J
Justbec
Ideas?
R
Rinko
Realistically the best chance is to allow them to destroy themselves internally. Since ISIS operates upon an ideal, it can ever truly be destroyed. And really, retaliating against them just causes more people to flock to them, because they believe them to be martyrs or what-have-you.
Meanwhile there are Islamic terrorist groups that denounced what ISIS do/have done, so that's a thing.
Meanwhile there are Islamic terrorist groups that denounced what ISIS do/have done, so that's a thing.
Ghoul
Well-Known Member
Thing is, you can't. You will never destroy a group who believe in a cause like that cos there is a damn good chance someone else will also agree with those ideologies. And even if you do 'get rid' of ISIS, another group will appear to take their place.
DrLeftover
"I'm different. Let this not upset you" Paracelsus
We Can't.
The Islamic Countries, and the Local Imams in the Western Countries who are sending them recruits, money, and spreading their message in a positive way... They can stop supporting them, and the Caliphate will bleed to death in short order.
--
The Islamic Countries, and the Local Imams in the Western Countries who are sending them recruits, money, and spreading their message in a positive way... They can stop supporting them, and the Caliphate will bleed to death in short order.
--
Don't know if we can, the only real way is to provide political and economic stability to those regions and there is no political, public or corporate will to do that.
There is too much money being made the weapons industry keeping these wars going that feeds the fear which has countries increase their military spending budgets more and more each year.
War and fear is good for business and there is no better business than the war on terrorism.
List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There is too much money being made the weapons industry keeping these wars going that feeds the fear which has countries increase their military spending budgets more and more each year.
War and fear is good for business and there is no better business than the war on terrorism.
List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
R
Rooster
@Worldwide
Yes, I agree 1000%!!!!
You understand how the world really works...
That being said, how would we realistically stop ISIS?
Well, the short term easy answer would be to bomb the whole area back to the stone age. But of course, that would create about a thousand enemies for every one we killed. (Pretty much what we are doing with Obama's drone program).
Or we could do it the smart way. We could understand that to young men who have nothing, the only visible way they can see to money, women and power...is at the point of a gun. And proceed from there...
Yes, I agree 1000%!!!!
You understand how the world really works...
That being said, how would we realistically stop ISIS?
Well, the short term easy answer would be to bomb the whole area back to the stone age. But of course, that would create about a thousand enemies for every one we killed. (Pretty much what we are doing with Obama's drone program
).Or we could do it the smart way. We could understand that to young men who have nothing, the only visible way they can see to money, women and power...is at the point of a gun. And proceed from there...
but the big problem that complicates it all is the addition of religious extremism. Logic and compromise doesn't fit in well with certain people who believe their religious superiority is reason enough to kill or, or convert you. So even offering understanding and cooperation may not be enough because it doesn't impact religious tolerance.@Worldwide
Yes, I agree 1000%!!!!
You understand how the world really works...
That being said, how would we realistically stop ISIS?
Well, the short term easy answer would be to bomb the whole area back to the stone age. But of course, that would create about a thousand enemies for every one we killed. (Pretty much what we are doing with Obama's drone program
Or we could do it the smart way. We could understand that to young men who have nothing, the only visible way they can see to money, women and power...is at the point of a gun. And proceed from there...
Dee
Active Member
Adding to what's already been mentioned, it's very difficult to "stop" a group like ISIS simply because it's not a country we would be targeting. It's an idea. So the much more appropriate question would be, "How would you realistically stop the idea of terrorism in the name of a religion that's being interpreted in many different ways; therefore, leading many individuals to carry out deadly attacks?" The way we're looking at it, or at least the majority of people, is that we have a specific target localized in one area of the world when really the idea of terrorism and hatred often spreads globally, in different cultures and different age groups, different countries, etc. So tell me how you're going to extinguish an idea and then we'll talk.
R
Rooster
Well first, I want to point out that NO plan will have a 100% success rate. Nothing we can do will ever guarantee that there will never be another terrorist.
But can we make it better? I believe the answer is yes. And I would ask that think about it differently...
I firmly believe that the solution to ISIS (and even the broader War On Terror) does not even have to address religious extremism/radical Islam. And we do not need to extinguish an idea (as if we even could). These things are out of our control, but we can offer alternatives to them. However, there is something we need to do first...
It is a question of tactics. Our tactics are incorrect, and have been so since 9/11.
Think of it like a pie chart, representing the population of Earth. You have one very tiny slice (less than 1%) representing the "Terrorists". The second slice is a bit larger, but still pretty small (just to make the visual math easy, let's say 5%), representing the Terrorist's support system. These are the folks who harbor terrorists, or support terrorism financially, etc. etc. etc.. Then you have the largest slice of the pie, which is the rest of us.
Ok, now using that pie chart, let's think about this. That thin slice of the pie should be shrinking. As the terrorists blow themselves up, or as we kill them, there should be less terrorists, right? But the opposite is true. That slice of the pie is expanding, isn't it? Isn't ISIS an example of just that?
Where are the new recruits coming from? The support system, right? The people that are already predisposed to support terrorism. And while I cannot prove it, I suspect that slice of the pie is expanding as well.
How is this happening? I submit to you, it is our tactics. We are making things worse.
As an example, we use a drone to blow up a wedding party of 50 people, to kill one terrorist (This actually happened, by the way). Now, imagine this...
Let's say for every one of those 49 other people (non-terrorists), that 10 friends and relatives come over and sift through the rubble to try and identify bits and pieces of their loved ones. Now then, out of those 490 other people, if just 2 of them decide to become terrorists, and just 10 more of them become part of that support system...
Well, you get the idea. It is the legend of the Hydra, brought forward into modern times and made real.
And it is not just the drones, it is ALL of our tactics.
Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, you name it, we made it worse.
Anybody ever heard of ISIS before we tried to topple Assad?
First we change the tactics, then we offer the alternatives. We need to shrink that support system, attrition will take care of the terrorists...
But can we make it better? I believe the answer is yes. And I would ask that think about it differently...
I firmly believe that the solution to ISIS (and even the broader War On Terror) does not even have to address religious extremism/radical Islam. And we do not need to extinguish an idea (as if we even could). These things are out of our control, but we can offer alternatives to them. However, there is something we need to do first...
It is a question of tactics. Our tactics are incorrect, and have been so since 9/11.
Think of it like a pie chart, representing the population of Earth. You have one very tiny slice (less than 1%) representing the "Terrorists". The second slice is a bit larger, but still pretty small (just to make the visual math easy, let's say 5%), representing the Terrorist's support system. These are the folks who harbor terrorists, or support terrorism financially, etc. etc. etc.. Then you have the largest slice of the pie, which is the rest of us.
Ok, now using that pie chart, let's think about this. That thin slice of the pie should be shrinking. As the terrorists blow themselves up, or as we kill them, there should be less terrorists, right? But the opposite is true. That slice of the pie is expanding, isn't it? Isn't ISIS an example of just that?
Where are the new recruits coming from? The support system, right? The people that are already predisposed to support terrorism. And while I cannot prove it, I suspect that slice of the pie is expanding as well.
How is this happening? I submit to you, it is our tactics. We are making things worse.
As an example, we use a drone to blow up a wedding party of 50 people, to kill one terrorist (This actually happened, by the way). Now, imagine this...
Let's say for every one of those 49 other people (non-terrorists), that 10 friends and relatives come over and sift through the rubble to try and identify bits and pieces of their loved ones. Now then, out of those 490 other people, if just 2 of them decide to become terrorists, and just 10 more of them become part of that support system...
Well, you get the idea. It is the legend of the Hydra, brought forward into modern times and made real.
And it is not just the drones, it is ALL of our tactics.
Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, you name it, we made it worse.
Anybody ever heard of ISIS before we tried to topple Assad?
First we change the tactics, then we offer the alternatives. We need to shrink that support system, attrition will take care of the terrorists...
It is classic David and Goliath, the 'West' use drones and long range lazer guided missiles, and wipe out large groups of the enemy with 'acceptable levels of collateral damage', and then one man drives a truck through a crowd of westerners.
Webster
Well-Known Member
^ ^ ^
What @Rooster said, with one exception: we had heard of ISIS prior to the Syrian Civil War....it was formerly known as AQI - Al Qaeda in Iraq (a/k/a Zawqiri's Iraq War insurgent group) and prior to the Iraq War as Ansar-al Islam, a group which ironically even Saddam's intelligence people were monitoring prior to the Iraq War...
R
Rooster
@Webster
Yes, that is the accepted narrative for the origins of ISIS.
Point I want to make to the group, is that ISIS appeared to be no problem at all, until we destabilized Syria, heck, we had not even heard of them.
Same-same for AQI...Ever hear of them before we invaded Iraq? Were they any problem, before then?
And don't even get me started about the so called "Khorasan Group"!
Yes, that is the accepted narrative for the origins of ISIS.
Point I want to make to the group, is that ISIS appeared to be no problem at all, until we destabilized Syria, heck, we had not even heard of them.
Same-same for AQI...Ever hear of them before we invaded Iraq? Were they any problem, before then?
And don't even get me started about the so called "Khorasan Group"!
Webster
Well-Known Member
If you were in the intel community or had a decent knowledge of the region's players, you most certainly would...indeed, there's an ancedote about how both U.S. and Iraqi intelligence agents, for months prior to the Iraq War, were monitoring....you guessed it: Ansar al-Islam. That's right....both Dubya & Saddam were monitoring the same group; Saddam because, like most strongmen, he was worried about the threat - if any - to his power; we were watching them because of known links btwn them and Al Qaeda.@Webster
Yes, that is the accepted narrative for the origins of ISIS.
Point I want to make to the group, is that ISIS appeared to be no problem at all, until we destabilized Syria, heck, we had not even heard of them.
Same-same for AQI...Ever hear of them before we invaded Iraq? Were they any problem, before then?
And don't even get me started about the so called "Khorasan Group"!
AQI:@Webster
Yes, that is the accepted narrative for the origins of ISIS.
Point I want to make to the group, is that ISIS appeared to be no problem at all, until we destabilized Syria, heck, we had not even heard of them.
Same-same for AQI...Ever hear of them before we invaded Iraq? Were they any problem, before then?
And don't even get me started about the so called "Khorasan Group"!
Operation Cyclone was the code name for the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) program to arm and finance the Afghan mujahideen prior to and during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, from 1979 to 1989
Operation Cyclone was one of the longest and most expensive covert CIA operations ever undertakenfunding began with $20–$30 million per year in 1980 and rose to $630 million per year in 1987. Funding continued after 1989 as the mujahideen battled the forces of Mohammad Najibullah's PDPA during the civil war in Afghanistan (1989–1992).[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
In the late 1980s, Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto, concerned about the growing strength of the Islamist movement, told President George H. W. Bush, "You are creating a Frankenstein."
The U.S. says that all of its funds went to native Afghan rebels and denies that any of its funds were used to supply Osama bin Laden or foreign Arab mujahideen. However, even a portion of those native Afghan rebels would form parts of the Taliban, fighting against the US military.
While there is no evidence that the CIA had direct contact with Osama Bin Laden[37][38] and US funding was directed to Afghan Mujahedin groups,critics of U.S. foreign policy consider Operation Cyclone to be substantially responsible for setting in motion the events that led to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, a view Brzezinski has dismissed. William Hartung argues that the early foundations of al-Qaeda were built in part on relationships and weaponry that came from the billions of dollars in U.S. support for the Afghan mujahadin during the war to expel Soviet forces from that country.
Webster
Well-Known Member
Drop the I in AQI, Worldwide, and you're on course there, though, given the over-arching situation internationally in 1979-1980, the West would've still figured out a way to support the Afghan rebels agst. the Soviet-backed regime in Kabul, even with the blowback that resulted from it
R
Rooster
@Worldwide and @Webster
Well, I didn't want to go there, but since you two insist...
Let's party!!!
"The mysterious origins of ISIS..."
Let's start here, shall we?
Well, I didn't want to go there, but since you two insist...
Let's party!!!
"The mysterious origins of ISIS..."
Let's start here, shall we?
My uncle does Jihad with a gun...
DrLeftover
"I'm different. Let this not upset you" Paracelsus
Evidently, Imams in the West are all in favor of ISIS and continue to support their ways.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lls-teenagers-captives-permissible-Islam.html
More:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lls-teenagers-captives-permissible-Islam.html
DrLeftover
"I'm different. Let this not upset you" Paracelsus
You might start "stopping ISIS" by arresting Mrs. Clinton:
.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...llarys-arming-jihadists-including-isis-syria/
.
Webster
Well-Known Member
And in the next breath, can we arrest Mr. Assange as well, Doc?