The Politics of ISIS

[Airbrush]

From the Sec of Defense it appears that ISIS is an extraordinary new terrorist threat to the US. Their assets are in the Billions. What does it take to freeze their assets? That kind of funding may buy a nuke. ISIS would not hesitate to destroy all of New York City. They are now attracting extreme jihadis from all over the world.

 

The best way I can figure to disable them and similar terrorist groups is by making them seem too dangerous to join. To infiltrate is a very dangerous job, you can get beheaded for doing it, but only true believers can do this important job. The good, true-believer, Muslims need to INFILTRATE the extremist groups. This will take an acting job and they should be trained by experts to appear like an extremist at heart.

 

You need to get the confidence of your handlers. Next step is find the location for a gathering, excuse yourself, then call in the drone strike on your way to the "rest room". This is serious business. Good Muslims need to get their house in order and ACT (in the spirit of Mohammed) against those who are an embarassment to their religion. It is no longer enough to simply denouce extremism in public.

 

Most people, if not all, can be somewhat delusional about certain things in life. I know I have been delusional about some things, until I could see beyond my delusion. I am probably still delusional about some things without being aware of it. ISIS is an example of people being VERY delusional. In the long term, people who are very delusional will probably not be as effective as people who are not very delusional. Very delusional people are more vulnerable. For example it seems to me that the politics of North Korea are more delusional than the politics of South Korea, and for this reason South Korea is much stronger economically than the North.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Airbrush

[Ten oz]

Drug cartels in Mexico are beheading people in Central America. Plenty of stories about mass graves being found. There have been any number of massacres in Africa the United States chose not to get involved with. Why should ISIS be the United States issue to resolve? By that I am not imply I don't care it just seems that when dealing with the middle east a military response always seems to be the only solution. Why is that. Don't we have relationships in the region? How does Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman, Pakistan, Turkey, Kuwait, and etc feel about ISIS? If they acted it would not nearly be the recruiting tool for ISIS that USA would be.

[Ten oz]

A former rapper fighting with the Islamic State (Isis) in Syria is believed to be one of several British jihadists under investigation following the beheading of James Foley.

 

Abdel-Majed Abdel Bary, 24, was known as L Jinny or Lyricist Jinn at home in London, where his rising music career saw him appear in videos and have his singles played on BBC Radio in 2012.

 

He came to national attention earlier this year, when he posted a picture of himself holding a severed head on Twitter after resurfacing in Syria.

 

The gruesome picture, believed to have been taken in the Isis stronghold of Raqqa, was captioned: “Chillin’ with my homie or what’s left of him.”

 

Bary reportedly travelled to the country last year from Maida Vale, west London, where he lived with his mother and five siblings.

 

His father Adel Abdul Bary, an Egyptian refugee thought to be one of Osama Bin Laden’s closes lieutenants, was extradited from Britain to the United States on charges of terrorism in 2012 for his alleged roles in the bombings of two US embassies in east Africa in 1998.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/james-foley-beheading-london-rapper-turned-jihadist-believed-to-be-under-investigation-for-murder-of-journalist-in-syria-9687216.html

[Airbrush]

Drug cartels in Mexico are beheading people in Central America. Plenty of stories about mass graves being found. There have been any number of massacres in Africa the United States chose not to get involved with. Why should ISIS be the United States issue to resolve? By that I am not imply I don't care it just seems that when dealing with the middle east a military response always seems to be the only solution. Why is that. Don't we have relationships in the region? How does Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman, Pakistan, Turkey, Kuwait, and etc feel about ISIS? If they acted it would not nearly be the recruiting tool for ISIS that USA would be.

 

Because ISIS effectively declared war on the US by that beheading, which was their response to US air strikes in Iraq to help those refugees and secure the dam. The drug cartels are careful to not attack Americans.

 

When a convoy of ISIS, in stolen US armor vehicles and anti-aircraft artilary, are on their way to kill innocents, you need air strikes. Only the US will step up. It is too late for a political solution. Iraq won't get involved because their military is ineffective, and neighboring states won't get involved because the US has habitually done heavy lifting in that area. Evidentally our relationships in the area are not very strong.

 

Yes, if the good 99% of Muslims, that live in the area acted, as I propose by INFILTRATION, the problem of Muslim extremists would be solved very quickly, all over the world. A would-be jihadi is not going to join organizations that are at high risk for infiltration by anti-extremists. So what's the matter with those 99% good Muslims? They need to do something for a change, rather than just public condemnation. But that is a tough job. If you screw up and get caught, you get beheaded after untold torturing. That is why they should be well paid for the job of infiltration, location reporting, and drone strikes.

 

I don't see a problem with air strikes inside Syria, since Asad would be glad for ISIS to be decapitated.

Edited August 24, 2014 by Airbrush

[Ten oz]

@ Airbrush, I don't totally disagree with your post. I just think it is time for a new approach. As linked in post #3 the "terrorist" believed to have killed James Foley was a rapper who grew up in England. His family is from Egypt. He rapped about money and cannabis like all most rappers. That is who a lot of these ISIS guys are. They aren't religious extremists looking to create their own state based on Sharia law. They are stateless criminals who feel disenfranchised. Their goal is violence not Sharia nation building. If the United States fights them in Iraq they with just move to Syria. If the United State follows them into Syria they will move to Afghanistan, then Pakistan, or maybe Iran, etc, etc, etc. Where does it end? If we (USA) could kill every ISIS member would that solve anything or would some other group just fill the void?

Countries like Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Saudi Arabi, Oman, and so on are wealthy. They have thrived from the western world oil addiction. They are protected by the western worlds military. Kuwait would belong to Iraq right now if not for Desert Storm for example. Maybe if we were willing buy less oil. Willing to not always do the heavy lifting. Willing to sacrifice dollars rather than lives we could influence the wealthy countries in the region to care and get involved. I think that is the better long term solution. Anything else and it is just a never ending cycle.

[Airbrush]

I doubt that most ISIS guys are rappers. He is probably the only rapper that ever joined ISIS. Yes they are stateless criminals, but they do take Sharia law seriously and are nation-building a Caliphate. They are all devout, pray 5 times a day, Muslims. They must be because they live communally with other jihadis. You must appear to be a virtuous Muslim to your fellow jihadis.

 

Agreed that as mideast oil loses its' hold on western countries, the wealth of the oil countries will decline.

 

ISIS funding comes from those countries in the area. What's with that? Can't that be cut off?

[Ophiolite]

 

When a convoy of ISIS, in stolen US armor vehicles and anti-aircraft artilary, are on their way to kill innocents, you need air strikes. Only the US will step up.

When you own a hammer every problem looks like a nail. When you own the most expensive, state of the art, hammer in the world, you feel obliged to use it.

 

 

It is too late for a political solution

 

Der Krieg ist eine bloße Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln¹

von Clausewitz

 

 

 

1. War is the mere continuation of politics by other means.

[Ten oz]

@ Airbrush, hindsight being 20/20 what good choices in the Middle East has the United States made in recent history? Was it good to have supported Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran? What about arming and training the Talaban in Afghanistan to help them fight Russia? Same question for our assistance given to Al Quada? Those WMDs Saddam used on his own people so often talked about, yeah the United States gave Saddam those Weapons. Just like the United States gave Pakistan nukes. Has the post 9/11 Afghanistan war been a success? Is Iraq better off now that hey have been liberated from Saddam?

 

I don't mean to complain about or blame the United States. My point is that we keep seeming to find excuses to involve ourselves in the Middle East and I can't really think of examples where it has ever worked out well. one problem gets solved but then 2 more are created. We need a different appoarch. I do not want to see my country back in Iraq full force then pushing in to Syria.

[CaptainPanic]

The USA has only 1 primary goal: To prevent the rise of a nation strong enough to threaten the global domination of the USA. Divide and conquer is therefore the main plan, and it has worked flawlessly. The region is a mess, and they spend most of their energy fighting each other, while in the meantime the oil keeps flowing. The USA never intended to be "good" in the sense that most of us think. But they did surely maintain global dominance. The US has no interest to stop the IS from existing, and it will not even try to completely defeat it.

 

Also, you could argue that a lot of the previous military interventions in the Middle East and Aghanistan only polarized the world more, creating a place for fundamentalists to gain popularity.

 

Any operation against IS will be small scale until some real interests of the US are threatened (oil and gas), and up until that moment, the US will prefer other people to do the fighting. Luckily, it seems that there are plenty of people who are afraid of the IS, so nobody needs to be encouraged to fight the IS, and the US can just look at it from the sideline. Right now, IS threatens mostly some local areas, which means the US would not get sucked into it. Russia is a larger potential threat, and I would be very surprised if the US engages in a large scale conflict in the Middle East, while Russia is flexing its muscles.

 

(And I admit that all of the above is an opinion, and is deduced from all the developments of the last decade. Don't bother asking for citations, because I don't have any. I am not allowed to participate in meetings when the USA discusses its next geopolitical strategy.)

[MigL]

The quote you posted makes a nice bumper sticker Ophiolite, but let's examine it in some detail.

 

At the end of WW2, the Japanese were prepared to fight to the last man to defend their islands. A couple of small nuclear explosions quickly changed their minds, they abandoned their expansionist ambitions and quickly became model citiens of the world. It may have been fear, but they realised what was at stake and what they could lose unless things changed.

 

Now let's apply the lessons of history to the current situation.

Say after 9/11 the US had dropped leaflets, made radio/TV transmissions and even loudspeakers from low flying planes, advising people to leave the area around a large mountain in the next week.They then proceed to drop a large thermonuclear device which levels the mountain leaving a glass lake, and can be seen for hundreds if not thousands of miles. Does anyone doubt that the Taliban and its offshoot ISIS, would have realised what is at stake and abandoned all plans to take the fight to the western world ?

Maybe its time to remind these third world countries just how BIG our hammer really is !

 

Let me say that I don't personally advocate this course of action ( I'm more of an isolationist ), but bring it up to incite discussion ( not arguing and hatred ).

[Ten oz]

The quote you posted makes a nice bumper sticker Ophiolite, but let's examine it in some detail.

 

At the end of WW2, the Japanese were prepared to fight to the last man to defend their islands. A couple of small nuclear explosions quickly changed their minds, they abandoned their expansionist ambitions and quickly became model citiens of the world. It may have been fear, but they realised what was at stake and what they could lose unless things changed.

 

Now let's apply the lessons of history to the current situation.

Say after 9/11 the US had dropped leaflets, made radio/TV transmissions and even loudspeakers from low flying planes, advising people to leave the area around a large mountain in the next week.They then proceed to drop a large thermonuclear device which levels the mountain leaving a glass lake, and can be seen for hundreds if not thousands of miles. Does anyone doubt that the Taliban and its offshoot ISIS, would have realised what is at stake and abandoned all plans to take the fight to the western world ?

Maybe its time to remind these third world countries just how BIG our hammer really is !

 

Let me say that I don't personally advocate this course of action ( I'm more of an isolationist ), but bring it up to incite discussion ( not arguing and hatred ).

The incineration of hundreds of thousands of people in the name of what Japan may have or would've done is the single worst thing humans have ever done. There is a reason why it has never been done again. The suggestion that nuclear weapons could be a solution in the Middle East as a viable topic for discussion is delusional. It defies any regard for human life. Killing an enormous number of people as a means to send others a message is madness.

[Ophiolite]

The quote you posted makes a nice bumper sticker Ophiolite, but let's examine it in some detail.

 

At the end of WW2, the Japanese were prepared to fight to the last man to defend their islands. A couple of small nuclear explosions quickly changed their minds, they abandoned their expansionist ambitions and quickly became model citiens of the world. It may have been fear, but they realised what was at stake and what they could lose unless things changed.

Your idea of detail falls far short of any use of the word I am familiar with.

 

There was active debate within Japan prior to the dropping of the bombs as to how to surrender. While some remained opposed, the main sticking point was the allied demand for unconditional surrender. It is both possible and plausible that surrender could have been arrived at earlier had the allies not been so adamant. The decision to drop the bombs was far more complex than you make out; the situation within Japan was far more complex than you seem to appreciate; and as I drive home from work in my Japanese car, to prepare a quick meal in my Japanese micro-wave, imported on a Japanese shipping line, I wonder what I shall watch on my Japanese TV and ponder just exactly where you think they abandoned their expansionist ambitions. Metamorphosis is not a sub-set of abandonment.

 

Now let's apply the lessons of history to the current situation.

Say after 9/11 the US had dropped leaflets, made radio/TV transmissions and even loudspeakers from low flying planes, advising people to leave the area around a large mountain in the next week.They then proceed to drop a large thermonuclear device which levels the mountain leaving a glass lake, and can be seen for hundreds if not thousands of miles. Does anyone doubt that the Taliban and its offshoot ISIS, would have realised what is at stake and abandoned all plans to take the fight to the western world ?

Maybe its time to remind these third world countries just how BIG our hammer really is !

Well, since you like details, should you not pay heed that we are not dealing with a country, we are dealing with a movement, or rather a complex of movements, and prejudices, and tribal hostilities, and decade old political manipulations, and not a Third World Country we can conveniently bomb. Or, were you just going to ignore the collateral damage?

 

Follow the ludicrous policy you propose and you won't have a bunch of scared fundamentalists, you will have an outraged world citizenry. Good luck with that!

[CharonY]

The quote you posted makes a nice bumper sticker Ophiolite, but let's examine it in some detail.

 

At the end of WW2, the Japanese were prepared to fight to the last man to defend their islands. A couple of small nuclear explosions quickly changed their minds, they abandoned their expansionist ambitions and quickly became model citiens of the world. It may have been fear, but they realised what was at stake and what they could lose unless things changed.

 

 

.

 

In addition to what Ophiolite said, the Japanese were hoping to broker a peace with the US via the Soviets. But the invasion of Manchuria and the destruction of the largest military unit that the Japanese still had shattered that hope. Considering that the previous firebombing that occurred over Japan were far more devastating than the atomic bombs, the narrative of atomic bombs as a direct route to peace is at best misleading (and a lousy bumpersticker to boot).

[MigL]

I see your point Ophiolite, just as Germany has finally conquered Europe with the euro.

However Ten oz, as CharonY has stated, the fire bombings which were in vogue at the time managed to kill a lot more people than either of the two nuclear explosions. Dresden comes to mind.

I would think that the destructive power displayed by the individual atomic weapons is what changed Japanese general's minds.

And as I've stated, this would be a pure display of power, a massive explosion of a mountain after all or most people have been warned to evacuate.

I would almost think of it as a way to save lives. Discourage the enemy without the multitude of regular airstrikes or soldiers on the ground which always lead to collateral casualties.

[Ten oz]

Dwight Eisenhower

"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

 

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

 

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

 

In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

 

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

 

- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63

 

 

~~~ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY

(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)

 

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

 

"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

 

- William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.

 

 

http://www2.vcdh.virginia.edu/HIUS316/mbase/docs/quotes.htm

 

 

@ MigL, you are stating as fact things regarding USA's use of atom weapons on Japan that are not true. This thread is not the appropriate one to debate the reasons for bombing Japan and what it did and or did not accomplished.

If the United States used Nuclear weapons today against ISIS we (USA) would be in violation of many international treaties and be war criminals.

[MigL]

No ten oz, you keep bringing up Japan, which I used in my original post as an example.

A valid one in many people's minds. You brought up two dissenting opinions, along with yours.

Would it not be better to address points I made in post #14 and debate what is appropriate ?

[CharonY]

 

I would think that the destructive power displayed by the individual atomic weapons is what changed Japanese general's minds

 

This is just an assertion with little evidence. In fact, many generals and other military leaders were more than willing to continue. Depending on which scholar you ask, the atomic bomb provided various degrees of leverage for the emperor to call in a surrender (and even then there were mutinies). But most would agree that it was but one of the many aspects. And some would also argue that it was completely unnecessary after the invasion of the Soviets. As others are trying to explain, these events are massively complicated and simple cause-effect type of reasoning are almost always wrong.

Edited August 26, 2014 by CharonY

[MigL]

I beg to differ, you just provided the evidence...

 

" Depending on which scholar you ask, the atomic bomb provided various degrees of leverage for the emperor to call in a surrender"

 

Or were you lying when you stated the above ?

But lets get back on topic...

There are two things that prevent war, and they don't involve good will or intentions because we are warlike animals.

They are deterrence and the brutality of war.

 

Deterrence can be summerized as 'the consequences of your actions are much worse than the actions you perpetrate', i.e. the fear of the reprisal. After all if you steal $500 and the proportional consequence is a fine of $500, there is no deterrence. People do it all the time in Vegas; its called gambling.

 

The need for brutality in war was driven home by an episode of the original Star Trek, where two worlds had been having a 'neat' war for a thousand years. The strikes were computer generated and targeted people reported to disintegration chambers. There was no mess, no blood, no destruction and no need to end it. Nobody likes a brutal, messy war and will go to great lengths to avoid it or end it. Like the allies' reluctance to face Hitler after the brutality of WW1 ( again just an example, I don't intend to discuss Chamberlin and Hitler ).

 

And again this is just for discussion, but maybe the arab world needs to see what their actions could result in and the brutality which we are capable of.

And I'm not saying this is a viable or the only solution, but at least I'm exploring one option instead of just bit**ing and moaning that there isn't anything that can be done like a lot of members of this forum.

[CaptainPanic]

[...]

Deterrence can be summerized as 'the consequences of your actions are much worse than the actions you perpetrate', i.e. the fear of the reprisal. After all if you steal $500 and the proportional consequence is a fine of $500, there is no deterrence. [...]

 

Indeed. And there's your problem. Several nations (Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Palestine to name a few) have had severe economic setbacks through warfare in the past already. So, these people have little left to lose, and may gain more by war. Their potential gains are related to both money (e.g. income from oil) and power. Their potential losses are small (they do not own much) and if they lose their life, they will be a martyr. Also, the risk of losing your life is not that great. Hundreds may die in battles, but armies in the region measure many thousands. Simple statistics. I don't think that the US wants to bomb them all into obvlivion (although I think some individuals have enough hatred to want this).

 

And again this is just for discussion, but maybe the arab world needs to see what their actions could result in and the brutality which we are capable of.

And I'm not saying this is a viable or the only solution, but at least I'm exploring one option instead of just bit**ing and moaning that there isn't anything that can be done like a lot of members of this forum.

 

First of all, it is not as if the entire Arab world is at war with you or your country. The IS is at war with its neighbors, and lots of innocent civilians and a few Westerners were caught in it. I am not entirely sure it is up to the Western world to respond. That is not a matter of "moaning" or something like that. That is a matter of giving the right response to the situation. It is a calculated response.

 

They already have little left to lose. Bombing them some more will only create more hatred and feelings of revenge, while it is not clear to me what the actual strategic purpose of it would have. It would obviously temporarily satisfy some feelings of revenge of some people in the Western nations... but only fools let such feelings guide their geopolitical responses to a crisis. Luckily, the US no longer has such a fool in power.

[Ophiolite]

I beg to differ, you just provided the evidence...

 

" Depending on which scholar you ask, the atomic bomb provided various degrees of leverage for the emperor to call in a surrender"

 

Or were you lying when you stated the above ?

No one has argued that the dropping of the atomic bombs had no effect on the Japanese readiness to surrender. We are asserting that the Japanese would have surrendered without it. This assertion, unlike yours, is acknowledged by the vast majority of scholars who have studied the issue. Indeed the only place I see support for your argument is in the repetition of the US government line of the time, to the extent that the explanation - it save American lives - has become the equivalent of an urban legend.

 

But lets get back on topic...

There are two things that prevent war, and they don't involve good will or intentions because we are warlike animals.

They are deterrence and the brutality of war.

You really do favour oversimplification!"

 

You don't think wealth and attractive living standards encourage the avoidance of wars? There are still large animosities present in Europe, but no one would be crazy enough to start a war, because we'd likely lose our satellite TV and imported Bulgarian wine. (And that too is a gross oversimplification, but the point remains valid.)

 

 

Deterrence can be summerized as 'the consequences of your actions are much worse than the actions you perpetrate', i.e. the fear of the reprisal. After all if you steal $500 and the proportional consequence is a fine of $500, there is no deterrence. People do it all the time in Vegas; its called gambling.

What exactly is your plan for deterring suicide bombers and psychopaths? If your plan does not work on them it is pointless.

 

 

 

And again this is just for discussion, but maybe the arab world needs to see what their actions could result in and the brutality which we are capable of.

And I'm not saying this is a viable or the only solution, but at least I'm exploring one option instead of just bit**ing and moaning that there isn't anything that can be done like a lot of members of this forum.

Which forum members in this discussion have said nothing can be done? Be specific and please quote their precise words, in context.

 

Or were you lying when you said that? (See how inane using a comment like that is?)

[Airbrush]

"Say after 9/11 the US had dropped leaflets, made radio/TV transmissions and even loudspeakers from low flying planes, advising people to leave the area around a large mountain in the next week.They then proceed to drop a large thermonuclear device which levels the mountain leaving a glass lake, and can be seen for hundreds if not thousands of miles. Does anyone doubt that the Taliban and its offshoot ISIS, would have realised what is at stake and abandoned all plans to take the fight to the western world ?

Maybe its time to remind these third world countries just how BIG our hammer really is !

 

Let me say that I don't personally advocate this course of action ( I'm more of an isolationist ), but bring it up to incite discussion ( not arguing and hatred )."

 

Yes I doubt using a nuke in the middle east will have any negative effect upon ISIS or any other terrorist group. That will only encourage recruitment of moderate Muslims to a just cause against the "Great Satan".

 

"How BIG our hammer is" sounds ludicrous! We are trying to emphasize how ACCURATE our hammer is. Maybe that is what you meant.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Airbrush

[Ten oz]

Intimidation as a forgien policy is childish. It only creates angry and a desire to become as stronger or stronger than ones enemies whomever they are. America has had the biggest stick for sometime now and it hasnt kept us (USA) out of many conflicts yet.

[Ophiolite]

Indeed, one could argue that the possession of the stick is what has got the US into those conflicts.

[CharonY]

One could also argue that terrorism is a response to someone with a much bigger stick. Trying to discourage that by wielding an even bigger stick seems like the definition of insanity.

[MigL]

But, in response to members who have said 'these people have very little to lose', the actual leaders of ISIS ( like the Taliban ) are wealthy and have studied abroad. They have plenty to lose ( or bin Laden wouldn't have hid as long as he did ).

They do not do the fighting, but convince regular people 'who have little to lose', to drive explosive filled cars into check points, to kill their own and die for martyrdom, and to reclaim a state that ended long ago ).

They are modern day Hitlers who can rally a misfortunate population to their own sick and misguided cause.

They rally this population by lies and shows of power and brutality, such as beheadings, public executions and the willingness to die for a cause ( always others though, the leaders hide in rat-holes ).

 

The majority of members think it unwise, but I thought our own 'show of power' ( yes a very big hammer, not an accurate one ), might challenge the influence ISIS has over these people. I thought it was worth discussing but defer to your collective opinion.