General Question

Jaxk's avatar

After the attack in Nice France, do we need to declare war on ISIS?

Asked by Jaxk (17592points) July 14th, 2016
116 responses
“Great Question” (6points)

It has been called a Terrorist Attack but not yet ISIS. Nonetheless ISIS is very likely the instigator. 73 dead at last count and more than 100 injured. These attacks just keep getting more and more deadly. Is it time to stop the insanity yet?

Topics: , ,
Observing members: 0
Composing members: 0


johnpowell's avatar

How does declaring war stop the insanity?

elbanditoroso's avatar

I thought that we (whoever we is) already did.

@Jaxk – how would you stop the insanity? What would you do differently?

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

We’ve been bombing 7 Muslim countries, but it fails to register because the media doesn’t report on it anymore, so we only hear about when us and our allies are attacked.
The answer to violence is not more violence. That’s what got us Into this mess in the first place.
The “Islamic State” is what happens when all 7 countries have Islam in common. If we overthrow and destroy a bunch of countries, it only makes sense for them to form a unified group, no?
And since it’s not a country’s military doing the attacking, we just call them terrorists. It’s a neverending cycle.

Jaxk's avatar

Nato should be sending in enough ground forces to wipe them out. The airstrikes aren’t getting it done. As long as ISIS has their Caliphate they will continue to recruit more fighters and maintain a safe haven for planning and executing more attacks.

@SquirrelEStuff – I seriously doubt that sending them more love will turn the tide. How many people have to die before we say enough. ISIS has bragged that they killed 5,000 in their attacks just over the month of Ramadan.

gorillapaws's avatar

I do think it’s time to stop the insanity. Let’s add a 5000% tax on fossil fuels. Watch the demand for electric vehicles and clean, domestic energy skyrocket. A new economy based on sustainable energy and you’ll see the funding for fucks like ISIS evaporate. That’s a strategy that might actually make a difference instead of bombing brown people and making them feel desperate.

ibstubro's avatar

I’m too sad for the people of France to react.

ibstubro's avatar

Isn’t NATO against your party affiliation, @Jaxk?

kritiper's avatar

@gorillapaws Not a very good answer. Not even practical. Not everybody can afford a new car. Or afford to save up for one while paying an extra 5000% on fuel taxes. Electric cars are not practical in all circumstances and clean, domestic energy is too far off in development to be of any use now. And I’m sure many people would be just thrilled to death about more new exorbitant taxes. Stop the insanity? Better come up with better ideas first or it will only continue.

YARNLADY's avatar

Terrorism is already against the law. How would a declaration of war on an unknown people who have no known specific location help?

DrasticDreamer's avatar

No, no and no. War begets war. Always. Extremist groups keep popping up because of the wars we constantly fight.

CWOTUS's avatar

LOL … you wanted or expected rationality from this crowd?

Let’s not be so hasty as to declare war. Baby steps … baby steps. Let’s first see if we can get the Appeaser in Chief to admit that “Maybe Radical Islamic Fundamentalism might be a real thing, and kind of, sort of a problem, maybe.”

Can we get him to admit that someday, do you think? That is, regardless of its cause – whether it’s a result of American / European exploration for and development of petroleum deposits, or (primarily) American support of Israel, or the creation of the nation of Israel in the first place, or the terribly misguided and stupid start and prosecution of the Iraq War (or the Afghan War, for that matter, which at least had a sounder genesis), Radical Islamic Fundamentalism is a problem.

I don’t deny for a second that American and European involvement with some of the nations of the Middle East has not been good for those societies – or for us – and the war in Syria is currently destabilizing even more of the region than is normal – and it’s never a very stable region to begin with – but let’s set the bar lower, @Jaxk.

Do you think we can get the President to admit that there is even a problem … which is NOT climate-related?

Never mind boots on the ground. Do you think we can get an admission of a culture-based problem?

Jaxk's avatar

@gorillapaws@kritiper said most of what I would but let me add that destroying our own economy is not the best way to get them to stop.

@ibstubro – Nobody is against Nato but the member states should pay their fair share.

@kritiper – GA!

@YARNLADY – They are known and we know where the Caliphate is. This is not a mystery.

@DrasticDreamer – Blame America first? If we do nothing (which is what you seem to propose) do you honestly believe they will stop?

@CWOTUS – Actually I’ve gotten pretty much what I expected. At least no one has suggested more Gun Control although @gorillapaws seems to suggest Truck Control. I’ve given up hope on this President ever admitting that there is a problem, let alone what to do about it. ISIS controls territory and is no different than any other state. They even call themselves the Islamic State. When another state attacks the response should be clear and deliberate. And I’m not suggesting sending them Foreign Aid.

SmartAZ's avatar

As of June 29, 2016, according to the U.S. Department of Defense casualty website, there were 4,424 total deaths (including both killed in action and non-hostile) and 31,952 wounded in action (WIA) as a result of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Casualties of the Iraq War – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think we have killed enough of our people in that part of the world. The USA has had continuous war since 1941. There doesn’t seem to be any identifiable reason for the war except to keep a war going.

SmartAZ's avatar

@gorillapaws the Romans built an empire powered by muscle. The Dutch built an empire powered by wind. The English built an empire powered by coal. The Americans built an empire powered by oil. None of them made any attempt to develop another source of power.

DominicY's avatar

ISIS wants a global caliphate; they want world domination. They are not going to stop. Every single one of them needs to be killed.

(Whether or not this specific attack was ISIS, and it probably was, doesn’t matter. My statement stands).

Coloma's avatar

I tend to agree with @DominicY
I’m a pacifist at heart, peace, love, and all that jazz, but..SOMETHING has to be done. I think it’s time to kick some serious Isis ass.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

”...ISIS is very likely the instigator”

Can we wait until we know for sure?

And when we know for sure, can we talk with them first?

I remember a few years back when we overthrew Sadam for something he had nothing to do with. And that started a shit storm we’re all living out today. I’d rather put more effort towards a peace process so our grand children don’t think we’re all assholes.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Honestly, I’m still very unclear why so much hatred. Sorry, I don’t buy the religious glory thing.

Take one tenth the money we spend on war and instead spend it on uplifting the citizens to a degree of civilization that will keep the youth employed and not so tempted to join so called terror groups.

Or for ½0th the cost, install high speed internet in every wanna be terrorist household and encourage all to join a global consciousness for humanity rather than soldier for corporate interests disguised as revolution.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

What if it was discovered that a splinter of ISIS was in Saudi like the 9/11 attackers, do we go into Saudi like Iraq with ”shock and awe” and bomb them back to the Stone Age? If one rally wants to say bomb them where we find them, you might be burning down your house to get some ants.

Coloma's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies With all due respect but your flowery, new agey, psycho-spiritual lamentations are not going to make a difference in reality. In a perfect world yes, but this is not, never has been, nor ever will be, a perfect world of love and harmony with everyone raising their bottle of Coke up to the sky. The students aren’t ready for that teacher to appear, especially not the students of Isis.

flutherother's avatar

We need to declare war on terror. Oh wait, we did that 15 years ago.

gorillapaws's avatar

I love how conservatives say we can’t afford to fund a clean energy economy, but they’re chomping at the bit to spend TRILLIONS of dollars bombing shitheads who we couldn’t care less about except for oil. With the $4 trillion we have wasted fighting the war on terror, we could have bought every American household a $32,000 electric vehicle.

How to defeat the most powerful nation in the history of the world:
1. Blow up a couple of towers.
2. Let white trash, rednecks, and idiots proceed to spend trillions the country doesn’t have trying to kill every last “terrorist” on planet while protecting oil interests, not realizing that every time they blow up a “terrorist” they end up creating a dozen more people willing to fight the cause.

History lesson for the less informed: ISIS is the result of the power vacuum created by the war in Iraq, and Climate change causing Syrians who were farmers, to experience extreme drought and thereby head to the cities without gainful employment, disgruntled and ripe for exploitation by power hungry shitheads.

If we invade Syria, we will create the same problem we just saw in Iraq. Power vacuum will again get filled by even more shitheads and we’ll be even poorer, not to mention US soldiers killed.

jonsblond's avatar

According to Trump if we just say the magic words radical Islamic terrorism it will all go away.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@Coloma ”...your flowery, new agey, psycho-spiritual lamentations are not going to make a difference in reality…”

Tell that to the Buddha, the Gandhi, the MLK. Peaceful change is possible.

@Coloma ”...this is not, never has been, nor ever will be, a perfect world of love and harmony”

Not with that attitude. But talking to enemies before killing them and enriching the lives of others to the degree they have other options beyond becoming enemy combatants is a step towards that goal.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Well. The problem is that we already declared war on ISIS. As have all countries to my knowledge. And they have been beaten back. They have lost most large cities they occupied, and have abandoned some places outright, to retreat and regroup. Their numbers are lower and the air strikes, coupled with ground forces from multiple different countries has reduced their ability to wage large scale attacks. Most military advisors had already seen this coming. The assumption was that if ISIS lost its ability to capture new territory, and / or hold it’s current territory, they would have to rely on smaller scale attacks. So , although there will be less ‘city taking’ and large battles, as ISIS’s numbers shrink, their ferocity will grow. After eradication of their large armies, they will slither back into the shadows. Focusing more on attacks like the one in Nice. The more success is had at beating them, and dismantling their caliphate, the worse / more frequent these types of attacks will become. Sadly , ISIS is a concept. If they all dropped dead today, someone would decide to start it up again, and it would thrive as it has a new.

It seems to me, the only way to thwart the ‘idea’ of ISIS, is to somehow stabilize the entire region. Give the young people there running water, electricity, infrastructure, jobs, hospitals, a functional government, and hope for the future. Then they would have a reason not to join/support something like ISIS.
How can we stabilize the region? Start by not stirring the shit. The west should admit colossal failure, and move on. It’s nice to try and clean up a mess they made, but it seems clear to me, that is not something the west can see as realistically achievable by its hand. Sadly, only those in that region, can do what it takes to get things done. The west is simply incapable of understanding the people of that region. The cultural differences between all those living there is too great. The west cannot comprehend their ways of thinking. None of the west’s strategies jive with the reality of how people there think. The west is like a kid who broke a massive vase in grandma’s house. Try as the kid may, the task of putting it back together is simply beyond the kid’s ability.

Sometimes, you can’t fix what you broke. As long as it is broken, ISIS will continue to thrive. Even if there was a solution, there would still be small cells of ISIS comiting acts of terrorism, for the foreseeable future. Islam isn’t a bad thing, most Muslims, I think, are normal people. But these types of hardline extremists seem to be a natural product of the religion. As long as there is Islam, there will be pockets who wish for an extreme enforcement of their interpretation of it’s laws, and exceptable behavior.

Pachy's avatar

@Jaxk, you are naive, my friend, a Western thinker. There is no “wiping out” ISIS. The caliphate is not a place that can be leveled—it is an evil idea that has long-since taken root and is spreading exponentially as you read my words.

LostInParadise's avatar

How do you fight an enemy that you can’t even recognize? There are no ISIS uniforms. All that is required for membership is to declare oneself a member. You can go after leaders and go after their armies when they try to seize control. There is no way to pursue lone bombers.

jca's avatar

It’s all around us, part of us, hidden, secret. It’s not located in one place, and nobody’s admitting they’re a member.

jca (36062points)“Great Answer” (2points)
SquirrelEStuff's avatar

Every terrorist that has been caught, from the Boston bomber, to shoe bomber, to underwear bomber, to the Orlando shooter, to the French gunmen, have all said the same things and it had nothing to do with a caliphate.
They all said that they attack us because we are over there attacking them and killing them, which we seem to be disconnected from.
The media has not been doing its job and has failed to report on what we are doing over there and more importantly, what the effects of us bombing and overthrowing leaders in the Middle East has caused. This is becoming an episode of the Jerry Springer Show, where its always the other person’s fault, because they lack self reflection to try and understand the cause and effect of what we are doing. The CIA calls it blowback.

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

“Back in the 70s, a big part of why the US pulled out of Vietnam was due to anti-war activists, the draft, and a free press that was broadcasting gross footage of napalmed kids and messed up soldiers.
The military learned their lesson so when they invaded Grenada in 82, they banned the press and chose to use military reporters. Unfortunately, there was a cameraman who didn’t hear about the media blackout, saw US troops, so he started recording.
His footage basically showed that the military was falsely reporting and the press burned the military for lying and pushing them out of the conflict.
When the US invaded Iraq in 1990, they banned the press unless they agreed to use ‘embedded journalists’ who had to get everything cleared first. You deviate and report anything not cleared, and you can spend the rest of the war at the hotel bar.
I remember CNN during the gulf war. They may as well have just been part of the military because their reporters were treating soldiers like sports stars including flashy graphics like they give to football or baseball players.
Between CNN & FOX, they pretty much nerfed wartime coverage.
When the US invaded Iraq again after 911, they used embedded soldiers again until Geraldo Rivera wrote a map in the sand showing troop movements. That irked the military who kicked out the embedded journalists citing national security.
The press didn’t really complain. Instead, they brought in military spokespeople to deliver updates while flashing stock footage of planes launching or battleships firing missiles. Just cool looking stuff while some talking head babbles on.
The military issued directives to the media on what kind of words to use. Instead of the word ‘rebel’, use ‘insurgent’ because it sounds scary and Americans like rebels like Han Solo and the Fonz so they didn’t want the public associating the two.
There was also the blackout on showing caskets of US soldiers.
Oh, and don’t forget the toppling of Saddam’s statue which was a complete PR stunt and completely rigged.
Why would the press agree to basically just turn into a propaganda wing for the military?
My theory is media conglomeration. Back in 1996, the FCC changed rules regarding how many media outlets one company could own. The major outlets like FOX (newscorp), CNN(Time Warner), CBS (Viacom), NBC(Comcast, GE, Vivendi) ABC(Disney) went on a shopping spree and started buying out all the independent affiliates and absorbing them under their banner.
Nowadays, all those big companies are insanely huge. Between the military and the corporate media oligopoly, both sides managed to ‘win’. All they had to do was sell out their ethics as journalists or fire the ones that wouldn’t sell out.
Here’s a bit from a CBC documentary talks about Vietnam coverage.
Compare that kind of footage to the bullshit way the current ISIS conflict is reported and it’s insanely different.
We got drones and more cameras that ever existed yet no one knows shit aside from what the military/press releases.”

CWOTUS's avatar

I’m sure the President is on top of this, and will have some strong remarks to make today on the topic of … climate change.

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

@SquirrelEStuff ^^THAT was an excellent rundown of the evolution of relations between the war-time press and our military over the past 45 years. Two generations of Americans have grown to adulthood since the Vietnam War and are completely unaware of the history you correctly outlined above.

They often wonder why there are no nationwide, mass protests against the current wars—the prevailing conclusion is that mass protests no longer work. They wonder why Americans were so inflamed during the Vietnam years—the prevailing conclusion is that the Vietnam generation was completely different than those of today, that it was “a different country,” back then. All of this is bullshit. Protests and resultant the police riots nearly paralyzed this country and finally forced the end of the war. There is no difference in the desires and sensibilities of these generations. Evolution does not work that fast.

The difference is in the delivery of information concerning these conflicts. Or that there is no delivery at all.

Suggestion: Spaces between paragraphs for better readability. A thousand GAs.

flutherother's avatar

We have been bombing ISIS for the last two years and have killed 23,000 of their supporters as well as 1,000 innocent bystanders. That is 1,000 people and many of the ISIS ‘supporters’ are likely kids who had little choice but to do what ISIS told them. I am not convinced this is the best way of dealing with the ISIS phenomenon.

Kropotkin's avatar

Nonetheless ISIS is very likely the instigator.

They’ve not taken credit for the attack. They would likely have done so by now.

The attacker was a known violent petty criminal. I’ve also read reports that he had depression and had recent marital breakdown and financial problems. Most importantly—seemingly not religious nor particularly interested in religion.

But let’s all leap to conclusions before the full facts are out. We’ve got ideological axes to grind and prejudices and biases to confirm.

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

Thank you for the kind words. Unfortunately, I can not take credit for writing it and am unsure where it came from, but found it online and though it was spot on.

I honestly believe that Charlie Rangel was spot on many years ago when he said we need to reinstate the draft. People were up in arms over the idea, but I believe they missed the point. His reasoning behind it was that due to a volunteer military, the only people who are affected by war signed up for it. The average person has no idea what happens during war because of the disconnect.
His idea was that if we brought back the draft, war could have the ability to possibly affect everyone in our society if the possibility of them being drafted was reality. This, in theory, would make us much more closely examine our foreign policy and who and why we attack.
I truly believe our National Defense should be renamed National Offense.

CWOTUS's avatar

There have been some very fundamental differences in military policy and politics in general since Vietnam, @Espiritus_Corvus, and they help to explain why the mass protests of the Vietnam era have not occurred now:

1. Although “Selective Service”, i.e. “the draft” is still a real potential these days, since young men (and presumably soon, even young women) reaching the age of 18 are required to register for the draft if one is ever initiated – there has been no military conscription (draft) since Vietnam. The military is now an all-volunteer force.

2. The Viet Cong of the Vietnam era were masterfully portrayed as “just poor native folks” who wanted to “take back their corrupt government” from the French (first) and later from the Americans. There was only enough truth in that portrayal to make it seem slightly plausible. ISIS doesn’t have the same PR that the Viet Cong enjoyed.

Darth_Algar's avatar

The solution to any gasoline fire is always to throw more gasoline on it.

Response moderated (Unhelpful)
RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Hurting people will hurt people.

Not an excuse, but a reason. Let’s not excuse. But let’s be reasonable.

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

@SquirrelEStuff Yes. I saw the quotation marks too long after I posted the above. You were being honest. I tracked the original posting to a user named Abe Vigoda on Reddit, 20 January 2016. The comments below his post are also very interesting:

@CWOTUS I agree that the draft made a huge difference in the Vietnam era. But that does not lessen the fact that we are not getting unbiased reports out of our war zones. The days of the great war correspondants such as Jack London, Corra Harris, Martha Gelhorn, Walter Cronkite (WWII), Edward R. Murrow, Robert Capa (KIA), David Halberstam, Georgette “Dickie” Chapelle (KIA), Bernard Fall (KIA), Seymour Hersh (My Lai), Larry Burrows (KIA), and so many others, are over.

Peter Arnett, an excellent journalist who covered the first and second Gulf Wars, later wrote how his hands were tied by the military censors.

The My Lai story broke only after a year of self-censorship by the NY Times. It is doubtful if a story like that could break at all today from our policed press corp.

The Abu Graib story broke only because the private emails of military personnel to civilians back home, mostly bragging emails, were handed over to the press by said civilians.

Coloma's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies As I said, I am a pacifist at heart, but, I also adhere to the saying of “walk softly but carry a big stick.”
Peaceful protest can work, is possible, but also not probable in many instances.
Possibility vs. probability.
When dealing with hardcore extremists, as a group or individually it is delusional to think that one can change the nature of the beast.

Leopards don’t change their spots and to extend your hand to a leopard is foolish indeed.

Jaxk's avatar

Unfortunately we lost power last night and I haven’t been able to respond to all the comments. I think some guy on the next block has an electric car and when he plugged it in, it blew out the power to the entire town. I can’t wait for the government to force everyone to use electric cars. I always wonder why liberal solutions are always to have the government force everyone to do what they want done. I guess it’s just easier to get the government to dictate our future than to look for real solutions.

Seems there is little support for doing much to stop the ISIS threat. Some say they are growing and can’t be stopped and others are saying they are already losing and nothing more is needed. Both those camps seem to be resolved to doing nothing or at least nothing in the way of retaliation. There are some suggestions to actually send them foreign aid. Nothing I find useful.

I will comment on reinstituting the draft. If you force Americans to do anything they don’t want to do they will protest against it. Doesn’t matter if it’s working in the sewers or basket weaving. The job gets done better by those that want the job. You want a draft simply to get people to complain about it not because there is any reason for it. Pretty pathetic.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@Coloma ” the saying of “walk softly but carry a big stick.”

I see anyone creeping up while carrying a big stick and I’ll assume there will be trouble.

I’ll drop my stick, put a spring in my step, and let everyone know we can be friends.

@Coloma “Leopards don’t change their spots”

We’re not dealing with leopards. We’re dealing with people.

I won’t reduce people to animals just to make a point.

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

@CWOTUS From the last paragraph of your last post:

The Viet Cong of the Vietnam era were masterfully portrayed as “just poor native folks” who wanted to “take back their corrupt government” from the French (first) and later from the Americans. There was only enough truth in that portrayal to make it seem slightly plausible.

It is obvious that you still buy the bullshit. It is also obvious that you’ve never read of the history of the brutal, century-long French Occupation of the Southeast Asian Peninsula, that you’ve never read of the peaceful, decades-long efforts of Ho Chi Minh to attain independence for his country, nor the corruption under Diem, nor that of the Vietnam government under the American Occupation, nor have you ever even scanned the Pentagon Papers.. I find it incredible that you wrote that paragraph on Fluther without a tilde.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Imagine if the Americas were invaded by foreign forces insisting we adopt their values. There would be all sorts of American insurgents attacking everything we could to achieve independence. We would be labelled savage terrorists for doing so. We would use nationalism and religion to promote the cause.

If we were in their shoes, we would do the exact same things.

Coloma's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Humans are animals and some are vicious and irredeemable.
I’m not going to be stupid enough to think I can talk a known killer out of killing me by extending an Olive branch. Nope, past behavior is a great predictor of future behavior and if confronted with a known killer I am going to do whatever it takes to defend myself and protect my survival and that of those I care about. That IS human nature, kill or be killed, just like that is the governing rule in the natural world.

I would do everything in my power to avoid killing, but, if it comes right down to it, yep, the tiger in me is going to come up fighting.

kritiper's avatar

@gorillapaws It is not about oil! For crying out loud, get into the 21st century! That old horse has been beaten beyond death! Read/Watch the news once in a while and get yourself up-to-date.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@Coloma “Humans are animals and some are vicious and irredeemable.”

We’re not talking biology. We’re talking values. Humans have human values, not animalistic values. No one ethnic group or nation holds the lions share of viciousness. Who among us is irredeemable? Who among us is worthy to judge another person as irredeemable?

@Coloma ”...past behavior is a great predictor of future behavior…”

Agreed. But let’s be human enough to weigh everyone’s past behavior…
Not just those who oppose us. Let’s keep the scales balanced.

imrainmaker's avatar

You can’t win against fanatics like isis with peaceful protests. It can’t be won by waging war alone.It’s really time to give Islamic countries confidence that west is not against them / islam in general. It will require some serious work to reduce anger against western countries mainly US from their minds. Youth across the world are getting attracted to their ideology / way of working which is serious cause of concern in many countries.

CWOTUS's avatar

@Espiritus_Corvus you are being somewhat uncharitable toward me there. I am not unaware of the corruption of the South Vietnamese government during the period that the US was fighting for its preservation. I was aware of it at the time, and I was just in junior high school then. I am also not unaware of the hagiography that has been built up around Ho Chi Minh. Nor do I disagree that a case could be made that an overthrow of the South Vietnamese government was long overdue, in one way or another. But I don’t buy the line that Ho was a peasant hero, either, who did it all on his own.

I will admit to being mostly ignorant of much of the French occupation of Vietnam, then and still now. There is only so much history that I have chosen to learn, and that ain’t part of it.

Coloma's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I agree that humans have the capacity for diplomacy, negotiation, compromise and given our, supposed, higher brain power and ability to reason, it is a noble ideal that we can find a way to soothe the savage beast in others and sometimes that does work, sometimes, but not often.
However, from a purely biological and instinctual POV as human animals, like all animals, we defend and protect our offspring, homes, territory and self preservation. When all of our higher human abilities fail it still comes down to eat or be eaten. When the Hyenas invade the lions territory, raid their dens, kill their offspring, attack the pride as a whole, the lions retaliate.

It does come down to survival of the fittest in this sense.
We have a militant group of extremist radicals threatening the world pride at this time. I vote for honing our claws and sharpening our fangs not going belly up and taking a submissive approach.

MrGrimm888's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies. You bring up a valid point, few choose to accept. You mentioned earlier that the desperate acts of the militarily inferior/invaded natives, would resort to tactics of this sort. CORRECT!GA…
Those in America are quick to forget that this very soil was ‘liberated’ by such tactics. From the Boston Tea Party , to the Swamp Fox, the war for independence was won by acts that today would be called ‘acts of terrorism,’ by people who would be called ‘insurgents.’
History is written by the winners. America would have it’s citezens believe that this country, and it’s collective assets were not taken by force, like ‘lesser’ empires. But in actuality, it’s borders were created through manipulation of the indigenous people, and other ill gotten gains. Fueled by the greedy aspirations of men who would have no real ramifications for their actions. It was a land grab, on land people already inhabited. America’s ancestors stole the land (strong arm robery. ) Just because it is in the past doesn’t make it ok. Nor ,certainly, does it give America the right to finger wave at other countries, or organizations over their tactics.

Keep in mind, most of the world has signed into various agreements about not using land mines, or chemical/biological weapons. For obvious benefits of the future world (finally someone cares about the future!!!) But the USA, has not still. They cast aspersions on the characters of others from atop a tall horse, but they belong with the snakes belly.
I’m a US citizen. I love my community. But my country tends to illicit embarrassment from me , more than pride. It’s overall decision making over the past couple decades has been pathetic.
Going back to terrorism. When the towers were brought down (9/11), Bin Laden hoped for a huge over reaction that would cripple the west economically. Sadly, our leaders at the time took it hook, line, and sinker….

Now look where the world is….

Billions of lives have been effected by war, financial crisis, greed, corruption, refugees, terrorism, and general chaos.
Say what you will for Bin Laden’s motives (I hate him, and I’m glad he’s dead) , but his strategy worked, because of the failure of our government to react appropriately to the atrocities committed on 9/11.

There were many knee jerk, poorly thought out actions, that ultimately led to the current CLUSTER FUCK that is the world we now know.

ragingloli's avatar

What makes you think that it is not you that are the raiding Hyenas and ISIS being the ones that are defending themselves by any means necessary?

Jaxk's avatar

I can see that many of you want to view ISIS as ‘Freedom Fighters’ or some such thing. There is no noble cause here. ISIS is more than happy to kill Christians, Jews, or other Muslims. It’s not a ‘drive the invaders out’ kind of war, it’s more ‘killing for the sake of killing’ kind of war. Nobody wins when ISIS takes over. They’re not fighting for freedom of any kind but rather for world domination. Their goal is to kill in the most bloody and dramatic way. It’s not kill anybody that gets in their way, it’s kill anybody they can find. How you can look at this as anything Noble, is beyond me.

DominicY's avatar

Yes, in what way is killing civilians in Europe “defending themselves”? ISIS apologists may be able to make a point about the fighting in the Middle East, against the oppressors who remain there, but it certainly doesn’t justify the terrorist attacks carried out in the West. They are fundamentally not defensive.

ragingloli's avatar

The same way that nuclear terrorist apologists insist that the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki “saved lives”.

DominicY's avatar

Well, I’ve never been an apologist for those bombings, so if it’s the same type of thinking, it has the same type of flaws.

DrasticDreamer's avatar

If there was a real way to stop ISIL, I’d be all for it. But there’s not. Good luck trying to kill every single one of them when their fanaticism lives not just in their acts, but in the ideals, minds and hearts of so many who would follow them. Kill them all in war and you “justify” spawning more. Because all uneducated people will see is a dead brother, father, cousin, sister, mother, daughter and they will seek revenge. It is about more than simply trying to eradicate them when so many of their beliefs arise from multiple problems, some of which, yes, are America’s fault.

Better relations, in general, are needed in the middle east before anything will ever get better. When wars are waged for oil and profit, America is very much to blame in certain regards.

Jaxk's avatar

@DrasticDreamer – I know a lot of people want to make this about the poor uneducated souls that inhabit the Middle East but it’s not. Many are educated and are not poor. What they do seem to have in common is that they are loners. Holding life and death in their hands gives them power, incredible power. The Caliphate gives them a cause. Blaming America for their deeds does not explain why they commit these acts in every western country and definitely flys in the face of why they commit atrocities in Muslim countries.

We can’t eradicate all the crazies but we can eliminate the central authority that draws them together. That would be the Caliphate, their base of power and justification. It’s easier to commit atrocities when you feel you have support and people such as yourself sympathize with you. going after the terrorists individually is not going to stop anything but depriving them of the command and control, the link to like minded comrades, will have a significant impact.

Stinley's avatar

It’s just so sad but violence is never the answer. I don know what the answer is but I do know that violence isn’t it.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@Jaxk “ISIS is more than happy to kill Christians, Jews, or other Muslims.”

So would the US military and US rebel fighters if the Americas were occupied by an oppressing force. We’d try to kill anyone involved with no discretion to race or religion. We would do the same.

@Jaxk “It’s not a ‘drive the invaders out’ kind of war, it’s more ‘killing for the sake of killing’ kind of war.”

I certainly don’t believe that.

@DominicY ” what way is killing civilians in Europe “defending themselves”?”

I don’t believe ISIL is fighting defensively. That was an offensive attack, specifically to put the enemy on the defensive. Similar to, but not as destructive as Desert Storm, Normandy or Hiroshima. Nothing defensive about taking the fight to the enemy.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

I’d appreciate more unbiased news coverage that discussed why ISIL even exists, and what their goals are. Seems the only news I hear revolves around painting them as psycho terrorist evil incarnate. I remember how Nazi’s painted the Jews to make their extinction more attractive and justified. I’m wary of such claims.

But is there any consistent news coverage detailing how Western policy is hurting people in the Middle East? If I’m hurting someone, I’d really like to know how. Especially if I’m hurting them so badly that they feel their only option is to attack me. I’d doubt they would attack if they thought I would listen. But we have this weird policy of not negotiating with terrorists… That’s tough considering we can label anyone a terrorist… Anyone… Including our fellow citizens.

Kindergartners are taught to use their words and talk things out before fighting. Surely we have a few kindergarten graduates in this nation.

Jaxk's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies – I can understand ISIS fighters using that analogy but the similarity to Luke or anyone else breaks down pretty quickly when you look at the tactics employed. Indiscriminate killing was the tactic of the Empire not the rebels. If I’m a bank robber, I can call myself Robin Hood but the analogy breaks down when you learn that I’m stealing from everybody and keeping everything. Indiscriminate killing like the soldiers in your second link are investigated and prosecuted here, while ISIS would brag about them and recommend more. There’s simply no equivalency to what ISIS does.

CWOTUS's avatar

Unfortunately, @Stinley, as much as I would like to sign onto your kumbayah policy – and even as much as I like Lincoln’s words: “Do I not destroy my enemy when I make him my friend?” – sometimes violence is the only answer, at least in the short term. That is, concentrated, high-explosive, directed fire for effect.

On the other hand, as noted in @RealEyesRealizeRealLies’ “More of this” video link, there is no way that ISIS is an existential threat to the USA – yet. On the other other hand, Nazi Germany was “no existential threat to Europe” in the first few years of Hitler’s reign, either. He could have been brushed off like a dust bunny when he sent a few regiments of the German Wehrmacht into the Saar in March 1936. Instead, he was emboldened to continue in such hostile – though bloodless – takeovers, with the results that we’re still dealing with.

No, I’m no fan of war, much less of constant war. And I fully realize that defense contractors and their bankers and investors are the only ones who make out from pro-war policies. Even so, there are some times that call for use of force, and while I would have wished that we had never invaded Iraq in 2003, and that we had “finished what we started” in Afghanistan, we’re not done there yet – despite the line that our fraudulent Nobel Peace Prize winner may be trying to peddle.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Even if Isis is responsible, they are currently being beaten rather soundly. Most experts believe that Isis is in fact stepping up the pace in terrorism precisely beause they’re taking a drubbimg on the ground and losing territory. If you wipe out all 10,000 fanatics, what makes uou believe the attacks will cease?. The Caliphate or even the dream of a Caliphate is pretty much irrelevant to whether or not Isis will continue to terrorize the West. And if the 10,000 aren’t destroyed but merely run out of Syria and Iraq, what do you suppose they will do with all that idle time formerly devoted to “governing” the Caliphate?

Jaxk's avatar

@stanleybmanly – I couldn’t disagree more. The Caliphate is pivotal to their success. It provides a safe haven for training and planning. It provides.oil and money for ISIS and it provides a physical presence for all to see. As long as they can maintain the Caliphate, they are veiwed as successful. They are standing off the largest most technically advanced army in the world and that is success incarnate. Doesn’t matter that our involvement is anemic at best. People will flock to a winner and ISIS looks like winner. Their ideology may live on but once they look like a loser, their recruits will drop like a rock.

Coloma's avatar

@ragingloli Every country has been the Hyena at times but there is a big difference between crushing innocents for purposes of greed and gain vs. religious fanaticism that is impossible to mitigate.

SecondHandStoke's avatar

Apologies in advance.

Ban trucks now.

This will solve the problem overnight.

The term “War On Terror” was first used by President Bill Clinton during a statement at the scene of the World Trade Center bombing in ‘93, and the proper mentality toward handling our outlaw enemies began.

We are at war. Terrorists are our enemies. What to do is clear.

This war might never reach a traditional conclusion, however sitting on our hands or obsessing over how this will be read by other nations is not the solution.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@Jaxk all of that may have mattered at the outset, but the war chest as well as the ideology now in place GUARANTEES ISIS a following as long as there are frustrated people looking for an excuse to shoot up people and blow shit up. And they ARE being defeated even through Western half measures, because simply put, ISIS wouldn’t stand a prayer against any truly committed first world power. And even though you know who is primarily responsible for the creation of ISIS, Obama isn’t about to commit American ground troops to the region in numbers sufficient to do the job. That’s one lesson he learned from his predecessor who basically deprived the White House of a Republican occupant for probably 20 or more years.

MrGrimm888's avatar

American boots on the ground in the middle east has always been, and always will be a mistake if regional stability is the goal. Nobody there wants US involvement. What the US would consider victory is unrealistic, and obviously unachievable. Iif the US decided to direct all its force at ISIS, It could run them from the cities to the caves, but it wouldn’t eradicate them. The subsequent destruction to buildings, infrastructure, and the local ‘good guy’s’ opinion of the US wouldn’t change. Even if the US was amazingly successful in any future operations there, there will be plenty of reasons to hate us. Time to leave them to there own devices. By the time the world forgets the US’s role in the mess that is going on, the mess will still be going on. Just like it was for a long time before we got there. The region gas never been stable. They are always at odds , now it’s just taken a different color. Most experts agree that ISIS is simply a rebranding of prior extremist organizations. One day something else will replace ISIS. But the results, and the region will be the same. Chaotic at best.

RedDeerGuy1's avatar

I did not read any other quips so forgive me if I add the following “platitudes”. Attacking terrorists by sending countries into the stone age is like using a sledge hammer instead of a scalpel in a surgery. If the United States is supposed to be a Christian country then why not turn the other cheek? Attacking evil only makes it stronger. Is it time to end the hate and rebuild the countries destroyed and give the middle east back?

Jaxk's avatar

@stanleybmanly – Yes, I do know who is primarily responsible for the creation of ISIS. And I think you are overly optimistic about your chances for the White House.

@MrGrimm888 – I would agree if I thought ISIS would stay at home. Let them kill each other. Unfortunately they don’t. They come here. I’m not content to let them kill as many of my friends and family as they like and I’m sure not content to let them kill me. As soon as we left Iraq, they spawned and took their show on the road.

@RedDeerGuy1 – Thankyou Neville Chamberlain. Peace in our time by ignoring the threat.

RedDeerGuy1's avatar

@Jaxk If it works than it works. Has the US ever tried peace for any significant time (like 20 years) ? As an experiment? I’m not a professional diplomat so I am a noob at this issue.I’ve been in lots of physical fights and I found out that It takes two sides to every issue, unless one side is really wacked up insane. What did America do to pee in the middle eastern cereal? People don’t blow themselves up for nothing. Must be something that started it?

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

@RedDeerGuy1 That’s the problem. Appeasement didn’t work. The Munich Conference, as referred to above, was in September of ‘38. Hitler had just marched through Czechoslovakia, capturing Skoda, the largest arms manufacturing plant in the world outside Germany, then into Austria and assumed world financial credits of both healthy economies, which were a great boon to Germany because the war machine they’d built depleted what treasury Germany had. France was unprepared for war as was England.

So British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain arranged a meeting with H. in Munich in September, 1938. H, from the minutes taken by the British, very charmingly explained that all he wanted was to unify the German speaking people under one German government and since that had been accomplished, there was no need for France and England to worry.

By the following September (1939), Germany had bombed Poland into submission, occupied it and moved a million troops along Germany’s western borders with the Netherlands, Belgium and France. By the end of 1940, Hitler had taken all of western Europe from Norway to Spain. Then they began bombing the industrial and administrative cities of England from bases in France and the Netherlands.

RedDeerGuy1's avatar

@Espiritus_Corvus Ok. Thanks for the info. Appeasement only works on sane people.

Jaxk's avatar

@RedDeerGuy1 – It’s interesting that you assume it started because of something we did. Conflict in the Middle East has been going on for longer than we’ve been a country. Our first battle after gaining independence was with Muslims, the Barbary Pirates. If your first assumption is that we started all this, you’re going to come up with an erroneous conclusion. The conflict is born in the Koran. Some take the barbaric practices of the middle ages seriously and act on them. They use the Koran to justify those deeds.

RedDeerGuy1's avatar

@Jaxk Ok. Thanks. If it was us that caused it then we can fix it easily.

Coloma's avatar

@RedDeerGuy1 “appeasement only works on sane people.” * ZING!

stanleybmanly's avatar

@Jaxk Islam may be at the root of the inability of the region to escape the 14th century, but nothing you can name concerning the current turmoil takes priority over the catastrophic decision to invade Iraq. The poor idiot who will always bear the responsibility for the greatest strategic blunder in our history obviously was talked into the catastrophe by people who certainly should have known better. The stunning ineptitude of the bungling was demonstrated at the very outset by the stupefying claim that there would be representative democracy resulting in Iraq. The instant he said it, the only conclusion to be drawn was that we were doomed, because the statement amounted to “I have no idea what the fk I’m talking about. I know nothing about the place or the people in it.”

MooCows's avatar

I am ready to drop the bomb and erase isis from the earth.
We as a country have put up with way too much. Just don’t
think twice…do it!

Jaxk's avatar

@stanleybmanly – I know that’s the popular line but I’m not convinced. Remember that a democracy is much harder to establish than a dictatorship. I have great respect for our founding fathers but even then it took two tries to get something workable. The Articles of Confederation didn’t work and then the constitution did for a while. Even then we went through a very bloody civil war to determine “whether that nation or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated could long endure”. Just because Iraq has had their troubles doesn’t mean they can’t get it. Call me the eternal optimist but Iraq was stable before we left and may be coming around. ISIS continually stirring up trouble doesn’t help but it hasn’t killed the idea yet.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Is violence the only alternative to appeasement?

Consider the flip side of that coin.

When impoverished and abused Middle Easterners attempt to appease psychopathic corporate controlled Western government bureaucracy, then they may feel that violence is their only alternative.

The psychopath gaslights and claims their violence is the reason for our war. I believe it was Dostoevsky who coined the idea that controlling a population was easy once the government got the people to believe in The Noble Lie.

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

Here are some quotes from terrorists who were not killed after attacks.
FRENCH SHOOTER “In a recording of what followed, a man the station identifies as Coulibaly holds a dialogue with others—apparently hostages—in which he says he attacked because the French military has attacked Muslims in the Middle East and Mali, including ISIS militants. “I was born in France. If they didn’t attack other countries, I wouldn’t be here,” a voice says in RTL’s recording.”
BOSTON BOMBER “He equated the three people who were killed in the marathon bombings and the more than 250 others who were injured to ‘collateral damage’ like the thousands of innocent Muslim victims of American wars across the globe. ‘When you attack one Muslim, you attack all Muslims,’ he reportedly wrote.”
UNDERWEAR BOMBER “In quick response to some of the things that have been said, I say my life and the lives of Muslims have also changed due to the attacks on innocent civilians,” he added.”
SHOE BOMBER “I further admit my allegiance to Osama bin Laden, to Islam, and to the religion of Allah. With regards to what you said about killing innocent people, I will say one thing. Your government has killed 2 million children in Iraq. If you want to think about something, against 2 million, I don’t see no comparison. Your government has sponsored the rape and torture of Muslims in the prisons of Egypt and Turkey and Syria and Jordan with their money and with their weapons. I don’t know, see what I done as being equal to rape and to torture, or to the deaths of the two million children in Iraq. So, for this reason, I think I ought not apologize for my actions. I am at war with your country. I’m at war with them not for personal reasons but because they have murdered more than, so many children and they have oppressed my religion and they have oppressed people for no reason except that they say we believe in Allah. This is the only reason that America sponsors Egypt. It’s the only reason they sponsor Turkey. It’s the only reason they back Israel. As far as the sentence is concerned, it’s in your hand. Only really it is not even in your hand. It’s in Allah’s hand. I put my trust in Allah totally and I know that he will give victory to his religion. And he will give victory to those who believe and he will destroy those who wish to oppress the people because they believe in Allah. So you can judge and I leave you to judge. And I don’t mind. This is all I have to say. And I bear witness to Muhammad this is Allah’s message.”from terrorists who were not killed, and I hope the full audio of the 911 call from Orlando is released, because I bet there was more said than him pledging allegiance to ISIS and the Boston bomber:
FRENCH SHOOTER “In a recording of what followed, a man the station identifies as Coulibaly holds a dialogue with others—apparently hostages—in which he says he attacked because the French military has attacked Muslims in the Middle East and Mali, including ISIS militants. “I was born in France. If they didn’t attack other countries, I wouldn’t be here,” a voice says in RTL’s recording.”
BOSTON BOMBER “He equated the three people who were killed in the marathon bombings and the more than 250 others who were injured to ‘collateral damage’ like the thousands of innocent Muslim victims of American wars across the globe. ‘When you attack one Muslim, you attack all Muslims,’ he reportedly wrote.”
UNDERWEAR BOMBER “In quick response to some of the things that have been said, I say my life and the lives of Muslims have also changed due to the attacks on innocent civilians,” he added.”
SHOE BOMBER “I further admit my allegiance to Osama bin Laden, to Islam, and to the religion of Allah. With regards to what you said about killing innocent people, I will say one thing. Your government has killed 2 million children in Iraq. If you want to think about something, against 2 million, I don’t see no comparison. Your government has sponsored the rape and torture of Muslims in the prisons of Egypt and Turkey and Syria and Jordan with their money and with their weapons. I don’t know, see what I done as being equal to rape and to torture, or to the deaths of the two million children in Iraq. So, for this reason, I think I ought not apologize for my actions. I am at war with your country. I’m at war with them not for personal reasons but because they have murdered more than, so many children and they have oppressed my religion and they have oppressed people for no reason except that they say we believe in Allah. This is the only reason that America sponsors Egypt. It’s the only reason they sponsor Turkey. It’s the only reason they back Israel. As far as the sentence is concerned, it’s in your hand. Only really it is not even in your hand. It’s in Allah’s hand. I put my trust in Allah totally and I know that he will give victory to his religion. And he will give victory to those who believe and he will destroy those who wish to oppress the people because they believe in Allah. So you can judge and I leave you to judge. And I don’t mind. This is all I have to say. And I bear witness to Muhammad this is Allah’s message.”

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@Jaxk “Indiscriminate killing was the tactic of the Empire not the rebels.”

You seem to have overlooked my link right above your statement.
Less of this please

Is this the type of indiscriminate killing you refer to? Are these the “sane” people who cultivate appeasement? Shall I go down the entire list that we know of after wiki leaks reports what the western corporate sponsored press doesn’t?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

US War Crimes that you won’t hear about from Western media

“The newspaper continues: “The war logs, seen by the Guardian, contain a horrific dossier of cases where US troops killed innocent civilians at checkpoints, on Iraq’s roads and during raids on people’s homes. The victims include dozens of women and children. The US rarely admitted their deaths publicly.”

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

“The Wolf Brigade was created and supported by the US in an attempt to re-employ elements of Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guard, this time to terrorise insurgents. Members typically wore red berets, sunglasses and balaclavas, and drove out on raids in convoys of Toyota Landcruisers. They were accused by Iraqis of beating prisoners, torturing them with electric drills and sometimes executing suspects.”

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

“All over the world, the US government is regarded as imitating the methods of the Nazis, both in its violence and its systematic and shameless lying.”

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

Sorry for the double copy/paste in my last response.

Has anyone on here ever read any of the writings confiscated from Bin Laden’s compound?
They can be found on Bin Laden’s Bookshelf, from the Department of National Intelligence?
We tend to listen to the government that most of us seem to not trust, rather than listening to what the terrorists are actually saying. Kind of ironic that the terrorists tell us a completely different story.
Also interesting, is the quote I posted above from the “shoe bomber” about the US supporting Turkey, considering what is going on there now.
I guarantee that terror attacks rise drastically in Turkey in the upcoming months.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@Jaxk “Conflict in the Middle East has been going on for longer than we’ve been a country.”

The war mongering Western mind set can be traced back much further than that. The mentality that invaded the American continents runs straight to ancient Greece. The Middle East doesn’t hold the market share on human greed and brutality.

CWOTUS's avatar

Speaking of the Iraq invasion …

I had never been in favor of a pre-emptive American attack against a non-existential threat to the USA. It’s just not who we are – or were, anyway. But once launched my hope was that it could be prosecuted “cleanly” (as cleanly as possible for a war) and quickly, and some form of representative, pluralistic – and wholly local – governance could be nurtured in the peace that (should have) resulted. I still didn’t like the idea that we were starting an optional war, but I figured that taking the long view – a half-century down the road or so – how wonderful it would have been to have a peaceful, prosperous, republican government of a large and powerful nation at the head of the Persian Gulf, to balance (and perhaps even show the way to) Iran, and to resolve differences with Israel, and to serve as a staging area for the eventual invasion of Saudi Arabia, which will certainly be necessary within that time frame when it implodes. In an ideal world, if they could have handled the Kurdish population gracefully and peacefully, it could even have relieved some of the Kurdish pressure on Turkey by providing a safer and more peaceful Kurdish homeland.

And hope against hope, if that nation, so conceived and so prosperous and peaceful, could be, if not “a strong ally” of the Western powers, at least not openly hostile. In a half-century our descendants would be looking at that as a major success story if even half of that could have come to pass.

The first part of that went brilliantly. The military campaign was over in something like six weeks, which has been unparalleled in military history. The war was expected to be much harder to fight against the Iraqi Republican Guard dug in on their home turf. But it was over quickly, and while it was certainly not bloodless – on either side – it was a resounding defeat for the Iraqi Army, a rout and capture of Baghdad without massive civilian casualties. And then the civilian “management” of the occupation was botched entirely.

The first thing that was done was to entirely abolish and disband the Iraqi Army and attempt to rebuild it with entirely new recruits. What?! Set loose a bunch of unemployed, bitter and highly partisan soldiers and officers – with their weapons? What nonsense was that? Had the IA been allowed to maintain some semblance of formation (even if all of the general staff had to be cashiered) would have at least kept them employed – and realizing who was cutting their checks, at least – and they would have been under nominal control.

So what did we do instead? We created an instant insurgency – which took us years to fight at tremendous cost and loss, and which we ultimately abandoned.

We certainly have come back to reap the whirlwind in Iraq.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@Jaxk the reason there will be no democracy in Iraq or any other Middle Eastern country is because religious requirements render authoritarian rule as the ONLY viable form of government. Any attempt to establish truly representative democracy will be quickly undermined using the principles of democracy itself to achieve it. The entire region witnessed how quickly our CIA utilized the new freedoms of speech and the press to undermine and overthrow Mosadeq in Iran. Iran by the way was and remains the only true attempt at democracy and everybody saw the results. The lesson is one man one vote one time. Everyone living there in a position of power knows the deal & you would assume that Bush might have a clue, but alas.

MrGrimm888's avatar

The people there have vastly different civil rights issues that would have to be realistically addressed before even considering any form of democracy. Democracy isn’t plug and play (Sorry Bush.)
Democracy implies that all citizens have a say (vote.) But many groups in the region don’t believe other groups have the right to be their equals. And vice versa. If democracy is to ever work there, they will need to come to grips with the reality that they aren’t so different that they can’t even get equal rights.

Democracy can’t possibly work if you think your neighbors are sub human, and don’t deserve the same right to vote as you.

At any rate. The problems in the middle east are really Europe and Asia’s problem. They are the ones who ultimately are dealing with the refugee crisis, and increased terrorism threats. Perhaps they should have taken the lead a long time ago, never letting the US just do what it deemed necessary. The European and Asian governments were already used to ‘dealing’ with that region as best they could. They had to have a fear that what the US planned would destabilize the region. The world should have stopped America. They could have sanctioned the US, at least to stop the call for war. The US invaded a sovereign nation. That’s exactly the type of thing that would piss the US off ,if another country did it.
I’m NOT blaming the world for this mess, but I wish the world had at least tried to stop America from leading the charge. Sanctions, coupled with the lack of support here in America may have stopped the war. Bush and Cheney would’ve had to backpedal and at least rethink their approach.

Knowing the region now, as we do, it seems comical that we thought we would just pull Hussein from power, and replace him with a democracy, run by greatful ‘free’ Iraqis, with no problems.Who the hell thought that would work? I think Bush was naive enough at the time. Cheney probably knew it wasn’t going to end well, but didn’t care. He made billions of dollars from the war and subsequent fall out.

jca's avatar

@Kropotkin: As of the Saturday morning wake up, ISIS is taking credit, saying they “influenced” the truck driver in Nice.

jca (36062points)“Great Answer” (1points)
SquirrelEStuff's avatar

Don’t you mean that our governments are telling us that ISIS is taking credit?
Have we actually ever heard any “representative” of ISIS tell us that they have taken credit for anything?
Also, isn’t in their best interest as a recruiting tool to “take credit” for any attack that is deemed a terror attack, especially if upwards of 100 people are killed?

ragingloli's avatar

They will take credit for anything.

gorillapaws's avatar

I’m not advocating appeasement. I’m advocating a tried and true military tactic which is to isolate the enemy and cut off their source of funding and wait for them to collapse.

I’ve yet to hear a single idea from people who want to invade ISIS territory for how long they want us to occupy that territory, and how they would prevent yet another power vacuum from developing after the withdrawal. Also how do you want to pay for it? Be specific.

This isn’t about religion, it’s about wealth (oil) and power. Religion is the vehicle that’s being used to manipulate people who are poor, desperate and powerless. Making it about religion is exactly what our enemies want us to do. It’s falling into a trap they’ve set that would only help their cause. You wouldn’t say that WW2 was about white supremacy. That was a piece of propaganda for motivating the masses to support Hitler’s agenda.

@kritiper This IS about oil. I’m beating the dead horse because apparently some people still don’t get it. If the chief export from the Middle East was dates, figs and flatbread we wouldn’t give a shit about the region. Fun Fact: Every time you fill up your car at the pump, you indirectly make a small donation to Al Qaeda, ISIS, etc.

@Jaxk We did NOT leave Iraq in a good state when we withdrew. If that were true ISIS would not have taken over the way it did.

@MooCows Nuking ISIS would be the greatest act of terrorism this century. It would guarantee retaliation by terrorists on a nearly constant basis. That is a foolish and EVIL position to have.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@gorillapaws “This isn’t about religion, it’s about wealth (oil) and power.”

Agreed. And I think oil is one among many power gaining goals. Minerals, opiates, and the perpetual profiteering of the military industrial complex. Just think how many jobs and investments would be lost if the war on terror ended. I dare say it would crash the world economy to a level never seen before.

Religion is the vehicle that transports a hidden agenda cargo.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

I’m willing to entertain the idea that ISIL is a manufactured enemy. Intentionally created to be a non national ghost that can’t be identified or located. That keeps the military ghost busters and the corporate interests that profit from them continuously employed.

And if ISIL ever is identified and vanquished, then another ghost will be invented to replace it.

olivier5's avatar

^ ISIS is real and dangerous.

This is not about the US and its past and present crimes. It’s not about Islam either. It’s about Islamism, a modern political ideology that is as dangerous as Nazism was.

Darth_Algar's avatar

So…...I take it all those clamoring for war will be the first ones to enlist for that war.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@jca “As of the Saturday morning wake up, ISIS is taking credit, saying they “influenced” the truck driver in Nice.”

ISIS would claim credit for the assassination of Abraham Lincoln if they figured they could spin the publicity right.

Jaxk's avatar

@stanleybmanly – Turkey is an example of a democracy in the Middle East. It may be falling apart but it has been a democracy for some time now.

@gorillapaws – ISIS grew out of Syria. Just because Iraq wasn’t able to defend itself against the ISIS invasion doesn’t mean it wasn’t stable.

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

@MooCows I am sure a lot of people would love to drop a nuke on ISIS, if that same nuke didn’t wipe out a multitude of innocents. I am one of them. It would be so easy and for me, satisfying. But you know this is not practical and will bring more, possibly worse, problems. We need to use our heads on this. Right now, there is a coalition of governments from all of the EC, UK, US, Russia and even China using every effort to destroy their logistics, their sources of weapons and money. It’s tricky. It is a very fluid org. We take out what we believe is Command and Control and another station pops up. We take out training camps and others pop up. On the other side, there are governments and NGOs that are working to eliminate future recruitment efforts by improving the life in those geographic areas that are prime nurseries for ISIS. One side often shoots the other side in the foot. It’s a real problem.

But I certainly sympathize with your desire. Me too. But it isn’t practical. They are too fluid and embedded in innocent populations. Nuking the Bekaa Valley would be like nuking the Shenandoah or the San Joaquin and all of their cities and towns to get rid of a few ISIS cells. You, nor I, want that.

Coloma's avatar

@Espiritus_Corvus Agreed, if not for all the innocents. the dichotomy of war.

stanleybmanly's avatar

The problem with “declaring war ” on Isis is that it would amount to a formal recognition of the gangsters as a state.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@Jaxk Turkey and Egypt are parodies of of what we define as democracy, and again it is due to the inability to reconcile the requirements of Islam with the democratic process. Ataturk saw the problem immediately in the establishment of modern Turkey when confronted with a religion wherein the concept of separation of mosque and state amounts to the worst sort of heresy. He came down on the side of separation ANYWAY, but this must be enforced in a VERY undemocratic fashion. The failure of the West to appreciate the true significance around the tug of war between religious and secular demands in the region is inexcusable, and we still pay dearly for it.

MrGrimm888's avatar

This discussion has become circular…..

gorillapaws's avatar

@Jaxk Take a look at This article. ISIS isn’t just a Syrian thing—it has a lot to do with removing Hussein from power.

Jaxk's avatar

@stanleybmanly – Your argument seems to revolve around the assumption that Islam is incompatible with democracy. I don’t believe that. If you are right why would we want to bring in Muslim refugees by the thousands. Your belief is that they can’t possibly function in a democratic or secular society. Seems pretty harsh to me.

@gorillapaws – Good article but not surprising. I don’t see anything that contradicts my point. I never said they were all Syrians but rather that the group grew and gained strength in Syria, fighting against Assad and other rebel groups. Assad is Shiite so it is not surprising that many Sunni Iraqi’s would join the fight. They had lost control in Iraq and wanted it back. When we left Iraq, it gave them that opportunity. At the root of all this is a Sunni/Shiite conflict. Now that ISIS has territory, Money, and success on their side it is branching out to gather in anyone that wants power or blood. Let’s face it, life and death control is the ultimate power trip. The only way to stop the bloodletting is deprive ISIS of the territory, Money, and success they currently have. It won’t stop all terror but it will stop the massive recruitment that ISIS enjoys.

DrasticDreamer's avatar

@Jaxk I do not sympathize with any terrorists, no matter where they’re from. I just know trying to bludgeon a complex problem to death isn’t the answer, because it will not work.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@Jaxk We DON’T want to bring in refugees by the thousands. They WANT to come! The difference here is that this place is founded on the enforcement of a godless state, and that requirement is “sacred“and enforced to the great frustration of our own Christian fundamentalists. Even as our country dumbs down, (which is EXACTLY what the resurgence of Christian fundamentalism here represents), the hodgepodge of religious superstitions more or less guarantees that the separation of church and state will hold. The verdict in my statement above may appear particularly harsh, but I would once again ask you why it is that in view of the success of representative governments elsewhere, there is yet to be found a SINGLE example of a truly representative democracy in any land formerly under the sway of your vaunted Caliphate? You should keep these facts in mind the next time you hear about some excitement arising at the prospects of the next Arab Spring, for in any Muslim society you are going to find secular authority suppressing religious dictates or religious authority denying basic rights.

Jaxk's avatar

@stanleybmanly – I think your pushing this a bit too far. Just because the democracies in both Turkey and Iraq are not the same as ours, they are still democracies or at least democratically elected governments. Remember that we have been a democracy since 1776. It wasn’t the civil war that brought democracy here. Sharia law can be implemented in a democracy and individual rights can be limited. A democratic Iraq may not last nor Turkey for that matter but they are there.

olivier5's avatar

The UK has an official religion, anglicanism. They don’t separate state and church the way the US or France do. And yet they are a democracy.

Democracy only means that the people can oust their leader and replace him/her by another if a majority wants to. That’s all. It does not necessarily imply a secular society.

Answer this question




to answer.

Mobile | Desktop

Send Feedback