ISIS needs to be exterminated on sight!

I agree with squashing this violent primitive murder squad quickly, but really don't like Isis metaphor for both Mother and Gaia, being the name sake for this. Its a play on words. This murder squad needs to be stopped. Mom doesnt.
But thats how its hitting the subconscious I believe. Kate Perry's song Dark Horse comes to mind, and funny how that came out and then this group popped up.

The question is, is ISIS really too dumb to know that two very well filmed beheadings of Americans containing direct threats to Obama would result in a media frenzy, public support for war, a godsend to the military industrial complex, and ultimately ISIS's demise? My prediction: another full-scale war coming soon, possibly a direct result of the beheading videos.

I wouldn't define being a superpower as perpetual military entanglement, though the use it or lose it mentality seems ubiquitous in DC. Interesting because Iran and ISIS are sworn enemies too...no country in the region will touch it for fear of blowback...they just sit back and wait for the west to deal with it, as it always ends up doing. Then the west in turn suffers the blowback, thus continuing the neverending cycle. Interesting also that Israel is doing nothing. Both Israel and Iran have quite formidable military capabilities, I would think that this could be dealt with by them with ease. But instead Israel bombs assad. Add the military might of just Turkey, Iran, and Israel and you've got a superpower. Those countries seem to have the most to lose besides Syria and Iraq. Throw the Saudis, Egyptians and Pakistan in the mix and ISIS is a ghost before Halloween. But they wait for War Inc. to inevitably move in. It's always our mess.

I think the reality is setting in that tyrants like assad, hussein, gaddafi, and ahmidenijad(sp?) are better than what would fill the power vacuum after they're toppled. Makes sense that you'd need to be ridiculously stern to keep order over these jihadists.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: SLAYER69



You do not win wars on terrorism by exterminating people. You win wars on terrorism by understand and talking. All the might of the Bristish forces could not win with the IRA. Peace came only after hard talks..

The IRA didn't surge across Britain in a frenzy of religious bloodlust, decapitating every man, woman and child they came across and the British forces didn't utilise their full capabilities on them and create a scorched earth policy (that will likely be what is in store for IS).

There is no talking with them and there will be no talking with them.

We're talking about a cult of prople that everyone wants dead "outright", including other terrorist organisations.

The only way to deal with people like this is to fight fire with fire, something they will understand. They don't have the capability o reason or the ability to understand anything else except for what they dish out.

I only ope we eventually get them all and I can only hope we'll see the heads of the foreign IS fighters stuck on poles also, I certainly don't want them back here..!!

a reply to: Ironclad2000

Dont fall for the hype it all too convient. Groups funded in Sryia by the US leave Sryia and enter Iraq talking weponary and no one stops them. We just all sit back and watch it unfold on social media. Videos of beheadings turn up that turn out to be fakes. Now the mighty US needs to act and attack targets in Sryia.. All very convenient.

You are not going to bomb these people away. We need to understand the mechanisms at play. If we had not bombed Iraq in the first place none of this would have happened.

and what would you have peeps do.. Attack again and bomb them. We have no right under international law to act in such ways. Infact our actions can be liked to the way the Nazis disrageded the legue of Nations..



Excuse my spelling.. Spell check down and i have dylexia..

kind regards

purp.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
America said NO to getting involved in Syria.

ISIS seems like the perfect excuse to get the American people angry and upset enough to allow military boots on the ground in the Middle East again.

I'm not falling for it this time.

ISIS certainly seem to sort of jump around screaming "Hate me!" at literally everyone through the actions that are being reported by the MSM day after day. They do it so much that it seems to me like a very complicated version of suicide by cop or rather suicide by US armed forces in their case. For some strange reason I doubt that all those ISIS people actually want to be killed, so I wonder why they would beg for it as much as they allegedly do...

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: SLAYER69

The only way to win a war against terrorists is to kill all the terrorists.

Negotiating is pointless.
Cease-fires are pointless.
Treaties are pointless.

*boom*

That is the conundrum these days thought Bezz.

Who is the terrorists? Seriously!

(Scratches head in confusion)

Let's see I pick the worst of the evils....................................( Sigh )

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Ironclad2000

Dont fall for the hype it all too convient. Groups funded in Sryia by the US leave Sryia and enter Iraq talking weponary and no one stops them. We just all sit back and watch it unfold on social media. Videos of beheadings turn up that turn out to be fakes. Now the mighty US needs to act and attack targets in Sryia.. All very convenient.

You are not going to bomb these people away. We need to understand the mechanisms at play. If we had not bombed Iraq in the first place none of this would have happened.

and what would you have peeps do.. Attack again and bomb them. We have no right under international law to act in such ways. Infact our actions can be liked to the way the Nazis disrageded the legue of Nations..

Excuse my spelling.. Spell check down and i have dylexia..

kind regards

purp.

What hype?

Are you saying that all the beheadings are fake..? All the thousands of decapitations and executions of non-Muslims are lies? The Australian (and other international) ISIS fighters posing with hundreds of severed heads are all fake heads?

That all ISIS fighters are actually CIA operatives posing with fake beards and robes..?

That we should just do nothing because it will just go away, because it is nowhere near as bad as the media make out?

[snip]

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: SLAYER69



You do not win wars on terrorism by exterminating people. You win wars on terrorism by understand and talking. All the might of the Bristish forces could not win with the IRA. Peace came only after hard talks..

Actually. You could argue that the British did not waver despite atrocities committed on civilians (The Harrod's bombing springs to mind). The IRA didn't win much of anything.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: SLAYER69



You do not win wars on terrorism by exterminating people. You win wars on terrorism by understand and talking. All the might of the Bristish forces could not win with the IRA. Peace came only after hard talks..

You do not WAGE wars on ideological concepts or tactical maeuvers. Such "wars" cannot be won by ANY means.

You wage wars on PEOPLE.

ISIS for example.

Once you have erased all of the people you have targeted, the war sort of peters out, since there is no one left to fight. Whether you "won' the war or not is a moot point - the war no longer is.

Exterminating your opponents is the ONLY way to win a war. When you have exterminated enough of the pests, the rest will stop fighting so they don't get exterminated, too.

YOU talk to 'em all you want. I'm not going to - I've talked to enough of their sort already over the years. If you can understand them, if you are mentally capable of understanding people who do the things they do and think the way they do, I wouldn't want to live next door to you, but talk to 'em all you want. Invite them over for brunch...

... 'cause I like my targets gathered all in one place. It saves on shoe leather.

a reply to: beezzer

No. Your wrong. Killing in self defense does not make you like them. It is just to protect yourself and your loved ones, your communities from death, rape, loss of property etc.

It is just to protect the innocent from oppression and injustice.

And this IS self defense/defense of the innocent. They come to our soil, its self defense. They are soldiers in an army bent on conquest. Their soldiers who are here/come here on my soil, is an invasion and will/should be treated as such. If we go there, it is to protect the innocent from the oppression and injustice being meted out upon their heads.

I am not like them, but I WILL protect mine from their kind.

I do not think it is any western countries place to go over there, even though they are presenting such a nice target at present. I will wait for them to come here, or attempt it. Because then, its time and it is just to shoot. They are soldiers, in an army and have pledged their allegiances to another bent on conquest. Any here, should consider themselves dead men.

originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: purplemer

Normally I'd agree but these losers are making enemies out of just about everybody. If they piss everybody off then who would stand with them?

If anybody does choose to stand with them that's their own stupidity. .

If anyone chooses to stand with them, they can fall with them, too.

In for a penny, in for a pound.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: SLAYER69

In essence? I agree with you.

But...

Here's the problem. When it turns against them, and like 'trep said above, they've too many enemies to win this war, and their enemies are coming from all directions, they'll, like rats, hide in the walls.

We won't, can't get them all. Stop 'em militarily, yes the west can stop them.

In the process, however, we must make sure to not become, in the eyes of the innocents around/in the middle of the conflict, just like them.

It's going to be easier said then done. ...and it will be bloody. Is the West willing to pay the butcher bill?

That's one of the best arguments I've seen in favor of sending in the Special Forces types to train, equip, direct and co-ordinate the locals as their army, rather than sending in masses of conventional, but foreign, troops. The locals have more stake in it, the locals know who the roaches are and where they hide, and anywhere in the middle east is touchy about foreign troops coming in en masse - they're pretty resentful, and have been for a long time. if you'll recall, that was one of the reasons bin Laden gave for the 9/11 assault - foreign troops in the "Land of the Two Mosques".

The last stage in any guerrilla campaign is when the guerrillas try to go legit, claim to be the government, and try converting to conventional warfare. Gomer's legions have done that prematurely - if anyone cares to meet them, close with them, and destroy them. At this stage, they are very vulnerable to being "out-guerrilled" by their opposition. See, guerrillas don't hold territory - they don't have to. ISIS, on the other hand, HAS to hold territory in order to try to maintain their thin veneer of legitimacy. If they can't, then they collapse. They are no longer a "caliphate" in control of territory if they can't hold the territory they claim to control.

it would be a lot easier to do NOW, while they are still weak and thin already on the ground, than it will be to do when they get consolidated and gain steam.

All we have to do is out-guerrilla them, pull them apart in bite sized pieces, and then crap them out. To do that, we don't hold any territory - the locals already hold it, anyhow. I'm sure they would be glad to retake control of what they hold. The guerrilla locals, led trained and equipped by a smallish cadre of Special Forces, don't need to hold anything - they need to stay mobile, and turn the heat up on ISIS at enough various points that ISIS doesn't know WHAT to guard, or WHERE to send their troops next, because wherever they go, something else is getting hit, somewhere else.

That would thin them out and eventually pull them apart, and it would DAMN sure give the lie to their claims of "statehood".

Whoever could or would do that, and at the same time air-drop humanitarian aid for the local non-combatants, while NOT sending in masses of their own soldiers to be viewed as "invaders" would have friends for life in the Middle East. I have grave doubts that the US has it in them to do so, though. We have too many conventional generals that can't think or plan past their next dinner soiree.

Russia used to do that, a LOT. At one time the Russians were the ONLY friends that about a third of the whole world had. Maybe Russia can take up the US's slack now, too.

It will be a damned shame if they have to, but I just don't think the US generals and higher ups (like the CiC) have it in them to do it without committing masses of conventional troops.

a reply to: nenothtu

That is doable.

It is, as you pointed out, their fight. Not ours. The locals know the territory, they know many of the people involved. So, yeah, they're the ones who should be doin' the fightin'.

If it were happening here, I'd want us to be doing our own fighting. Bring outsiders in? Who's to say they're going to leave afterwards?

This is the way it should be.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: nenothtu

That is doable.

It is, as you pointed out, their fight. Not ours. The locals know the territory, they know many of the people involved. So, yeah, they're the ones who should be doin' the fightin'.

If it were happening here, I'd want us to be doing our own fighting. Bring outsiders in? Who's to say they're going to leave afterwards?

This is the way it should be.

Exactly!

How many people here worry over the UN coming in to "set things right", and carry on about how they'd serve the UN troops if that were to happen, then turn around and claim they just don't understand why the Iraqis reacted so negatively when we sent in masses of ground troops to "set things right" there?

On the other hand, I think the Iraqis and Syrians would now (just as the Afghans did before we went and mucked that whole war up by - you guessed it - sending in masses of ground troops!) welcome assistance in taking their countries back. Of course now, after our recent track record, I'm sure some of them would be pretty dubious, waiting for the other shoe to drop with a full scale invasion of troops, but if that never materialized, over time even the dubious ones would warm to the idea when the invasion never came... just more assistance. By "assistance" I mean materiel, air support in some cases, communications, but damned few ground troops - mostly just a few Special Forces to train them, and they to leave when the job is done. It's easier to exit 3 or 4 thousand men (at most) than it is to evacuate half a million.

Think of the way SF handled the CIDGs in Vietnam, or T.E. Lawrence in the middle east. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. I know Montagnards who think Americans are just the best, even to this very day, 40 or 50 years later, because of the way the Special Forces treated them.

Just sending the SF in, helping them help themselves, and the LEAVING promptly afterwards would go a long way in rebuilding bridges we've burned by the way we've conducted our most recent wars there... but they would have to see that happen to believe it. We've engendered a massive amount of distrust at this point.

It could be done, but it won't get done the way most of the big boys, and apparently even most of the little boys, think it should be done.

That's just going to bring on more pain.

a reply to: nenothtu

The strategy is simple...

Bomb the hell out of them.

Then send in the locals and let them do the mop up.

a reply to: whyamIhere

For the Obama administration the preferable strategy would be to send in our soldiers to arrest the ISIS members, armed with only tazers. Also before being detained they must be read their Miranda rights, and relevant Koranic verses.

Then off to prison in Chicago?

a reply to: ausername

I think if he wanted to do that, he probably could. It doesn't seem to be the case.

originally posted by: Unity_99
I agree with squashing this violent primitive murder squad quickly, but really don't like Isis metaphor for both Mother and Gaia, being the name sake for this. Its a play on words. This murder squad needs to be stopped. Mom doesnt.
But thats how its hitting the subconscious I believe. Kate Perry's song Dark Horse comes to mind, and funny how that came out and then this group popped up.

I don't like the name "ISIS" either. I prefer to call them "IHBP".

Or "Islamic Hell Bound Psychopaths".

: )

a reply to: nenothtu

Think of the way SF handled the CIDGs in Vietnam, or T.E. Lawrence in the middle east. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. I know Montagnards who think Americans are just the best, even to this very day, 40 or 50 years later, because of the way the Special Forces treated them.

You and my dad would be in lockstep on that particular opinion...

He was in Vietnam in the early days when our troops were still actually advisers. According to his remembrances, Viet Minh were making little progress in South Vietnam prior to the much more massive involvement...

He was there, if I remember correctly, from early '59 to '61.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

They did try something similar in Afghanistan. A better half serious suggestion would be to establish a special Islamic tribunal court to deal with captive ISIS detainees to be tried and convicted under the Islamic law they claim they follow, and the guilty are beheaded... By world Islamic leaders. That would send a stronger message than ANY military aggression. ISIS would quickly self destruct and vanish if this approach was used. It would also go a long way toward condemning radical Islamic terrorism worldwide. And maybe ease some tensions between the Islamic world and the west.

But, they will go the other way, they always do, until they realize the military operations alone aren't working. You can kill thousands of them, eliminate them, and the evil is still there waiting for the next incarnation...

imo