Obliterating Islamic State (ISIS) - Page 11




 
--
Boots
 
November 18th, 2015  
lljadw
 
We need SA and its repressive domestic policy:without SA, the whole of the ME would be in chaos .

And those who are complaining about the role of SA concerning ISIS should consider this : the whole point of no return started when Obama (always him) was giving Iran carte blanche to dominate the ME ,Iran used this to send forces to Iraq and Syria to meddle in the fighting,NOT to defeat ISIS: because why is ISIS not defeated ? reason : as long as ISIS is fighting, Iran has a reason to be in Syria and Iraq .Iran needs ISIS. And the presence of Iran in that region triggered the answer of SA =to support ISIS against Iran .

The main responsible for this mess is,as usual, Obama .

He created chaos in Libya by intervening in the civil war, he tried to do the same in Egypt but failed, he is responsible for ISIS by intriguing against Assad .

The man is a total disaster and Europe is the victim of his policy .
November 18th, 2015  
mmarsh
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lljadw
We need SA and its repressive domestic policy:without SA, the whole of the ME would be in chaos .

And those who are complaining about the role of SA concerning ISIS should consider this : the whole point of no return started when Obama (always him) was giving Iran carte blanche to dominate the ME ,Iran used this to send forces to Iraq and Syria to meddle in the fighting,NOT to defeat ISIS: because why is ISIS not defeated ? reason : as long as ISIS is fighting, Iran has a reason to be in Syria and Iraq .Iran needs ISIS. And the presence of Iran in that region triggered the answer of SA =to support ISIS against Iran .

The main responsible for this mess is,as usual, Obama .

He created chaos in Libya by intervening in the civil war, he tried to do the same in Egypt but failed, he is responsible for ISIS by intriguing against Assad .

The man is a total disaster and Europe is the victim of his policy .
Please, Obama did not create this situation. This all started when Idiot American Neoconservatives opened Pandora's box and decided to play kingmaker in Iraq. Everyone knew that by removing Saddam the Sunnis and Shiites would go at it, they have hated each other for 900 years it was folly to think "democracy" was going to change that.

The US Role in Libya was minimal, France and the UK played a much greater part, and Libya is still a very long ways away from Syria and Iraq.

Obama was just handed the bill for someone else's stupidity, a situation with no easy fix. Starting wars is very easy, the challenge is stopping them.

And what would you do? Invade? With the last US expedition into Iraq still a very fresh memory its not surprising you are not finding many volunteers. The French certainly remembers the war in Algeria and the British in Palestine. Look what happened with Putin, The Russians tried to get involved and 10 days later one of their airliners was blown out of the sky as a result.

Nor is this the first time Europe has had to deal with Islamic Fundamentalists. France has been fighting them since the 1950's in northern and Central Africa. My own father in law fought them in Lebanon during the 1980's when he was in the French Paras.

This is simply a new chapter in a very long book.

I am mixed on Obama overall, but it simply not accurate to blame him for this.
November 18th, 2015  
BritinAfrica
 
 
Getting rid of terrorism, ISIS are terrorists in my opinion, is virtually impossible. Britain has never beaten the IRA and its still going on today, despite what the media tells you. The hatred runs so deep in Northern Ireland, I can foresee problems there in 100 years time. The same with ISIS. Things might quieten down for a while, but as sure as God made little green apples its all going to blow up again.
--
Boots
November 18th, 2015  
mmarsh
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
Getting rid of terrorism, ISIS are terrorists in my opinion, is virtually impossible. Britain has never beaten the IRA and its still going on today, despite what the media tells you. The hatred runs so deep in Northern Ireland, I can foresee problems there in 100 years time. The same with ISIS. Things might quieten down for a while, but as sure as God made little green apples its all going to blow up again.
I agree, what I don't understand is why the West is so Gung-ho to get rid of Assad.

Its exactly like Saddam, Assad is a butcher and a tyrant, no question about that, but he's not an irrational religious nutcase ******s like Daesh is. Assad wants to stay in power and he's not going to deliberate cheese off NATO by shooting up a Paris music club.

If Assad is really so bad, why not have one of his advisers arrange a "tragic accident" establish a few ground rules with him and Russia and let him carry on.
November 18th, 2015  
Tuan
 
 
While we discuss who is responsible for the creation of ISIS, I came across this documentary, although I don't know how credible its contents are, it's certainly a different perception.

Award Winning American Journalist Exposes The True Origin Of ISIS & The “War On Terror”


[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6kdi1UXxhY"]Truth in Media: Origin of ISIS - YouTube[/ame]
November 18th, 2015  
I3BrigPvSk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
I agree, what I don't understand is why the West is so Gung-ho to get rid of Assad.

Its exactly like Saddam, Assad is a butcher and a tyrant, no question about that, but he's not an irrational religious nutcase ******s like Daesh is. Assad wants to stay in power and he's not going to deliberate cheese off NATO by shooting up a Paris music club.

If Assad is really so bad, why not have one of his advisers arrange a "tragic accident" establish a few ground rules with him and Russia and let him carry on.
My opinion is; the West would support Assad, he is the one that can create stability in Syria. The West supports multiple different groups that can never create a stable government in Syria. When ISIS is gone, I don't want to see another power vacuum and we might end up with something even worse than ISIS. Assad can be dealt with later and he deserves to be punished for what he did and still does.
November 18th, 2015  
JOC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
Getting rid of terrorism, ISIS are terrorists in my opinion, is virtually impossible. Britain has never beaten the IRA and its still going on today, despite what the media tells you. The hatred runs so deep in Northern Ireland, I can foresee problems there in 100 years time. The same with ISIS. Things might quieten down for a while, but as sure as God made little green apples its all going to blow up again.
No Brit but they can be beaten back. I for one think that there is merit in airstrikes as it takes out their heavy equipment and can eliminate pockets of fighters when grouped together. The US is using only very limited airstrikes from carrier based planes based way out in the Persian Gulf. This could be stepped up with improved results as it did with the NVA. Bottom line the fewer terrorist and the lesser their capabilities the better. However the west cannot solve this issue just reduce ISIS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
I agree, what I don't understand is why the West is so Gung-ho to get rid of Assad.

Its exactly like Saddam, Assad is a butcher and a tyrant, no question about that, but he's not an irrational religious nutcase ******s like Daesh is. Assad wants to stay in power and he's not going to deliberate cheese off NATO by shooting up a Paris music club.

If Assad is really so bad, why not have one of his advisers arrange a "tragic accident" establish a few ground rules with him and Russia and let him carry on.
The Assad thing is completely political. The Assad dynasty has been an enemy of the US for decades, long before ISIS. Even though he is by far the lesser of the 2 evils when compared to ISIS, Washington has long had their sights on him. Ideally we want the rebels to win unfortunately they are not faring so well.
The whole thing is a bloody mess: With Iran poking their nose in just dying to be the great regional power. Assad trying to hold on to the remain of his dictatorship, the Kurds trying to establish a nation of their own, the relatively ineffective Iraqi military still fighting, the relatively ineffective Syrian rebels still fighting, The murderous terrorists ISIS ready to kill anyone, SA and Jordan caught in the middle. Only in the ME could such a conundrum develop. The solution and strategy is up to greater military minds than mine.
November 18th, 2015  
Tuan
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOC
No Brit but they can be beaten back. I for one think that there is merit in airstrikes as it takes out their heavy equipment and can eliminate pockets of fighters when grouped together. The US is using only very limited airstrikes from carrier based planes based way out in the Persian Gulf. This could be stepped up with improved results as it did with the NVA. Bottom line the fewer terrorist and the lesser their capabilities the better. However the west cannot solve this issue just reduce ISIS.
I disagree JOC, because bombing ISIS in the past five years or so didn't degrade them, rather it exacerbate the situation, in my opinion; so is this reporter:

Bombing terrorists feeds their ideology
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/18/opinio...paris-attacks/

Quote:
If we think it's irrational, immoral or plainly reckless for ordinary Arab citizens to respond to violence with violence, then we should stop doing so ourselves.

I'm not saying the scope and severity of the violence from the two sides are the same. And I'm not drawing a moral equivalency between the actions of one side versus the other. Instead, I think it's futile to respond to terrorist violence with more violence in a way that creates more terrorists.
November 18th, 2015  
mmarsh
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuan
I disagree JOC, because bombing ISIS in the past five years or so didn't degrade them, rather it exacerbate the situation, in my opinion; so is this reporter:

Bombing terrorists feeds their ideology
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/18/opinio...paris-attacks/
Yeah, but in this case they have made so many enemies in the muslim world they have a popularity of stomach flu.

I think everyone is agreed that the world needs to be rid of Daesh its just everyone wants someone else to actually do the work.
November 18th, 2015  
JOC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuan
I disagree JOC, because bombing ISIS in the past five years or so didn't degrade them, rather it exacerbate the situation, in my opinion; so is this reporter:

Bombing terrorists feeds their ideology
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/18/opinio...paris-attacks/
I personally believe this is a bit idealistic. But that's me. Doing nothing at all will encourage them, no deterrent. Every dead terrorists is one less murdering bugger in my opinion. This will be viewed as a weakness.

I do not however support our getting bogged down in a ground war. This would best be fought by non radical area powers. However prime candidates such as Egypt or Turkey are likely to stay out of the ground war unfortunately since they could easily defeat ISIS.
 


Similar Topics
Syrian Kurds battle Islamic State in northeast
U.S. fears Islamic State is making serious inroads in Libya
Islamic State says it's holding 'Israeli spy' in Syria
Iranian Phantom jet strikes the Islamic State in Iraq - IHS Jane's 360
Islamic State says executes second Lebanese soldier