International Jihadis and the West's Response

some article I read today said it was 150 ISIS guys against 6000 Iraqis. And the ISIS guys won.

fantastic, found it: Don’t believe me, read this:

and this analysis:

http://allenbwest.com/2015/05/isis-just-achieved-the-unthinkable-you-can-thank-obama/

I always liked West back when I heard how he was discharged:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/12/12/sprj.nirq.west.ruling/

[quote]pat wrote:

Forgive me, John, if I do not share in your confidence.[/quote]

Man, John Kerry is looking tired out these days.

I would hate to be Secretary of State in this administration. What a shit job that must be.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
some article I read today said it was 150 ISIS guys against 6000 Iraqis. And the ISIS guys won.

fantastic, found it: Don’t believe me, read this:

and this analysis:

http://allenbwest.com/2015/05/isis-just-achieved-the-unthinkable-you-can-thank-obama/

I always liked West back when I heard how he was discharged:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/12/12/sprj.nirq.west.ruling/
[/quote]

I don’t know what it is, but I feel this action taken by the obama administration is not working so well. I don’t know, is it the consistent gains ISIS makes, or the mass slaughter they carry out so frequently it barely even makes the news cycle anymore, of the millions of refugees, or that the Iraqi troops turn tail and run at every engagement?

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Forgive me, John, if I do not share in your confidence.[/quote]

Man, John Kerry is looking tired out these days.

I would hate to be Secretary of State in this administration. What a shit job that must be.[/quote]

That and press secretary must be murder. To try an spin failure after failure in a way that gives the appearance the administration is in control when in fact policy after policy comes unglued must age them quite significantly.

I mean, ‘YAY!’ we got ISIS’s number 2, or some high ranking arab prick, but ISIS takes a couple of cities. I am glad we took the asshole out, but the rules of engagement we have are so constricting, that our air campaign is not very effective. We know ISIS implants themselves among the innocent to use as human shields so instead of being able to get them where they live and breed, we take out a lone tank. And effective air campaign requires that we bomb them into the stone age.
Right now, we are at best, a torn in their side.
I think it’s clear obama isn’t up to the job. It isn’t that he can’t, it just that he won’t do what truly needs to be done. Mean while Syria and Iraq burn and people are getting butchered by the thousands.

He’s a lame duck pussy hell bent on persevering his “legacy” (which is shit regardless)

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Forgive me, John, if I do not share in your confidence.[/quote]

Man, John Kerry is looking tired out these days.

I would hate to be Secretary of State in this administration. What a shit job that must be.[/quote]

That and press secretary must be murder. To try an spin failure after failure in a way that gives the appearance the administration is in control when in fact policy after policy comes unglued must age them quite significantly.

I mean, ‘YAY!’ we got ISIS’s number 2, or some high ranking arab prick, but ISIS takes a couple of cities. I am glad we took the asshole out, but the rules of engagement we have are so constricting, that our air campaign is not very effective. We know ISIS implants themselves among the innocent to use as human shields so instead of being able to get them where they live and breed, we take out a lone tank. And effective air campaign requires that we bomb them into the stone age.
Right now, we are at best, a torn in their side.
I think it’s clear obama isn’t up to the job. It isn’t that he can’t, it just that he won’t do what truly needs to be done. Mean while Syria and Iraq burn and people are getting butchered by the thousands.[/quote]

By any standard measure of diplomacy, John Kerry is widely considered to be highly competent. That’s certainly the consensus in Foggy Bottom.

ISIL is not a terrorist organization, but a pseudo-terrorist state. It would be a mistake to combat it with the extensive counterterrorism apparatus developed since 9/11. As the eminent terrorism scholar Audrey Kurth Cronin writes, “although [ISIL] uses terrorism as a tactic, it is not really a terrorist organization at all. Terrorist networks, such as al Qaeda, generally have only dozens or hundreds of members, attack civilians, do not hold territory, and cannot directly confront military forces. ISIS, on the other hand, boasts some 30,000 fighters, holds territory in both Iraq and Syria, maintains extensive military capabilities, controls lines of communication, commands infrastructure, funds itself, and engages in sophisticated military operations. If ISIS is purely and simply anything, it is a pseudo-state led by a conventional army. And that is why the counterterrorism and counterinsurgency strategies that greatly diminished the threat from al Qaeda will not work against ISIS . . . Whatâ??s needed now is a strategy of â??offensive containmentâ??: a combination of limited military tactics and a broad diplomatic strategy to halt ISISâ?? expansion, isolate the group, and degrade its capabilities.”

ISIL’s appeal as a caliphate must be diminished, which will be accomplished by making the Islamic State only a state in name.

[quote] Bismarck sayeth:

By any standard measure of diplomacy, John Kerry is widely considered to be highly competent…

[/quote]

Practice coming out with shit like that in front of a mirror keeping a straight face. You could WH spokesperson one day. You have the gift of the gab and a sophist’s scruples. You need to dress down your terse academic style and make it more conversational though. Remember, the average IQ is at a minimum a standard deviation below yours. More likely two or even more. Average mind. Roughly half of them are even lower. They don’t like pretentious, fancy talking college boys. Just take a look at the current spokeswoman for pres. I don’t remember her name but she talks like some teenage valley girl…like, yeah? You think she didn’t affect that? Most people actually affect different accents and behaviours in different circumstances without even thinking about it. If I’m talking to some country town folk out yonder I speak in a completely different way to how I speak to professionals from the city / suburbs. It’s subconscious mostly. I learned and used both accents throughout my life so they’re both “real”. Not put on.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote] Bismarck sayeth:

By any standard measure of diplomacy, John Kerry is widely considered to be highly competent…

[/quote]

Practice coming out with shit like that in front of a mirror keeping a straight face. You could WH spokesperson one day. You have the gift of the gab and a sophist’s scruples. You need to dress down your terse academic style and make it more conversational though. Remember, the average IQ is at a minimum a standard deviation below yours. More likely two or even more. Average mind. Roughly half of them are even lower. They don’t like pretentious, fancy talking college boys. Just take a look at the current spokeswoman for pres. I don’t remember her name but she talks like some teenage valley girl…like, yeah? You think she didn’t affect that? Most people actually affect different accents and behaviours in different circumstances without even thinking about it. If I’m talking to some country town folk out yonder I speak in a completely different way to how I speak to professionals from the city / suburbs. It’s subconscious mostly. I learned and used both accents throughout my life so they’re both “real”. Not put on.[/quote]

The style over substance fallacy seems to be directed at me more than any other. I find it amusing that you accuse me of gab given your “Alpha Male Fashion” thread in GAL. My writing is hardly inaccessible, nor is my diction ornamental. It wouldn’t serve my purposes to debase my posts in PWI. I use this forum as a testing ground for various arguments, which are often purposely contrarian. It also serves as a form of catharsis, which is why I (needlessly) come across as an asshole at times. I don’t aspire to be a spokesperson, so there is no need for me to vulgarize my arguments. I’m training to write with policymakers in mind, not the lowest common denominator. Do you have any objections to the actual substance of my post?

You don’t have to explain yourself to me biz. I don’t give a fuck why you come here or your catharsis any of the rest of it. I just gave some advice wrapped in a very mild critique of your writing style. It was constructive criticism not a put down.

Why is it we have seen the same problem with the Iraqi we saw with the South Vietnamese during the end of the Viet Nam War and to a lesser extent the Georgians when the Russians invaded. Why is we train and equip armies which have no will to fight? Why the parallels? Why wouldn’t they have the motivation or the will to fight for what they have? Is it laziness? Bad training? Or is the other side somehow more motivated to win? I mean, I can see reasons for what happened in Viet Nam, but come on 6000 troops vs 150? That’s a loss in a larger percentage than anything in modern history, right? Except for maybe the Winter War?

Iran says US not committed to fighting ISIS.

http://news.yahoo.com/fall-ramadi-iran-iraq-us-one-showed-no-174400990.html

ISIS threatens to bring a nuke into the US.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
You don’t have to explain yourself to me biz. I don’t give a fuck why you come here or your catharsis any of the rest of it. I just gave some advice wrapped in a very mild critique of your writing style. It was constructive criticism not a put down.[/quote]

Yes, I never realized that I had “the gift of the gab and a sophist’s scruples” until you so insightfully brought it to my attention.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Iran says US not committed to fighting ISIS.

http://news.yahoo.com/fall-ramadi-iran-iraq-us-one-showed-no-174400990.html

ISIS threatens to bring a nuke into the US.

[/quote]

Worse than I thought:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-saw-islamic-state-coming-183908540.html

&

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/28/us-military-pilots-complain-hands-tied-in-frustrating-fight-against-isis/

As a kid coming from a muslim family, but who is not muslin, and has expressed very clearly to his family that he does not value islam, let me see if I can offer any enlightenment on the following;

[quote]pat wrote:

Bad Idea #1 - Depicting or satire regarding the prophet deserves death. Now I don’t have numbers, I will try to do some more research when I have time. But from what I have read and seen, many, many more muslims that the radicals believe this or other forms of severe punishment should be implemented should you draw a picture, make fun of, or offend Mohamed in some way. I have heard percentages up into the 70 percentile range regarding this is a shared belief among muslims, radical or not. Again, looking for help to confirm some of these things.
Point is, this is a bad idea. People shouldn’t be killed or physically brutalized for expressing a picture of words that offend others.
[/quote]

Yes, this is generally true; Drawing pictures of Mohammed is like pissing on a muslim’s mother; The majority of muslims, nonradical ones also, get extremely offended and agree a harsh form of punishment is “justice”

[quote]pat wrote:
Bad Idea #2 - Leaving Islam deserves death or some severe sort of punishment. Again, the numbers of muslims who believe this is way higher than the amount of radicals who believe and carry it out. This is a bad idea. You have a right to not like people leaving the faith, you have the right to be angry about it, you don’t have the right to kill or physically harm somebody for it. Yet this is a widely held belief among muslims from what I have read. Way more widely held than just the radicals.[/quote]

Eh, this is bullshit really; I know a lot of muslims who have left their faith, with the most severe form of punishment simply being disappointment or anger from their family and friends [which is actually pretty severe at the end of the day, but not “death or torture”]

[quote]pat wrote:
Bad Idea #3 - Apostates should be killed. My understanding is that fewer muslims believe this than the previous two ideas, but still way more than just the radicals do believe it. So while it may not be as popular among muslims, many more muslims than just the radicals believe this.[/quote]

Now, with some of these im starting to realize that you may be talking about muslims in 3rd world countries; Since I was born in the states and have, for the most part, only communicated with muslims also either born in the states, or Americanized, I cant speak for what happens in 3rd world countries; Ill take my best shot though;

I speak out quite openly against muslims all the time; This includes foreign exchanged students coming from middle-eastern countries; I have never been threatened physically over it, however, I will say that Apostates in general are looked down upon severely by the majority of muslims, including first world muslims; They do not believe in revision of their religion; Muslims (in my experience) are like blind dogs that hold on to the word of the quran, and reject any argument against it, or suggested revisions;

[quote]pat wrote:

Bad Idea #4 - Treatment of women. This is a big topic, so lets narrow it down to infidelity. Infidelity is a terrible thing for either spouse to do, but in islamic cultures women can get the death penalty. Others belief in harsh physical punishment for the woman who does this, but not the man. Now, this is widely practiced in islamic cultures. Again, I am not saying the “religion” itself condones this, but it’s widely practiced. There are stories almost daily of women being beaten or stoned to death for cheating. Again, a bad idea held by way more than just the radicals in the religion.[/quote]

I wont get into this as I have no experience with it;

All of this being said, I will give my thoughts on Islam; Ill go ahead and state a disclaimer that I am not in favor of religion in general:

Islam is a very “young” religion, in the sense that there have been no muslims that have come about to offer a more logical perspective of the words of quran [such as Thomas Aquinas for the Catholics, newman, etc etc]

The same shit could be argued for Christianity and Catholicism a few centuries ago, but I wont get into that because its not important now.

The problem I believe with Islam, is that it is easy to pervert and create extremism out of by nature; There are a lot of muslims who ive spoken to that make the argument that america’s involvement in the middle east, and its support of israel all while doing so, creates a lot of problems with extremist muslims for the US; I tend to agree with this argument; I think anybody arguing that we are not primarily in the middle-east for oil is being disingenuous, and I can provide my argument for this if need be;

That aside, I still find it baffling that nearly every middle eastern country, save the ones with oil wealth, are shit; I think this has primarily to do with Islam; It is a very strict religion that does not allow, on a large scale, for free thought, imagination, creativity, etc; It seems to me, from what ive observed, that the majority of muslim’s lives do infact revolve around islam, and these are the ones living in the 1st world, so I can only imagine how pervasive it is in the 3rd world societies; This is not true of my christian, Buddhist, Hindu, etc friends;

I think in order for the middle east, and muslims in general, to advance, the religion is going to need a radical transformation, a revolution if you will; it is going to take a group of muslims to convince the rest that

  1. The quran should not be taken literally
  2. Revisions can be made
  3. You can draw the fucking prophet
  4. You can live in harmony with islam and “reason” for lack of a better word;

All this aside, I find it ironic that a lot of people cry and deplore muslims for islamic extremism, but neglect the fact that US policymakers have

  1. brought about the rise of the taliban [intentionally to fight the Russians]
  2. brought about the rise of ISIS [unintentionally to oust Assad]
  3. radicalized Iran into a shitty muslim state from its previous glory [again, intentionally]

I think if muslims expect anything to change though, they need to realize they have to transform their religion from within, so that it is not so easy to pervert and radicalize people with;

/rant

Also, due to the fact that I believe we are primarily fucking around in the mid-east for its resources, I strongly believe in and support tech innovation to get us off of our oil addiction and allow us to be more self-sufficient/reliant;

I strongly believe the private sector has a better shot at solving these problems than the public sector

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Have you not stayed current with what’s going on in the US energy sector?

We can maintain our oil addiction AND be more self sufficient by doing what we’re doing – and more. Drill, baby, drill. It’s working NOW – the US is the world’s number one producer of petroleum and natural gas and we’ve barely scratched the surface of our potential.
[/quote]

“We can”

not “we are”

Shale drilling could be outlawed in the future for all we know, plus, its still problematic; we have a little while to go;