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

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

81% Of Al Jazeera Arabic Poll Respondents Support ISIS

Isn't that just lovely!

In a recent survey conducted by AlJazeera.net, the website for the Al Jazeera Arabic television channel, respondents overwhelmingly support the Islamic State terrorist group, with 81% voting “YES” on whether they approved of ISIS’s conquests in the region.

SHOCK POLL: 81% Of Al Jazeera Arabic Poll Respondents Support Islamic State - Breitbart

Perhaps it was due to the way the question was framed. The actual question asked was "Do you consider the advance of Islamic State in Iraq and Syria be a benefit to the region?" Yes / No



aljazeera.net/votes

Perhaps the results would have been different if the question was, "Do you support the Islamic State terrorist group?"


.

Maybe the question should have been.

"Do you believe we should improve our head chopping skills to match the ISIS guys and should we sell Compilation CDs?"

Originally Posted by Neverna

Perhaps it was due to the way the question was framed. The actual question asked was "Do you consider the advance of Islamic State in Iraq and Syria be a benefit to the region?" Yes / No

Good point. Considering that average people are, eh, how to say it without offending anyone - eh, anyways some percentage of respondents may have considered it as a question something like is it good that Islamic states thrive in region, which, being Moslem they would of course support. Perhaps some have been on camel caravan or something for a few years and haven't even heard of ISIS.

But still the response is quite worrying.

Originally Posted by Neverna

Perhaps the results would have been different if the question was, "Do you support the Islamic State terrorist group?"

So the question is, what's the agenda of Al Jazeera here? For designing the question this way?

Originally Posted by Exit Strategy

So the question is, what's the agenda of Al Jazeera here? For designing the question this way?

IMO they had no agenda, they asked a clear question (and that question was NOT about whther people supported IS) and Breitbart knew full well that hardly anybody would notice if Breitbart played silly buggers and deliberately misinterpreted the response. I'm pretty sure that they knew most people would like the false interpretation so much that they would have no interest at all in finding out what was really asked.

There is no reason to believe that answering yes to the question that was actually asked means people support IS. It's like asking which is better, malaria or HIV? Both are pretty bad but most people have a fairly good idea which they'd rather have. Saying you'd rather have malaria than HIV is not the same as saying you want to infect everyone with malaria.

It was Breitbart made that assumption, presumably because they knew it would attract lots of people to their site and they knew, as all journalists and politicians know, that most people would just lap it up and maybe only 1 in 1000 would actually bother to check whether it was true or not.

Originally Posted by Neverna

Perhaps the results would have been different if the question was, "Do you support the Islamic State terrorist group?"

I'm sure they would. Odd that people should just believe what they read on a news site without even bothering to check the original source of that news, isn't it?

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Odd that people should just believe what they read on a news site without even bothering to check the original source of that news, isn't it?

Unfortunately a large number of people do even when the source can be checked fairly easily. I guess it's mainly laziness - and I'm not immune to that same laziness myself at times.

Some pragmatism is emerging from the US of A.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32950900

IS conflict: Petraeus urges Iraq to use politics to win

Ex-CIA Director David Petraeus has told the BBC that Islamic State militants can only be defeated through a dual military and political approach.

"Industrial-strength" extremists cannot be dealt with "just with force of arms", he said in a rare interview.

Gen Petraeus described the group as "a formidable enemy".

Originally Posted by Neverna

Some pragmatism is emerging from the US of A.

IS conflict: Petraeus urges Iraq to use politics to win - BBC News

IS conflict: Petraeus urges Iraq to use politics to win

Ex-CIA Director David Petraeus has told the BBC that Islamic State militants can only be defeated through a dual military and political approach.

"Industrial-strength" extremists cannot be dealt with "just with force of arms", he said in a rare interview.

Gen Petraeus described the group as "a formidable enemy".

Use politics to win a war of ideology.
It's as though he REALLY doesn't understand.
Which of course he doesn't. To use a jeffism, his western centric viewpoint makes it immpossible to truely come to grips with the situation.
"Use politics to win"

A rambling interview with allegedly one of the "terrorist" Syrian organisations.

Syria Comment » Archives "Abu Mohammed al-Golani's Aljazeera Interview" by Aron Lund - Syria Comment

Originally Posted by Neverna

It depends on what he means by "Use politics to win".

Does he mean use politics to reduce or remove support from countries that may be supportive of IS?

Or does he mean get more Sunni Iraqis to support the government rather than IS?

Or does he mean negotiate with IS?

If it's the latter, it would seem to be a loss rather than a 'win'.


.

Bingo.


Nice avatar.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Made stronger, no doubt, by the "aid" freely given by the crusader coalition.

You speak so much about these "crusaders", who in another thread you refer as "Anglo-Saxon oppressors" of something like that. So what is your problem if someone wants to help to return/bring democracy or at least closest possible relative to a region? There are democratic countries in region, this is not racial issue.

I see that there are thousands of you europeans fighting on the ISIS side, nice way to rape village girls? With social security coming to their bank account from their sick euro societies, you can buy lots of "stuff" with that there. This is your way you have chosen, but don't expect it to last too long. Many countries will have your passport either invalidated or you will meet the police at the airport after you thought you were safely back "home" after immigration.

Originally Posted by Exit Strategy

So what is your problem if someone wants to help to return/bring democracy or at least closest possible relative to a region?

Oh, and steal their oil (it used to be spice).
And carve up their territory to suit the "helpers".
If you think we went in there to "bring democracy to the region", you really are out of the modern geo-politics loop.

Originally Posted by MrG

you really are out of the modern geo-politics loop

Equally, I can tell you really are out of the modern geo-politics loop

Originally Posted by Exit Strategy

Originally Posted by MrG

you really are out of the modern geo-politics loop

Equally, I can tell you really are out of the modern geo-politics loop

Firstly, you are infantile, secondly you are wrong

Originally Posted by Koojo

Originally Posted by Neverna

Some pragmatism is emerging from the US of A.

IS conflict: Petraeus urges Iraq to use politics to win - BBC News

IS conflict: Petraeus urges Iraq to use politics to win

Ex-CIA Director David Petraeus has told the BBC that Islamic State militants can only be defeated through a dual military and political approach.

"Industrial-strength" extremists cannot be dealt with "just with force of arms", he said in a rare interview.

Gen Petraeus described the group as "a formidable enemy".

Use politics to win a war of ideology.
It's as though he REALLY doesn't understand.
Which of course he doesn't. To use a jeffism, his western centric viewpoint makes it immpossible to truely come to grips with the situation.
"Use politics to win"

But it is a fact that the Sunnis in Iraq are supporting what they see as the lesser Evil.

And they are probably right

Therefore politics is needed in Iraq.

Or ? Let the de facto civil war continue ?

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by Exit Strategy

So what is your problem if someone wants to help to return/bring democracy or at least closest possible relative to a region?

Oh, and steal their oil (it used to be spice).
And carve up their territory to suit the "helpers".
If you think we went in there to "bring democracy to the region", you really are out of the modern geo-politics loop.

"and steal their oil "?
Wikipedia: "Syria is a relatively small oil producer, accounting for just 0.5 percent of the global production in 2010"

Would not cover the cost of the campaign.

"And carve up their territory to suit the "helpers""

In what way? Are you seriously thinking US and UK and other members of international coalition would invade the country and set up "colonies" there?

Originally Posted by Exit Strategy

In what way? Are you seriously thinking US and UK and other members of international coalition would invade the country and set up "colonies" there?

Pay attention. I said their oil, not their land.

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by Exit Strategy

You are minor contributor - I'd compare you to a mosquito - but your crap makes even visiting this site unpleasant.

Then why don't you go somewhere else, "Mr. Major Contributor". Whose company does that put you in? And how do you make the distinction between major and minor, anyway?

Are you same person as one posting as OckerRocker or why you keep responding for him? And you misunderstood quite a many things - perhaps you have had more pints than me. "Contributor" here did not refer to his/your contribution to this board, but it contributed to my attitude turning darker. I know I said earlier you have not contributed much to this board, perhaps that was unfair not having read all your posts, sorry about that.

I was happy as a lark when I logged in, but reading all this shi0te, personal attacks all around and crap actually made me feel bad. I like many threads about whatever like travel threads, house building, etc where people are usually nice and content is good. But I like to read news threads because there are important issues there.

If you are not a shareholder in company running this show, you would not care, but I would say this is important issue if this board wants to survive. If you drive away anyone who does not think your way, there will be only few left in the end and no ad or sponsorship income.

As for the Shakespeare quote ...jam it into,,,, as I said, it is a literary quote. Not actually by Shakespeare, I give you that, but by Justin Theroux I believe (nephew of Paul Theroux, if you have heard of literature - I have most of his books)

It's from movie Tropic Thunder (recommended), clip which I post when I am especially annoyed about something:

So, Flaming Dragon, I'm Les Grossman



Got the message?

Another literary quote from clip above: Now I want you to take a step back... AND LITERALLY FKUC YOU OWN FACE!

Tropic Thunder (2008) - IMDb

Originally Posted by Exit Strategy

This is not a threat in any legal way but a literary quote (Shakespeare, or not): I'll snap your dick off and jam it into your ass if you keep trolling and stalking me.

Well, now you've revealed yourself. I do believe your skin is too thin for this town, drifter. There's a place for you at TV.[/QUOTE]

So what we got this PH character instead of the other multi-nick he had. Same-o, same-o.

On topic: What will it take to get rid of ISIS? Well, don't feel bad all you Obama Lapboys. Even your hero doesn't have a clue. Not that he ever had one to begin with but that's another story.

Semi-retired president: We … don’t have a complete strategy against ISIS yet.

State Department official and ISIS expert Brett McGurk laid that out on NPR: “It’s a three-year campaign to degrade the organization.”

Three years marked from mid-2014, of course, falls after Jan. 20, 2017, the date Obama leaves office.

Translation: The strategy is to avoid sending ground troops for the remainder of his term. So stop asking.

This is a legacy issue for Obama, an actual red line. Iraq is already in the win column and only becomes a loss if he listens to Republican advice and orders combat troops to return, the White House thinking goes.

Obama?s Red Line: No Ground Troops - NationalJournal.com

What a Loser...

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Translation: The strategy is to avoid sending ground troops for the remainder of his term. So stop asking.

Correct, only Republican cowards want to sit and hide and send other peoples' children to their deaths fighting someone else's war.

The best strategy is being played out.

Support both sides and let them blow the shit out of each other.