Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
Ideally it is always better to solve things through talk rather than violence. But, it would legitimize IS and increase it as a threat to Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and perhaps the other Gulf states. In the longer run, IS could present threats to Turkey and Israel. But, we might be able to use a go-between such as Turkey or Qatar for limited negotiations. Frankly, I have no idea what the best strategy against IS would be. We are pretty much screwed regardless.


How about kill them?

You volunteering to go fight? What about the additional taxes needed...you going to pay? Not our problem let the Turks and Israel deal with it. One of those two states will control Syria in 5 years.

I am a 53 year old woman. Not eligible. Taxes to protect our country per the Constittution. I'm good. Lettin Israel turn them into glass? I'm good with that too.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Ideally it is always better to solve things through talk rather than violence. But, it would legitimize IS and increase it as a threat to Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and perhaps the other Gulf states. In the longer run, IS could present threats to Turkey and Israel. But, we might be able to use a go-between such as Turkey or Qatar for limited negotiations. Frankly, I have no idea what the best strategy against IS would be. We are pretty much screwed regardless.

How about kill them?

Sure, is Rambo available? It's just like a movie, after all.

I was married to Rambo. Can be done

Anonymous



No you can't negotiate with terrorists and people that don't want to negotiate. They took $$$$ from some countries then kidnap and behead someone else.

Well if you agree to pay for someone's release, you are negotiating with them. The Americans were killed because the US will not pay, so they kill the American.

No you can't negotiate with terrorists and people that don't want to negotiate. They took $$$$ from some countries then kidnap and behead someone else.

Anonymous wrote:Infect them with ebola

You want the entire Middle East to think that a secret US military lab brought Ebola to the middle east. Way to validate every conspiracy theory ever about America.

jsteele wrote:
Ideally it is always better to solve things through talk rather than violence. But, it would legitimize IS and increase it as a threat to Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and perhaps the other Gulf states. In the longer run, IS could present threats to Turkey and Israel. But, we might be able to use a go-between such as Turkey or Qatar for limited negotiations. Frankly, I have no idea what the best strategy against IS would be. We are pretty much screwed regardless.


How about kill them?

You volunteering to go fight? What about the additional taxes needed...you going to pay? Not our problem let the Turks and Israel deal with it. One of those two states will control Syria in 5 years.

Infect them with ebola

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Ideally it is always better to solve things through talk rather than violence. But, it would legitimize IS and increase it as a threat to Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and perhaps the other Gulf states. In the longer run, IS could present threats to Turkey and Israel. But, we might be able to use a go-between such as Turkey or Qatar for limited negotiations. Frankly, I have no idea what the best strategy against IS would be. We are pretty much screwed regardless.

How about kill them?

Sure, is Rambo available? It's just like a movie, after all.

So I don't hear anyone supporting calls for negotiation with ISIL.

Let's just let this grieving father be.

jsteele wrote:Ideally it is always better to solve things through talk rather than violence. But, it would legitimize IS and increase it as a threat to Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and perhaps the other Gulf states. In the longer run, IS could present threats to Turkey and Israel. But, we might be able to use a go-between such as Turkey or Qatar for limited negotiations. Frankly, I have no idea what the best strategy against IS would be. We are pretty much screwed regardless.

How about kill them?

ISIS's presence in Iraq and Syria is fundamentally a political problem, not a military one.The key structural causes of their rise, cannot be solved by American bombs alone. The US can block ISIS's advances in some places, as it is doing in Iraqi Kurdistan, but eliminating ISIS is outside its power. We can bomb all ISIS members today, but unless we defeat their ideas intellectually, then the ideas will re-emerge in another form as we've seen happen over and over. ISIS will not gain the majority Shia in the Southern part of IRAQ, but they do have Sunni support in the northern and western part. The only way to defeat them is to make sure that they lose that support. They can not maintain their gains without deep support from Iraq's Sunni population and yes the locals support them, not because of their fundamentalist or "Islamic" ideology but because they see them as a nationalist revolution. They believe that the Shia Iraqi government is fundamentally illegitimate, so they're fighting to retake the state but this doesn't mean they want to replace it with an Islamist state. The only way ISIS can be defeated is if they lose local public sunni support but Obama's bombing and killing of Iraqis and syrians will only create more ISIS adherents and raise them as heroes defending their people against a western invasion.

No. In Iraq, we need to reach a point where Sunnis have adequate representation in government. These Sunnis are not ISIL, but Iraq is going to get very inhospitable for ISIL if that happens.

In Syria, we need to back other groups than ISIS.

Anonymous wrote:The father of an American journalist beheaded by IS thinks so:

http://news.yahoo.com/must-negotiate-says-father-slain-us-reporter-103847612.html

He thinks we should try to understand them through negotiation instead of violence. Thoughts?

Here is a transcription of a statement issued by IS's chief spokesman last month.

https://ia801400.us.archive.org/34/items/mir225/English_Translation.pdf

Read it, and tell me what exactly you would "negotiate".

Ideally it is always better to solve things through talk rather than violence. But, it would legitimize IS and increase it as a threat to Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and perhaps the other Gulf states. In the longer run, IS could present threats to Turkey and Israel. But, we might be able to use a go-between such as Turkey or Qatar for limited negotiations. Frankly, I have no idea what the best strategy against IS would be. We are pretty much screwed regardless.

The father of an American journalist beheaded by IS thinks so:

http://news.yahoo.com/must-negotiate-says-father-slain-us-reporter-103847612.html

He thinks we should try to understand them through negotiation instead of violence. Thoughts?