Does " No boots on the ground" mean more blood on ours ? And is our fate sealed already ?

a reply to: cosmickat

Boots on the ground will do some good in sense it will blast the core of ISIS power. However, that would not be the end. ISIS like AQ is everywhere and much more "seductive" than AQ which was known as a terrorist organization.

ISIS is promoting itself as a Islamic Caliphiate i.e. Islamic world with Sharia laws. Any one attracted this picture is directly or indirectly a part of ISIS and can act "violently" on their own and bring credits to ISIS.

ISIS has become an "idea", a trend, a fashion sort of thing. Very difficult to handle. Only muslims can tell others of their kind that ISIS is bad for the faith and its people.

a reply to: nwtrucker

If you're going to quote me while responding to my post, it would be helpful if you didn't post your comments within the quoted text of my post.

Just the same, here's what I have to say...

Border security and eliminating terrorism are indeed comparable, in the sense that neither can be accomplished in an absolute fashion and that truth, whether you like it or not, is obvious to all but the willfully ignorant.

Next... No one said we should do nothing and no one said we should let them win.

All I'm saying is, to advocate a strategy based on unacheivable expectations and then blame the failure on the guy who carried it out is disingenuous, to say the least.

Next... What agreement? Wasting the ME is Not an option! Long term European-like occupation is Not an option! And if anything was going to insure our defeat, it would be instituting those so-called "options!"

Next... The boots on the ground must come from localized forces because, for starters we don't even have enough boots to occupy all the places ISIS exist, especially on a permanent basis.

That coupled with the fact that our presence, in and of itself, creates a certain amount of animosity amongst the local inhabitants.

Next... How perverted is the Islamic faith, you ask?

As far as I'm concerned, all organized religion is perverted. Just the same, you don't see me advocating for a war against religious people based on their faith.

Next... I wasn't comparing the tactics utilized by Westboro Babtists to those of ISIS, I was highlighting the fact that foreign influence would do little to eliminate the mentality they hold dear.

Next... Even a international force doesn't have the boots necessary to sustain a permanent occupational presence in every country that ISIS exist unless each of those affected countries provides ground forces derived from their own populations.

We can and we are helping, but we can't be the police of every neighborhood in the world.

Next... The fact that you would prefer the Battle Hymn of the Republic over Imagine is a clear indication that your true intention is to stoke the flames of a religious based war.

Which by the way, is pretty much in line with the same set of goals held by ISIS.

originally posted by: Flatfish
a reply to: nwtrucker

If you're going to quote me while responding to my post, it would be helpful if you didn't post your comments within the quoted text of my post.

Just the same, here's what I have to say...

Border security and eliminating terrorism are indeed comparable, in the sense that neither can be accomplished in an absolute fashion and that truth, whether you like it or not, is obvious to all but the willfully ignorant.

Next... No one said we should do nothing and no one said we should let them win.

All I'm saying is, to advocate a strategy based on unacheivable expectations and then blame the failure on the guy who carried it out is disingenuous, to say the least.

Next... What agreement? Wasting the ME is Not an option! Long term European-like occupation is Not an option! And if anything was going to insure our defeat, it would be instituting those so-called "options!"

Next... The boots on the ground must come from localized forces because, for starters we don't even have enough boots to occupy all the places ISIS exist, especially on a permanent basis.

That coupled with the fact that our presence, in and of itself, creates a certain amount of animosity amongst the local inhabitants.

Next... How perverted is the Islamic faith, you ask?

As far as I'm concerned, all organized religion is perverted. Just the same, you don't see me advocating for a war against religious people based on their faith.

Next... I wasn't comparing the tactics utilized by Westboro Babtists to those of ISIS, I was highlighting the fact that foreign influence would do little to eliminate the mentality they hold dear.

Next... Even a international force doesn't have the boots necessary to sustain a permanent occupational presence in every country that ISIS exist unless each of those affected countries provides ground forces derived from their own populations.

We can and we are helping, but we can't be the police of every neighborhood in the world.

Next... The fact that you would prefer the Battle Hymn of the Republic over Imagine is a clear indication that your true intention is to stoke the flames of a religious based war.

Which by the way, is pretty much in line with the same set of goals held by ISIS.

Sorry about the poor post.

Absolutes are not attainable. The border issue stretches beyond any reasonable analogy to Isis. The border issue is a joint 'nod, nod, wink, wink' by both political parties. Enforcement of existing laws to wit, more consequence than potential reward cuts the traffic down to tolerable levels.

I don't see anyone proposing 'unachievable expectations'. I don't see any articulated end result/goal from all this, at least so far.

All organized religion is perverted, you say? Your hang up, not mine.

I won't bother with your positioning of the Baptists with Isis, and that all it is-see your above comment- as that seems to be your motivation.

The international force is the only out that I can see. First, Iraq and Syria. The locally affected nations can be addressed by internal forces as they see fit. Not an issue from what I can see.

I like 'imagine'. There are times when 'imagining' will get one killed. Or one's society/culture. I prefer defending and preserving it to imagining.....all in it's time and place. Imagining won't get this done. That's reality.

Today Brussels is on lock-down. Last week Mali. ENOUGH.

The simple answer to your question is a double YES!

You have a so called organisation led by a bunch of pychos who state that the are a islamic state yet many of their followers or fighters are actually desperate paid plongers who really have no interest in ISIS's so called cause.

They have managed to entrench themselves in parts of Iraq and Syria where they can mingle as much as possible among the native populations because they know that gives them some level of protection. It also gives them victims close to hand that they can terrorise with their ridiculous sharia law sh.t.

Granted they have supporters and no doubt affiliate nut job groups across the region as well as local fruities scattered throughout the region and Europe. Call them cells, returning fighters or deserters etc.

ISIS will have used the refugee situation to best of their advantage and I would guess that out of every 1000 refugees you will have a minimum of 10 to 20 fighters/supporters who will in the not too distant future be responsible for numerous atrocities over the coming new year.

So you have a war and I mean a war on 2 fronts which pose very different problems for those wishing to combat the threat we ALL face. Thus, the only way to defeat a multi front enemy is to face and seek that enemy on those fronts simultaneously.

1. Iraq/Syria
They need to be split in two and then surrounded separately thus dividing the enemy and then close in squeeze then dry until they are ALL dead. No prisoners!! Basically exterminate every single one of them with no exceptions!
When the land is clear of these barbaric nut jobs then all refugees should be returned to their homelands.

2. Home Grown's and Refugee ISIS
An international law needs to be passed to make it a crime to be
a. any association with ISIS.
b. in possession of any material relating to ISIS
c. communicating with ISIS or any other person associated with ISIS
d. creating or distributing material or information relating to ISIS
If caught then 10 years in jail.
If caught taking any active part in ISIS operations then the penalty is death.
Each European country effected by or at risk from ISIS should setup a Cleaner force to find and capture anyone suspected as being an ISIS sympathiser, lacky, operative or other. They should all be jailed for 10 years and re-educated!


They need to be eradicated!

And no battle in history was won without troops on the ground and sacrifices.

If the above is not done then mark my words the problems going to get bigger!!

This is not a time for human rights or pacifists!!

Give me a minute to put on my armour.

originally posted by: Scouse100
I don't subscribe to the word 'evil', there is always a reason for this kind of behaviour. Are you saying they are just killing for the sake of it out of some bloodthirsty urge with no gripe or ideology whatsoever?

Sounds like the language of the warmongers who would have us believe the only way is the blow the whole area and everyone in it to bits.

By this logic, you are saying that the man who rapes and abuses a little girl over and over, then goes out and commits other acts of unmentionable horror like beheading someone simply has "issues". No. You are wrong. There are people in this world that are simply and inexplicably Evil.

a reply to: cosmickat

I could probably orchestrate these type of attacks if I had the funding, weapons and drugs.

Thinking about it, we should re-arm the Swiss gaurd and send them since the whole scenario is a crusade.

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: Scouse100
I don't subscribe to the word 'evil', there is always a reason for this kind of behaviour. Are you saying they are just killing for the sake of it out of some bloodthirsty urge with no gripe or ideology whatsoever?

Sounds like the language of the warmongers who would have us believe the only way is the blow the whole area and everyone in it to bits.

By this logic, you are saying that the man who rapes and abuses a little girl over and over, then goes out and commits other acts of unmentionable horror like beheading someone simply has "issues". No. You are wrong. There are people in this world that are simply and inexplicably Evil.

Well he most definitely does have issues! Sounds like a psychopathic killer. Even psychopathy can be explained by science and reason, a mix of physical (inherited and developmental) and social factors. When you say 'evil', is that what you mean? Do you think every member of ISIS is a clinical psychopath?

a reply to: Scouse100

What a glib word, issues...

My dog has issues. The psycho-babble labels have done naught to improve the lot of mankind. Just cute labels.

Evil intentions is as fine description. Insanity apparently does NOT have to have a 'reason'. It does, however, exist.

So you may omit the concept from your lexicon, but it IS in ours....so deal with it.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Scouse100

What a glib word, issues...

My dog has issues. The psycho-babble labels have done naught to improve the lot of mankind. Just cute labels.

Evil intentions is as fine description. Insanity apparently does NOT have to have a 'reason'. It does, however, exist.

So you may omit the concept from your lexicon, but it IS in ours....so deal with it.

Issues wasn't even my word! I refute your remarks, read up on how we used to treat those with psychiatric problems and you will see mankind has in fact come a long way as our understanding of these problems grows.

originally posted by: Scouse100

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Scouse100

What a glib word, issues...

My dog has issues. The psycho-babble labels have done naught to improve the lot of mankind. Just cute labels.

Evil intentions is as fine description. Insanity apparently does NOT have to have a 'reason'. It does, however, exist.

So you may omit the concept from your lexicon, but it IS in ours....so deal with it.

LOL. Your joking...or delusional, I don't know which.


Pre-frontal lobotomies, electro-convulsive therapy-which has killed more people than all the KIAs in Vietnam- insulin shock treatment, now drug pushers for the Pharmaceutcals.


Yep, we've come a long ways...in a barbarous fraudulent science.

Issues wasn't even my word! I refute your remarks, read up on how we used to treat those with psychiatric problems and you will see mankind has in fact come a long way as our understanding of these problems grows.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Seriously? We have gone from exorcism, torture and killing to lobotomies and ECT, to drugs (yes still a way to go) and therapy and you say we haven't progressed?? You don't believe in psychiactric illness at all? Anyway, I feel we have drifted somewhat and this has little to do with my original point.