International Jihadis and the West's Response

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
261

Interesting take on things. Glad I’m mentioned in there. But yeah, I agree, it’s like Powell said, if we invade Iraq we own it and if we owned it we should have remained there till the job was done and not let ISIS take over half of the country and the one next door.

The parallels between the war in Iraq & Afghanistan and Vietnam are staggering. Even though we supposedly got over “Vietnam Syndrome” during the first Gulf War, the next engagements took us right back in.

Americans hate a long drawn out war. Vietnam was one, Afghanistan is another. When we pulled out of Vietnam, the North Vietnamese marched right over the border and made mincemeat out of the US trained army it had left behind.

Likewise in Afghanistan, once the Western armies pull out, the Taliban will come out full force and roll over the Afghan armies which remain, mark my words.

The parallel to Vietnam even goes farther. One has only to look at Iraq. After we withdrew from Vietnam, in the country next door the Kymer Rogue overthrew the government of Cambodia. The KR were one of the most repressive genocidal governments in history.

In Iraq, the forces the US left behind crumbled like a house of cards, and in the country next door ISIS rose to power.

Instead of the Vietnamese invading Cambodia, the ISIS forces invaded Iraq and are one of the most brutal genocidal regimes in this Century.

As far as idiots who say the US backed the Taliban against the Russians in the 80s, I still say we did not. I think it was a great stragedy that probably would have worked had we not pulled support from the Afghan people and government once the Russians pulled out.

Iran, who some say helped create Al-Qaeda deny their involvement in it. But even if the Americans once aided Bin Laden, there was no telling he would one day rise to head an international terrorist organization. Had this been known, if we had a crystal ball which showed the Twin Towers falling in New York City, I’m willing to bet the aid to him would have been stopped.

Iran may deny their involvement in the creation of Al-Qaeda, but they fully admit helping arm the Taliban to counter the ISIS threat in Afghanistan.

Here’s an article:

262

[quote]phala wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]phala wrote:

…My conclusion, support alternative energy and the people trying to make it a feasibly reality…

[/quote]

What does this actually mean? Be specific.[/quote]

Well, I just feel like the main goal should be to find another source of energy that can either completely replace, or at-least greatly reduce our need for oil;

If we all agree that that is true, I feel like the next logical step is to have the government support companies in the private industry trying to achieve this; Idk how exactly they should support them; loans, tax credits, subsidies, maybe a combination of a bunch of things? idk;

Normally, I believe there should be limited govt interference in the private industry, but I feel like a legitimate alternative energy solution will take a lot of R&D, failing, tweaking, innovation, failing again, etc etc;

All of that is very capital intensive and requires the people involved to be truly thinking of the long-term benefits for the company, the country, and even the world actually;

When I think of companies similar to what im describing above, i think of

Solar-City
Various companies looking into fracking
Transatomic power

and im sure there are many others out there;
[/quote]

I don’t think anybody is against this. Are they?

263

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Interesting take on things. Glad I’m mentioned in there. But yeah, I agree, it’s like Powell said, if we invade Iraq we own it and if we owned it we should have remained there till the job was done and not let ISIS take over half of the country and the one next door.

The parallels between the war in Iraq & Afghanistan and Vietnam are staggering. Even though we supposedly got over “Vietnam Syndrome” during the first Gulf War, the next engagements took us right back in.

Americans hate a long drawn out war. Vietnam was one, Afghanistan is another. When we pulled out of Vietnam, the North Vietnamese marched right over the border and made mincemeat out of the US trained army it had left behind.

Likewise in Afghanistan, once the Western armies pull out, the Taliban will come out full force and roll over the Afghan armies which remain, mark my words.

The parallel to Vietnam even goes farther. One has only to look at Iraq. After we withdrew from Vietnam, in the country next door the Kymer Rogue overthrew the government of Cambodia. The KR were one of the most repressive genocidal governments in history.

In Iraq, the forces the US left behind crumbled like a house of cards, and in the country next door ISIS rose to power.

Instead of the Vietnamese invading Cambodia, the ISIS forces invaded Iraq and are one of the most brutal genocidal regimes in this Century.

As far as idiots who say the US backed the Taliban against the Russians in the 80s, I still say we did not. I think it was a great stragedy that probably would have worked had we not pulled support from the Afghan people and government once the Russians pulled out.

Iran, who some say helped create Al-Qaeda deny their involvement in it. But even if the Americans once aided Bin Laden, there was no telling he would one day rise to head an international terrorist organization. Had this been known, if we had a crystal ball which showed the Twin Towers falling in New York City, I’m willing to bet the aid to him would have been stopped.

Iran may deny their involvement in the creation of Al-Qaeda, but they fully admit helping arm the Taliban to counter the ISIS threat in Afghanistan.

Here’s an article:

[/quote]

Absolutely. The draw up currently occurring mimics the escalation that occurred in Vietnam in a scary way. It’s nearly identical. Bemoaning boots on the ground while an ever growing American force amasses in the region.

At what number of troops do we determine that the boots on the ground, are actually boots on the ground? Obama just sent 450 more troops.

And the reason the Afghan war is so drawn out is the manner in which we fight. The current rules of engagement are murder, literally. We certainly can just level the place and be done with it. But we shoot for zero civilian casualties and cannot engage unless engaged. I don’t necessarily have a problem with the former, but the latter is just ludicrous. See enemy, shoot enemy. Waiting for bullets to wiz by your head before you can shoot is a dangerous and dumb way to fight. And yet with these limitations, we are still able to kick the taliban’s ass. It’s just a slow ass kicking.
Afghanistan is no where near ready to go it alone. We’re going to be there for a long time.

264

[quote]pat wrote:
Absolutely. The draw up currently occurring mimics the escalation that occurred in Vietnam in a scary way. It’s nearly identical. Bemoaning boots on the ground while an ever growing American force amasses in the region.
[/quote]

Interesting point…I was seeing an analogy to the end of the Vietnam war and the genocidal events which followed…you are drawing a parallel to how that war started.

What now? Here we go all over again?

Or, as Rambo said, “Do we get to win this time?”

265

Pretty obvious…a year later too…no strategy…still.

266

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Absolutely. The draw up currently occurring mimics the escalation that occurred in Vietnam in a scary way. It’s nearly identical. Bemoaning boots on the ground while an ever growing American force amasses in the region.
[/quote]

Interesting point…I was seeing an analogy to the end of the Vietnam war and the genocidal events which followed…you are drawing a parallel to how that war started.

What now? Here we go all over again?

Or, as Rambo said, “Do we get to win this time?” [/quote]

Not sure. It really depends on how the next administration chooses to handle it. Obama is clearly not interested in the problem so this is going to be handed off. I am just happy for term limits. Should obama have another run, this thing could drag on for a long time.
It’s going to drag on regardless, whether that’s going to be measured in decades or years is up to the next president.
Personally I would like to it dealt with quickly. I seldom get my wish.

267

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

Pretty obvious…a year later too…no strategy…still.[/quote]

He has never taken ISIS seriously. I don’t expect a strategy from obama and quite frankly given obama’s track record that’s probably better for the next president to come up with one.
If we leave it to obama, we will lose. It drives me nuts that so much blood and treasure was put into Iraq only to go piss it away.

Seeing as how the Kurds seem to be the only people who are dedicated to truly eradicating and extricating ISIS from the region, why the hell we are not providing arms directly to them is a wonder.
Why the hell have we not taken down their social media outlets?
Why the hell have we not yet impacted their cash flow significantly?
Why the hell have we not cut their supply chain?
These are all bloodless ways of beating up on them and we have now had plenty of time to make in roads on all this stuff and we are just barley starting on it.

268

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

Pretty obvious…a year later too…no strategy…still.[/quote]

He has never taken ISIS seriously. I don’t expect a strategy from obama and quite frankly given obama’s track record that’s probably better for the next president to come up with one.
If we leave it to obama, we will lose. It drives me nuts that so much blood and treasure was put into Iraq only to go piss it away.

Seeing as how the Kurds seem to be the only people who are dedicated to truly eradicating and extricating ISIS from the region, why the hell we are not providing arms directly to them is a wonder.
Why the hell have we not taken down their social media outlets?
Why the hell have we not yet impacted their cash flow significantly?
Why the hell have we not cut their supply chain?
These are all bloodless ways of beating up on them and we have now had plenty of time to make in roads on all this stuff and we are just barley starting on it.
[/quote]

X2
reaches for a tin foil hat.

The problem is that nobody in the region seems to care outside of the Kurds. If the Saudi’s, or UAE wanted isis gone, that’d be a wrap. But they dont…

269

Sounds pretty bad assed, but so did the King of Jordan not too long ago.

270

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

Pretty obvious…a year later too…no strategy…still.[/quote]

He has never taken ISIS seriously. I don’t expect a strategy from obama and quite frankly given obama’s track record that’s probably better for the next president to come up with one.
If we leave it to obama, we will lose. It drives me nuts that so much blood and treasure was put into Iraq only to go piss it away.

Seeing as how the Kurds seem to be the only people who are dedicated to truly eradicating and extricating ISIS from the region, why the hell we are not providing arms directly to them is a wonder.
Why the hell have we not taken down their social media outlets?
Why the hell have we not yet impacted their cash flow significantly?
Why the hell have we not cut their supply chain?
These are all bloodless ways of beating up on them and we have now had plenty of time to make in roads on all this stuff and we are just barley starting on it.
[/quote]

Many critics assert that the current policy of limited air strikes is insufficient to defeat or seriously weaken ISIL and have offered radical alternatives. However, these “cures” are far worse than the disease. The best plan is to aggressively move forward within the broad parameters of the current strategy, known in defense analysis circles as “hammer and anvil”.

The strategy puts ISIL in a catch-22: It could either choose to concentrate its forces to achieve local superiority over opposing ground troops and then be decimated by the United States’ airpower “hammer”; or it could avoid airstrikes by dispersing its forces into small units and so be vulnerable to defeat by the opposing ground force “anvil.” Either way, ISIL loses.

271

as long as the west permits the saudis, whose culture is essentially a carbon copy of the islamic state’s way of life (read on google: you can’t understand isis if you don’t understand the history of wahabism in saudi arabia.)

isis is a mere proxy of the wahabi islamic platform, which is based in saudi arabia though it has been spread around over the past 30-years.

the nations of terror are the saudis, qataris, erdogan’s turkey. these 3 are the delta of the islamic state, all claim to oppose but if you follow the trends you will see how very similiar they are- especially the saudis.

i think the most pertinent and crucial response we can do is to change our immigration policy. stop the policy of accommodation. denounce shariah law and ensure that those who refuse to renounce it in its entirety are deported.

272

[quote]Bismark wrote:

The strategy puts ISIL in a catch-22: It could either choose to concentrate its forces to achieve local superiority over opposing ground troops and then be decimated by the United States’ airpower “hammer”; or it could avoid airstrikes by dispersing its forces into small units and so be vulnerable to defeat by the opposing ground force “anvil.” Either way, ISIL loses.

[/quote]

Or it could mass it’s troops around one city like Tikrit, and while the Iraqi army musters all it’s forces to re-take that city… it could attack and take over another one like Ramadi. It’s called the “bait and switch”.

273

[quote]Saskman84 wrote:
as long as the west permits the saudis, whose culture is essentially a carbon copy of the islamic state’s way of life (read on google: you can’t understand isis if you don’t understand the history of wahabism in saudi arabia.)

isis is a mere proxy of the wahabi islamic platform, which is based in saudi arabia though it has been spread around over the past 30-years.

the nations of terror are the saudis, qataris, erdogan’s turkey. these 3 are the delta of the islamic state, all claim to oppose but if you follow the trends you will see how very similiar they are- especially the saudis.

i think the most pertinent and crucial response we can do is to change our immigration policy. stop the policy of accommodation. denounce shariah law and ensure that those who refuse to renounce it in its entirety are deported.[/quote]

Interesting & ironic that you list Turkey as a nation of terror, because when Wahabism was originally founded, the Ottoman Turks sought to exterminate those spreading it. Just goes to show how far it’s come.

274

Anyone hear about the sailor who had a personal fire arm and exchanged fire with the Chattanooga terrorist and is now looking at charges of illegally using a firearm on federal property? What insanity!

275

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Anyone hear about the sailor who had a personal fire arm and exchanged fire with the Chattanooga terrorist and is now looking at charges of illegally using a firearm on federal property? What insanity![/quote]

I read it was a rumor. It wouldn’t surprise me if it were true, though.

276

Except well meaning or corrupt government leaders will pass out the money in the wrong pot or the pot of their cronies and it will be flushed, anybody recall Solyndra flushing $500M federal dollars, Green Solar flushing $40M Massachusetts dollars, etc.

277

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]Saskman84 wrote:
as long as the west permits the saudis, whose culture is essentially a carbon copy of the islamic state’s way of life (read on google: you can’t understand isis if you don’t understand the history of wahabism in saudi arabia.)

isis is a mere proxy of the wahabi islamic platform, which is based in saudi arabia though it has been spread around over the past 30-years.

the nations of terror are the saudis, qataris, erdogan’s turkey. these 3 are the delta of the islamic state, all claim to oppose but if you follow the trends you will see how very similiar they are- especially the saudis.

i think the most pertinent and crucial response we can do is to change our immigration policy. stop the policy of accommodation. denounce shariah law and ensure that those who refuse to renounce it in its entirety are deported.[/quote]

Interesting & ironic that you list Turkey as a nation of terror, because when Wahabism was originally founded, the Ottoman Turks sought to exterminate those spreading it. Just goes to show how far it’s come.
[/quote]

I agree with you, the Wahabi cult was used to defeat the fascist Ottoman’s and end the empire. However, times have changed for sure. Erdogan is still an Ottoman at heart who see’s himself as a Caliph of Sunni Muslims. Turks of the Ottoman sort are still fascist but Wahabism has made inroads as well in Turkey, though not as much in Arab and other Islamic states.

I think in Syria the fascist ways of the Ottoman’s are becoming relit. The Ottoman’s are seeing the Wahabi rebels as a proxy, used to fight off the Kurds- who seek an independent state that would cut through Syria and Turkey, as well as finish off the Armenian’s, who Turkey waged a genocide campaign against in the 1800s. I think these issues triumph Erdogans personal religious convictions, which are most definite loyal to Islamism.

As we see now, Turkey being the “green light” to join the so-called alliance against ISIS, which include the top sponsors of ISIS, they were only interested in joining to bomb the Kurds, who are fighting the Turkish-supported ISIS. Prominent western figures have cited Turkey as a key sponsor of ISIS, as well as Qatar!

I believe the fight against ISIS is all a sham. ISIS was used to fight off Iranian interests in the region, including Hezbollah. Turkey used them to fight the Kurds. The Gulf Arabs used them to fight the Shia Muslims, who they hate. It seems their mandate with the west is about to expire, hence the Iranian peace deal.

Tough days ahead for ISIS and Turkey imo are coming soon.

278

Interesting article. It goes right along with what you and several others have been saying in this thread. When I first heard about ISIS my reaction was “pay them to counter Iran’s influence in the Gulf.” It appears “someone” may have been doing just that. So, what’s the US’ role in all of this? Playing both sides? If our allies are backing them for their own interests, why are we trying to destroy them and why are they at war with us? Our allies are not really our allies and haven’t been for some time.

279

Check out this article from the Huffington Post.

Like Alternative History, this is a speculative future. Or science fiction perhaps?

Any opinions on it? Is it possible? Not the first time I’ve seen something like this, actually.

280

No one can be trusted.