Inconvenient Truth: There is no simple military strategy to defeat ISIS

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:You can't bomb and kill enough jihadists to stop terror. You can kill as many al Qaeda and ISIS members, and that will just birth new ones and new groups. Unless the root causes are analyzed and solutions provided for them, there will always be another insurgency. You can't bomb them into submission

Unfortunately, people are talking about killing all of them, reducing them to rubble.

[Anonymous]

Stupidity - yes, let's bomb the crap out of them and prove their point that we are bent on destroying them, including innocents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Stupidity - yes, let's bomb the crap out of them and prove their point that we are bent on destroying them, including innocents.

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:You can't bomb and kill enough jihadists to stop terror. You can kill as many al Qaeda and ISIS members, and that will just birth new ones and new groups. Unless the root causes are analyzed and solutions provided for them, there will always be another insurgency. You can't bomb them into submission

I disagree that we need to analyze and solve the root problems, if by that you mean things like poverty and discontent with autocracy. Terrorism still thrives in places like the UK and France where there is no poverty, and human rights are as well respected as anywhere.

The fact is that the jihadists were controlled very effectively for many decades by the likes of Assad. What you need to control jihadists is a strong state with a strong intelligence service and army. That may mean supporting someone whose approach to human rights is very different from our own. But we manage to do that in Saudi, Egypt etc. without complaint. The fact is we should never have brought down Saddam, and we should never have brought down Gaddafi, and we should never have supported the opponents of Assad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:You can't bomb and kill enough jihadists to stop terror. You can kill as many al Qaeda and ISIS members, and that will just birth new ones and new groups. Unless the root causes are analyzed and solutions provided for them, there will always be another insurgency. You can't bomb them into submission

I disagree that we need to analyze and solve the root problems, if by that you mean things like poverty and discontent with autocracy. Terrorism still thrives in places like the UK and France where there is no poverty, and human rights are as well respected as anywhere.

The fact is that the jihadists were controlled very effectively for many decades by the likes of Assad. What you need to control jihadists is a strong state with a strong intelligence service and army. That may mean supporting someone whose approach to human rights is very different from our own. But we manage to do that in Saudi, Egypt etc. without complaint. The fact is we should never have brought down Saddam, and we should never have brought down Gaddafi, and we should never have supported the opponents of Assad.

Unfortuately, Muslims in France and the UK would not share that view. Discrimantion against Muslims in places like France and Belgium is well known! And lets be honest, at least 2 of the Paris attackers were born IN FRANCE and at least 2 were born IN BELGIUM. These were folks who were turned radical by the conditions and the treatment of Muslims in the countries that they were born in.

I 100% agree with your second paragraph. Those guys are/were despots for a reason! They were able to keep the different factions relatively united in hatred against them. Their iron fisted rule was inconsistent with our ideas of democracy and governance but our ideas do not work everywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:You can't bomb and kill enough jihadists to stop terror. You can kill as many al Qaeda and ISIS members, and that will just birth new ones and new groups. Unless the root causes are analyzed and solutions provided for them, there will always be another insurgency. You can't bomb them into submission

I disagree that we need to analyze and solve the root problems, if by that you mean things like poverty and discontent with autocracy. Terrorism still thrives in places like the UK and France where there is no poverty, and human rights are as well respected as anywhere.

The fact is that the jihadists were controlled very effectively for many decades by the likes of Assad. What you need to control jihadists is a strong state with a strong intelligence service and army. That may mean supporting someone whose approach to human rights is very different from our own. But we manage to do that in Saudi, Egypt etc. without complaint. The fact is we should never have brought down Saddam, and we should never have brought down Gaddafi, and we should never have supported the opponents of Assad.

Totally agree!

This obsession with wanting to introduce western style democracy to other countries is insanity.

Saddam Hussein, Assad and Khadaffi kept their countries under control. Bush f-cked up Iraq and Obama upset the cart when it came to Libya and Syria.

[Anonymous]

I am not against targeted bombings, but the idea that we just need to blanket bomb multiple countries? Nope.

[Anonymous]

So we just give in? Put up our hands and say nothing can be done? Obama's strategy isn't working and when he has said it is working and that ISIS is contained, it makes my blood boil. Check out these statistics: http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/17/world/global-terror-report/index.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:You can't bomb and kill enough jihadists to stop terror. You can kill as many al Qaeda and ISIS members, and that will just birth new ones and new groups. Unless the root causes are analyzed and solutions provided for them, there will always be another insurgency. You can't bomb them into submission

I disagree that we need to analyze and solve the root problems, if by that you mean things like poverty and discontent with autocracy. Terrorism still thrives in places like the UK and France where there is no poverty, and human rights are as well respected as anywhere.

The fact is that the jihadists were controlled very effectively for many decades by the likes of Assad. What you need to control jihadists is a strong state with a strong intelligence service and army. That may mean supporting someone whose approach to human rights is very different from our own. But we manage to do that in Saudi, Egypt etc. without complaint. The fact is we should never have brought down Saddam, and we should never have brought down Gaddafi, and we should never have supported the opponents of Assad.

Unfortuately, Muslims in France and the UK would not share that view. Discrimantion against Muslims in places like France and Belgium is well known! And lets be honest, at least 2 of the Paris attackers were born IN FRANCE and at least 2 were born IN BELGIUM. These were folks who were turned radical by the conditions and the treatment of Muslims in the countries that they were born in.

Nonsense. The large majority of Muslims in these countries would not support such actions. There are some terrorists from the States who have been similarly radicalized. Would you say that it is the result of the conditions and treatment of Muslims in the states that led to their radicalization? The fact is that the freedom and wealth and work opportunities afforded in Europe and the States are infinitely greater than anything you will find in most parts of the Middle East. This argument that they became radicalized because they are discriminated against makes superficial sense, but it is not accurate. Many groups face higher hurdles entering the job market and are in a worse socio-economic situation but do not set out to kill as many people as they can. The fact that people like Timothy McVeigh emerge is not proof that he suffered some kind of systematic persecution, but rather that there will always be weak-minded and amoral people drawn to extremist ideologies. It is the ideology of extremist Islam that is the root cause here, not discrimination in Europe.

[Anonymous]

No, we obviously can't throw up our hands,but we need to think before we just start throwing our military around. And there are very few good options. Just like eventually, a surge was the least bad option available in Iraq.

[Anonymous]

Its also very easy to be a "chicken hawk" and want to commit troops when it is only a small percentage of the population that serves in the US military. Other then Lindsay Graham none of the candidates have ever served in the armed forces.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clusterfuck of the century

Millennium.

and only 30 years after Vietnam

no excuse for our leaders to be this dumb. they have access to info we do NOT have access to.

to talk about invading now with us troops is complete ignorance.

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:
You can't bomb and kill enough jihadists to stop terror. You can kill as many al Qaeda and ISIS members, and that will just birth new ones and new groups. Unless the root causes are analyzed and solutions provided for them, there will always be another insurgency. You can't bomb them into submission


I can't kill every cockroach in the world but sure as hell can keep them out of my house

The problem is every time you kill someone(guilty or innocent) it has unintentional consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:You can't bomb and kill enough jihadists to stop terror. You can kill as many al Qaeda and ISIS members, and that will just birth new ones and new groups. Unless the root causes are analyzed and solutions provided for them, there will always be another insurgency. You can't bomb them into submission

I disagree that we need to analyze and solve the root problems, if by that you mean things like poverty and discontent with autocracy. Terrorism still thrives in places like the UK and France where there is no poverty, and human rights are as well respected as anywhere.

The fact is that the jihadists were controlled very effectively for many decades by the likes of Assad. What you need to control jihadists is a strong state with a strong intelligence service and army. That may mean supporting someone whose approach to human rights is very different from our own. But we manage to do that in Saudi, Egypt etc. without complaint. The fact is we should never have brought down Saddam, and we should never have brought down Gaddafi, and we should never have supported the opponents of Assad.

Unfortuately, Muslims in France and the UK would not share that view. Discrimantion against Muslims in places like France and Belgium is well known! And lets be honest, at least 2 of the Paris attackers were born IN FRANCE and at least 2 were born IN BELGIUM. These were folks who were turned radical by the conditions and the treatment of Muslims in the countries that they were born in.

Nonsense. The large majority of Muslims in these countries would not support such actions. There are some terrorists from the States who have been similarly radicalized. Would you say that it is the result of the conditions and treatment of Muslims in the states that led to their radicalization? The fact is that the freedom and wealth and work opportunities afforded in Europe and the States are infinitely greater than anything you will find in most parts of the Middle East. This argument that they became radicalized because they are discriminated against makes superficial sense, but it is not accurate. Many groups face higher hurdles entering the job market and are in a worse socio-economic situation but do not set out to kill as many people as they can. The fact that people like Timothy McVeigh emerge is not proof that he suffered some kind of systematic persecution, but rather that there will always be weak-minded and amoral people drawn to extremist ideologies. It is the ideology of extremist Islam that is the root cause here, not discrimination in Europe.

Although I cannot disagree with anything you have said, you have talked around my point. It is not about how YOU or I think the conditions are. We are talking about the potential factors that make a mind ripe for the extremism to take root! Writing all extremists off as "weak-minded" is a mistake that the uninformed make (that's not a dig at you personally). I do know, however, that the increasing number of young Musilims flocking to extremism is a concern to many moderate Islamic theologians and many of them are trying to grapple with it. And I agree with others - "bombing the region back to the stone age" is only going fertilize MORE extremists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Clusterfuck of the century


Millennium.


and only 30 years after Vietnam

no excuse for our leaders to be this dumb. they have access to info we do NOT have access to.

to talk about invading now with us troops is complete ignorance.

Syria will be worst vs Vietnam...There are many countries fighting with proxies in Syria-Iran, Russia, Isreal, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc. and all of them have their ow agenda.