RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


crazyml -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/16/2014 10:56:38 PM)

Everything you have said so far on this thread indicates that you have a deeply fucked up understanding of jihad.

The best way to fight jihad over the long term is books and schools. The very worst way to fight it is by creating more martyrs for their fucked up cause.

Sure, there has to be a military response to ISIS, but unless you are labouring under the mapprehension that the Vietnam war was a win for freedom and democracy you should have a fair idea of the long term effectiveness of military might is in situations like this.




BamaD -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/16/2014 11:20:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

Everything you have said so far on this thread indicates that you have a deeply fucked up understanding of jihad.

The best way to fight jihad over the long term is books and schools. The very worst way to fight it is by creating more martyrs for their fucked up cause.

Sure, there has to be a military response to ISIS, but unless you are labouring under the mapprehension that the Vietnam war was a win for freedom and democracy you should have a fair idea of the long term effectiveness of military might is in situations like this.

I don't advocate going in and doing the fighting for them. One of the many mistakes made in Vietnam was having the U S troops doing the heavy fighting. The locals can't be conditioned to calling on the American troops when things get a little rough.
Books and schools what a great idea, of course they kill people, particularly girls just for going to them. Don't you think it would be nice to create enough security so people could go to school and come home alive? No use of military means you can't build the schools, pass out the books or teach a better way of living. But of course after the killing is done we can always pretend that that is the life people want and so none of our business.




tweakabelle -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/17/2014 3:04:02 AM)

For someone who claims to have a "deep understanding of jihad", your posts show remarkably little evidence that you have the slightest idea who or what your real opponent actually is. The opponent in this conflict is not an organisation or armed group like AQ or IS. It is not a religion. It is an idea or ideology.

You cannot defeat an idea or ideology by bombing it back to the Stone Ages. You cannot defeat an idea or ideology by long distance hi-tech drone/cruise missile strategies. Even if you enjoy limited short term military success (eg the 'surge', and the Awakening movement in Iraq) unless you replace the idea or ideology with a better one, and deal with the underlying social and political issues that create the environment where extremist ideas and ideologies become attractive to ordinary people, you will not defeat it in the longer term. Sooner or later, it will re-emerge in another guise or form, much like IS has supplanted AQ as Public Enemy #1 in the West's policy-making circles and media. Much like Iraq has re-emerged as a centre for terrorism today after the limited successes of the 'urge' and the Awakening movement.

All the terrorism in Iraq is a direct consequence of Western military intervention there. One of the few positives of Saddam's Iraq was the complete absence of terrorism or AQ there. The terrorism and terrorists we see today are all Bush's and Blair's babies, created and brought into existence by their disastrous policies. This, and the political/ideological nature of the opposition, are the central facts that ought to inform one's thinking when considering a response strategy to the crisis in North Iraq/Syria and IS.

As you have thus far failed to identify 'the enemy' correctly it is hard to take your approach on how to defeat this 'enemy' seriously.




thompsonx -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/17/2014 6:55:36 AM)

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies

You were in Nam, bombing the shit out of everything, did that work?


No he was not. He enlisted durring the viet nam conflict in 1973. Found a safe desk job and hibernated there for the next 20 years, got a pension and now tells of his military expertise.





thompsonx -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/17/2014 7:12:52 AM)

ORIGINAL: BamaD

First off you don't know what you are talking about. We weren't allowed to "bomb the shit out of everything".

What was off limits when you were in?



All of the important targets were off limits.

Which important targets were off limits?



We weren't trying to win the war, we were trying not to lose.

This would be your ignorant unsubstantiated opinion.


McNamara was a moron and Johnson wanted to keep our involvement to a minimum.

Under johnson our involvement went from 50,000 men in country in 1965 to 300,000 by 1967.[8|]
Under nixxon it was below 70,000 by 1972.


I don't want to send troops, if you had seen anything except what you wanted to you would know that I want to help people defend themselves and provide them the air support they need, but we have to equip them well enough to do so.

Why? What part of the constitution says that is our job?


My first choice would be to help the Kurds, how can you disagree with this unless you have no problem with genocide. My second choice would be the people who are trying to overthrow Assad, again they are facing genocide. It isn't about Lslam against Christians, ut us about genocidal monsters against humans.


Of course your possie never engaged in genocide against native americans?




thompsonx -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/17/2014 7:20:37 AM)

ORIGINAL: BamaD
I don't advocate going in and doing the fighting for them. One of the many mistakes made in Vietnam was having the U S troops doing the heavy fighting. The locals can't be conditioned to calling on the American troops when things get a little rough.

The reason the u.s. put boots on the ground in vietnam was because the arvn were incapable of standing up to the nva. If we wanted to reap the benifits of viet nam then we would have to use some of our not rich people's blood to do it with.




Books and schools what a great idea, of course they kill people, particularly girls just for going to them.

Why do you care about little girls there but not here?

Don't you think it would be nice to create enough security so people could go to school and come home alive?


When we do that in our country then perhaps we might share our expertise with others but until we have don't you think it a little fatuous, kinda like a fat guy to be giving advice on nutrition?
If you cannot get back and forth to school safely in los angeles why would you think you could insure that in east buttphoque?






cloudboy -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/17/2014 7:23:36 AM)


NYT contributers are all over the map about what to do. Here's one Machiavellian proposal:

To Crush ISIS, Make a Deal With Assad

• the only real “boots on the ground” capable of destroying ISIS are the Syrian Army and its local allies, including Hezbollah.

• Despite its oppressive and brutal history, Mr. Assad’s regime not only poses no discernible threat to the West or its interests, but is ready and willing to act on the basis of common objectives.

• First, it is imperative to find a way to work with the most effective forces on the ground: Mr. Assad’s Syrian Army and the Iranian-backed Hezbollah fighters. All of the West’s differences with the Syrian regime should be postponed until the tide of battle has turned.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/16/opinion/to-crush-isis-make-a-deal-with-assad-.html

The logic here is: the palatable allies can't win -- so strike a deal with someone who can.




BamaD -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/17/2014 10:19:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

Everything you have said so far on this thread indicates that you have a deeply fucked up understanding of jihad.

The best way to fight jihad over the long term is books and schools. The very worst way to fight it is by creating more martyrs for their fucked up cause.

Sure, there has to be a military response to ISIS, but unless you are labouring under the mapprehension that the Vietnam war was a win for freedom and democracy you should have a fair idea of the long term effectiveness of military might is in situations like this.

Please explain Jihad to me.




BamaD -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/17/2014 10:20:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


NYT contributers are all over the map about what to do. Here's one Machiavellian proposal:

To Crush ISIS, Make a Deal With Assad

• the only real “boots on the ground” capable of destroying ISIS are the Syrian Army and its local allies, including Hezbollah.

• Despite its oppressive and brutal history, Mr. Assad’s regime not only poses no discernible threat to the West or its interests, but is ready and willing to act on the basis of common objectives.

• First, it is imperative to find a way to work with the most effective forces on the ground: Mr. Assad’s Syrian Army and the Iranian-backed Hezbollah fighters. All of the West’s differences with the Syrian regime should be postponed until the tide of battle has turned.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/16/opinion/to-crush-isis-make-a-deal-with-assad-.html

The logic here is: the palatable allies can't win -- so strike a deal with someone who can.

Isis and Assad are allies




cloudboy -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/17/2014 11:26:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Isis and Assad are allies


My understanding is that ISIS came into being to fight ASSAD. Check your facts. Remember that Fox News trucks in bad information.




BamaD -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/17/2014 3:31:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Isis and Assad are allies


My understanding is that ISIS came into being to fight ASSAD. Check your facts. Remember that Fox News trucks in bad information.

Then why does Assad oppose bombing ISIS?




DesideriScuri -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/17/2014 4:26:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Isis and Assad are allies

My understanding is that ISIS came into being to fight ASSAD. Check your facts. Remember that Fox News trucks in bad information.

Then why does Assad oppose bombing ISIS?


Perhaps it's because ISIS is also fighting against Assad's foes? Looks like there is a "Opposite of" Love Triangle thing going on there.

ISIS was fighting against Assad with the Syrian "rebels." Now, the rebels and ISIS are also fighting, while Assad is fighting both.

At least that's the way I understand it.

There were concerns raised about whether or not we armed ISIS when we were sending arms to anti-Assad rebels.




BamaD -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/17/2014 4:45:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Isis and Assad are allies

My understanding is that ISIS came into being to fight ASSAD. Check your facts. Remember that Fox News trucks in bad information.

Then why does Assad oppose bombing ISIS?


Perhaps it's because ISIS is also fighting against Assad's foes? Looks like there is a "Opposite of" Love Triangle thing going on there.

ISIS was fighting against Assad with the Syrian "rebels." Now, the rebels and ISIS are also fighting, while Assad is fighting both.

At least that's the way I understand it.

There were concerns raised about whether or not we armed ISIS when we were sending arms to anti-Assad rebels.

Sorry I missed when we sent arms to anti Assad rebels, doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that I missed it.
Isis went in originally to help Assad but they could easily decided he is in the way of their caliphate.




BamaD -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/17/2014 5:01:16 PM)

FR
I am all for the long term goal of defeating radical Islam by education.
The problem is that as long as there is an environment were anyone going to the schools
or reading the books is literally under a death sentence with ISIS in a position to carry this out the education is impossible.
Yes Naziism was stamped out, as a major force anyway, by education after the war it was necessary to defeat their armies
to be in a position to do the educating. When genocidal extremist are allowed free reign there is no opportunity to educate the people
under their thumb.
Now unless your plan is to sacrifice everyone they are attacking and hope that they can be isolated some action must be taken
against them. You would have to be very idealistic to believe that a sharply worded note will do that. Words will not do that.
If people in the area are willing to fight, as the Kurds are, they should be helped. They got hung out to dry after the first gulf war,
are we to betray them again?




Aylee -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/17/2014 6:22:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Isis and Assad are allies


My understanding is that ISIS came into being to fight ASSAD. Check your facts. Remember that Fox News trucks in bad information.


Well, IS said that they came into being to establish a caliphate to rule over all the Muslims. But what the f&ck do they know? They think they are Islamic as well. [8|]




DesideriScuri -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/17/2014 6:36:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Isis and Assad are allies

My understanding is that ISIS came into being to fight ASSAD. Check your facts. Remember that Fox News trucks in bad information.

Then why does Assad oppose bombing ISIS?

Perhaps it's because ISIS is also fighting against Assad's foes? Looks like there is a "Opposite of" Love Triangle thing going on there.
ISIS was fighting against Assad with the Syrian "rebels." Now, the rebels and ISIS are also fighting, while Assad is fighting both.
At least that's the way I understand it.
There were concerns raised about whether or not we armed ISIS when we were sending arms to anti-Assad rebels.

Sorry I missed when we sent arms to anti Assad rebels, doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that I missed it.
Isis went in originally to help Assad but they could easily decided he is in the way of their caliphate.


http://rt.com/news/164536-syria-rebels-supplied-lethal/

http://rt.com/news/congress-approves-weapons-syria-secretly-270/

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/14/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#As_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant_.282013.E2.80.932014.29
    quote:

    Declaration and dispute with al-Nusra Front
    In March 2011, protests began in Syria against the government of Bashar al-Assad. In the following months, violence between demonstrators and security forces led to a gradual militarisation of the conflict.[283] In August 2011, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi began sending Syrian and Iraqi ISI members, experienced in guerilla warfare, across the border into Syria to establish an organization inside the country. Led by a Syrian known as Abu Muhammad al-Jawlani, the group began to recruit fighters and establish cells throughout the country.[284][285] On 23 January 2012, the group announced its formation as Jabhat al-Nusra li Ahl as-Sham—Jabhat al-Nusra—more commonly known as al-Nusra Front. Al-Nusra grew rapidly into a capable fighting force with popular support among Syrian opposition.[284]

    In April 2013, al-Baghdadi released an audio statement in which he announced that al-Nusra Front had been established, financed and supported by the Islamic State of Iraq[286] and that the two groups were merging under the name "Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham".[91] Al-Jawlani issued a statement denying the merger and complaining that neither he nor anyone else in al-Nusra's leadership had been consulted about it.[287] In June 2013, Al Jazeera reported that it had obtained a letter written by al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, addressed to both leaders, in which he ruled against the merger, and appointed an emissary to oversee relations between them to put an end to tensions.[288] In the same month, al-Baghdadi released an audio message rejecting al-Zawahiri's ruling and declaring that the merger was going ahead.[289] In October 2013, al-Zawahiri ordered the disbanding of ISIS, putting al-Nusra Front in charge of jihadist efforts in Syria,[290] but al-Baghdadi contested al-Zawahiri's ruling on the basis of Islamic jurisprudence,[289] and the group continued to operate in Syria. In February 2014, after an eight-month power struggle, al-Qaeda disavowed any relations with ISIS.[81]

    According to journalist Sarah Birke, there are "significant differences" between al-Nusra Front and ISIS. While al-Nusra actively calls for the overthrow of the Assad government, ISIS "tends to be more focused on establishing its own rule on conquered territory". ISIS is "far more ruthless" in building an Islamic state, "carrying out sectarian attacks and imposing sharia law immediately". While al-Nusra has a "large contingent of foreign fighters", it is seen as a home-grown group by many Syrians; by contrast, ISIS fighters have been described as "foreign 'occupiers'" by many Syrian refugees.[291] It has a strong presence in central and northern Syria, where it has instituted sharia in a number of towns.[291] The group reportedly controlled the four border towns of Atmeh, al-Bab, Azaz and Jarablus, allowing it to control the entrance and exit from Syria into Turkey.[291] Foreign fighters in Syria include Russian-speaking jihadists who were part of Jaish al-Muhajireen wal-Ansar (JMA).[292] In November 2013, the JMA's ethnic Chechen leader Abu Omar al-Shishani swore an oath of allegiance to al-Baghdadi;[293] the group then split between those who followed al-Shishani in joining ISIS and those who continued to operate independently in the JMA under a new leadership.[14]

    In May 2014, al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri ordered al-Nusra Front to stop attacks on its rival ISIS.[31] In June 2014, after continued fighting between the two groups, al-Nusra's branch in the Syrian town of al-Bukamal pledged allegiance to ISIS.


They took up with the opposition to Assad. While it may be debatable as to whether they opposed Assad, or they were more concerned with gaining and holding territory they took in their opposition to Assad, the facts are that they were, and are, opposed to Assad.




BamaD -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/17/2014 6:41:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Isis and Assad are allies


My understanding is that ISIS came into being to fight ASSAD. Check your facts. Remember that Fox News trucks in bad information.


Well, IS said that they came into being to establish a caliphate to rule over all the Muslims. But what the f&ck do they know? They think they are Islamic as well. [8|]

That was a mistype on my part, I meant to say that they went into Syria claiming they were helping Assad. It appears they lied, what a surprise.




BamaD -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/17/2014 6:43:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Isis and Assad are allies

My understanding is that ISIS came into being to fight ASSAD. Check your facts. Remember that Fox News trucks in bad information.

Then why does Assad oppose bombing ISIS?

Perhaps it's because ISIS is also fighting against Assad's foes? Looks like there is a "Opposite of" Love Triangle thing going on there.
ISIS was fighting against Assad with the Syrian "rebels." Now, the rebels and ISIS are also fighting, while Assad is fighting both.
At least that's the way I understand it.
There were concerns raised about whether or not we armed ISIS when we were sending arms to anti-Assad rebels.

Sorry I missed when we sent arms to anti Assad rebels, doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that I missed it.
Isis went in originally to help Assad but they could easily decided he is in the way of their caliphate.


http://rt.com/news/164536-syria-rebels-supplied-lethal/

http://rt.com/news/congress-approves-weapons-syria-secretly-270/

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/14/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#As_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant_.282013.E2.80.932014.29
    quote:

    Declaration and dispute with al-Nusra Front
    In March 2011, protests began in Syria against the government of Bashar al-Assad. In the following months, violence between demonstrators and security forces led to a gradual militarisation of the conflict.[283] In August 2011, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi began sending Syrian and Iraqi ISI members, experienced in guerilla warfare, across the border into Syria to establish an organization inside the country. Led by a Syrian known as Abu Muhammad al-Jawlani, the group began to recruit fighters and establish cells throughout the country.[284][285] On 23 January 2012, the group announced its formation as Jabhat al-Nusra li Ahl as-Sham—Jabhat al-Nusra—more commonly known as al-Nusra Front. Al-Nusra grew rapidly into a capable fighting force with popular support among Syrian opposition.[284]

    In April 2013, al-Baghdadi released an audio statement in which he announced that al-Nusra Front had been established, financed and supported by the Islamic State of Iraq[286] and that the two groups were merging under the name "Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham".[91] Al-Jawlani issued a statement denying the merger and complaining that neither he nor anyone else in al-Nusra's leadership had been consulted about it.[287] In June 2013, Al Jazeera reported that it had obtained a letter written by al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, addressed to both leaders, in which he ruled against the merger, and appointed an emissary to oversee relations between them to put an end to tensions.[288] In the same month, al-Baghdadi released an audio message rejecting al-Zawahiri's ruling and declaring that the merger was going ahead.[289] In October 2013, al-Zawahiri ordered the disbanding of ISIS, putting al-Nusra Front in charge of jihadist efforts in Syria,[290] but al-Baghdadi contested al-Zawahiri's ruling on the basis of Islamic jurisprudence,[289] and the group continued to operate in Syria. In February 2014, after an eight-month power struggle, al-Qaeda disavowed any relations with ISIS.[81]

    According to journalist Sarah Birke, there are "significant differences" between al-Nusra Front and ISIS. While al-Nusra actively calls for the overthrow of the Assad government, ISIS "tends to be more focused on establishing its own rule on conquered territory". ISIS is "far more ruthless" in building an Islamic state, "carrying out sectarian attacks and imposing sharia law immediately". While al-Nusra has a "large contingent of foreign fighters", it is seen as a home-grown group by many Syrians; by contrast, ISIS fighters have been described as "foreign 'occupiers'" by many Syrian refugees.[291] It has a strong presence in central and northern Syria, where it has instituted sharia in a number of towns.[291] The group reportedly controlled the four border towns of Atmeh, al-Bab, Azaz and Jarablus, allowing it to control the entrance and exit from Syria into Turkey.[291] Foreign fighters in Syria include Russian-speaking jihadists who were part of Jaish al-Muhajireen wal-Ansar (JMA).[292] In November 2013, the JMA's ethnic Chechen leader Abu Omar al-Shishani swore an oath of allegiance to al-Baghdadi;[293] the group then split between those who followed al-Shishani in joining ISIS and those who continued to operate independently in the JMA under a new leadership.[14]

    In May 2014, al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri ordered al-Nusra Front to stop attacks on its rival ISIS.[31] In June 2014, after continued fighting between the two groups, al-Nusra's branch in the Syrian town of al-Bukamal pledged allegiance to ISIS.


They took up with the opposition to Assad. While it may be debatable as to whether they opposed Assad, or they were more concerned with gaining and holding territory they took in their opposition to Assad, the facts are that they were, and are, opposed to Assad.


Having done more research since our last exchange I see that there is a 3 sided war going on there. That actually makes more sense than my earlier understanding. Anyone counting on them for help is like the frog that gave the scorpion the ride across the stream.




Lucylastic -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/17/2014 7:19:39 PM)

at least admit you were wrong and it wasnt the fault of your fingers. bloody hell




PeonForHer -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/17/2014 7:30:18 PM)

FR

Al Quaeda are against IS's beheadings.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/08/22/even-al-qaeda-denounced-beheading-videos-why-the-islamic-state-brought-them-back/

Is it now time for the US to be funding and arming Al Quaeda?

If all this stuff weren't so frigging insane it would be hilarious ....





Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.445313E-02