Thread: What Will It Take To Get Rid Of ISIS?

Originally Posted by OhOh

The Hezbollah guy in Lebanon has called exactly for the Arab world to unite against ISIS/DESHA/..........

Hezbollah Secretary General Nasrallah: ?The game is over in Syria? | The Vineyard of the Saker

It's long and rambling, but the statement is there.

Thanks for that, OhOh. A fascinating read.

Interesting to note that Nasrallah uses the term takfiri to describe ISIL/daesh - Takfiri - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nasrallah also seems to be saying that Arab and Muslim countries should put their differences aside and unite against IS. I wonder if they will.

Originally Posted by Neverna

Nasrallah also seems to be saying that Arab and Muslim countries should put their differences aside and unite against IS. I wonder if they will.

As soon as it snows in Qatar in August . . .

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by Norton

A good start. Then have the international news agencies stop their constant broadcasting of IS atrocities. Just what IS wants. Get's the nutters all worked up.

Shure.

Then what? They go on chopping heads whilly nilly?

W/out the presentation upon the word's stage re the atrocities they won't have any
conpulsion to not chop away whenever. Remember, we're living in the world of Twitter, Snapcheck etc. This isn't contained or spun ala Walter Concrite, Dan Rathers etc.

So then you have to make a conscious decision to commit to total war, and re-establishing imperial rule over these backwaters, and enforcing law and order. It's like pregancy - you're either all the way in or all the way out.

Lefties obviously don't want war, but the world benefits from a really good war... cull the population, reorganise things, and lots of innovation happens... not to mention it reminds people of what's important, and fosters unity.

...but you can't run a successful campaign with a constant running commentary from the media, and the threat of legal action against soldiers for fog of war incidents. The media are complicit in ISIS, they are a function of which ISIS is the output, and need to be temporarily muzzled to fix this problem (as happened in WWII).

War will not rid the world of ISIS, as has previously been explained. Armed conflict, in this case, will only slow the advance of ISIS domination. My preference would be to have a less destructive solution. I would also prefer any confict be muslim against muslim as it has been for thousands of years.

IS or some form of it exists in every Islamic country.
All it take for fundamentalist Islam to rise and begin fighting is the absence of suppression.
No power vacuum, no IS.

The comment "or some form", is a pretty broad statement. It is also a theory that every Islamic country contains ISIS counterparts. We need more specific facts to validate your thought that a power vacuum would end IS.

Originally Posted by Necron99

No power vacuum, no IS.

Quite right.

If ISIS or some other extremist group were to try to overthrow a government from within, SA, Qatar, Kuwait, Malaysia etc... they would be rotting in jail.

Give them a lawless area and they will cause havoc . . . irrespective of how well someone like the so-called Iraqi amy is armed and trained

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

The comment "or some form", is a pretty broad statement. It is also a theory that every Islamic country contains ISIS counterparts. We need more specific facts to validate your thought that a power vacuum would end IS.

Boko Haram, MILF, IS, South Thailand, they (Fundamentalist Muslims who will use extreme violence to secure their Islamic state are everywhere.
Libya was fine under Ghadaffi, take him away and it's a basket case, same with Saddam and Iraq. Weaken Assad by supporting rebels and look what's happened...
Give Egypt democracy and what did they do?
There is a reason the only relatively successful countries in the area are ruled by Despots who will not brook a sliver of dissent.

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

War will not rid the world of ISIS, as has previously been explained. Armed conflict, in this case, will only slow the advance of ISIS domination. My preference would be to have a less destructive solution. I would also prefer any confict be muslim against muslim as it has been for thousands of years.

And when the one Muslim faction wins out against the other and turns it's agression towards the west, what then?

And by the way, what would your 'less destructive solution' be?

Originally Posted by Koojo

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

War will not rid the world of ISIS, as has previously been explained. Armed conflict, in this case, will only slow the advance of ISIS domination. My preference would be to have a less destructive solution. I would also prefer any confict be muslim against muslim as it has been for thousands of years.

And when the one Muslim faction wins out against the other and turns it's agression towards the west, what then?

And by the way, what would your 'less destructive solution' be?

What makes you so sure the winning Muslim faction will turn its aggression toward the west?

As has already been mentioned, Muslim talking to Muslim does not always mean they have to go to war against each other.

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

Originally Posted by Koojo

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

War will not rid the world of ISIS, as has previously been explained. Armed conflict, in this case, will only slow the advance of ISIS domination. My preference would be to have a less destructive solution. I would also prefer any confict be muslim against muslim as it has been for thousands of years.

And when the one Muslim faction wins out against the other and turns it's agression towards the west, what then?

And by the way, what would your 'less destructive solution' be?

What makes you so sure the winning Muslim faction will turn its aggression toward the west?

As has already been mentioned, Muslim talking to Muslim does not always mean they have to go to war against each other.

Because the west supports the stable moderate Islamic states. The states they will want to add to their Caliphate.

You are assuming the stable moderate islamic states will not be the muslim faction that comes out on top.

The deed has been accomplished right under our noses.

Another series of boggiemen created, and we continue to debate about good and evil, just as they want us to.

Originally Posted by Neverna

Originally Posted by OhOh

The Hezbollah guy in Lebanon has called exactly for the Arab world to unite against ISIS/DESHA/..........

Hezbollah Secretary General Nasrallah: ?The game is over in Syria? | The Vineyard of the Saker

It's long and rambling, but the statement is there.

Thanks for that, OhOh. A fascinating read.

Interesting to note that Nasrallah uses the term takfiri to describe ISIL/daesh - Takfiri - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nasrallah also seems to be saying that Arab and Muslim countries should put their differences aside and unite against IS. I wonder if they will.

They will have to if they really want to either put an end to ISIS or fold them into the large entity known as the Muslim nation. I personally have found that Muslims are not the easiest to deal with when it means a concession or two is needed by one or more of the partys.

I would hope this putting of differences aside can work. If it doesn't we all could be in for quite a long and wild ride.

Originally Posted by OhOh

The Hezbollah guy in Lebanon has called exactly for the Arab world to unite against ISIS/DESHA/..........

Hezbollah Secretary General Nasrallah: ?The game is over in Syria? | The Vineyard of the Saker

It's long and rambling, but the statement is there.

Because Hezbollah is Shiite.

^ So's the weather. S'posed to be Spring

Originally Posted by Pound Hound

Miss You big time, You fought Iran, in a context of Europe's WW1 madness because the west controlled your mind.
West sold you arms big time, and Russia supplied the other side, haven't we been here before.
You are a Martyr of Western deception , and now they follow You, in death Ba'ath Party .
How did Bush get this so wrong.

Which Bush?

Bush the second just wanted to finish what his father started while seeking some revenge for 9/11 at the same time.

I hope you are right about the Kurds.

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

Bush the second just wanted to finish what his father started while seeking some revenge for 9/11 at the same time.

Neither of those reasons makes any sense- GHW Bush deliberately left things the way he did, not because of any inability to finish what he started. As for 9/11, that's just silly. Maybe if they had invaded Saudi. . . Dubya was an incompetent fool (unlike his old man) caught up in Uncle Dick's wet dream, but OT in any case.

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

I hope you are right about the Kurds.

Kurdish troops cut off ISIS supply route; fears mount for 90 kidnapped Christians - Middle East - Israel News | Haaretz
Kurdish militia pressed a big offensive against Islamic State in northeast Syria on Wednesday, cutting one of its supply lines from Iraq, as fears mounted for dozens of Christians abducted by the hardline group that recently beheaded 21 Egyptian Copts.
---
In the battle for Tikrit, ISIS is finding itself up against Qassim Suleimani. If the US played this smart they could offer support while leaning on Suleimani/Iran to ensure that Shia militias refrain from reprisals against Sunnis in exchange for air support. Going to have to work with Iran again for this to work, just as the US leaned on Iran in Afghanistan, with great success (and which the Americans seemed to forget, just as they leaned on Russia in Afghanistan). The Saudis won't like it and neither will Likud, but so what?

OK, let's just say GWB went to war with Iraq because he could.

It will be interesting to see what happens in Tikrit. So far it seems to be moving slowly and ISIS is said to be well dug in.