defeat. Why isn't Saudi all over ISIS? Maybe it's going on, and maybe the bombing and military campaigns of the last year actually have taken a toll -- you don't really need lots of organizational brilliance or state support to get guns and shoot people up. The US, Great Britain, France, Russia have all been hitting ISIS targets for many months, and that doesn't count the problems they've had with the local population. Surely they're degraded.
They're not as smart as we give them credit for. If their intent is to scare or kill, they could do it much more effectively. Shooting down a russian airliner, suicide bombing a hezbollah neighborhood and shooting up Paris isn't tactically or diplomatically smart. The whole world is on their ass now. I think they flame out within a year or two.
They are no where near the threat that Hitler was but it is time to exterminate them. No POWS on the battlefield against this foe.
They're not as smart as we give them credit for. If their intent is to scare or kill, they could do it much more effectively. Shooting down a russian airliner, suicide bombing a hezbollah neighborhood and shooting up Paris isn't tactically or diplomatically smart. The whole world is on their ass now. I think they flame out within a year or two.
I'm OK with option B from the perspective that I'll do anything to secure safety for my son's future.
The suspension of morality has been necessary before.