[Delwin]

Has everyone lost their marbles ? Lets do the math for a second. First off, their are about 1.57 billion Muslims in the world according to wiki, I don't feel like sourcing. Consider the fact ISIS has an army of 50 k in Iraq and Syria. Also consider the fact that Most of those responsible in this attack (and others) are residents of the respective countries they have attacked. This equates to 0.00003 of their population. You are proposing that your attempt to eliminate this group, by any means necessary, would not have the potential to trigger animosity among the 44 million Muslims in Europe and another 5 million in North America.

If your actions result in just one percent of the Muslims in Europe and North America to strongly object, you have created 490k new enemies, or 9 times the force in Iraq and Syria, embedded in western countries.

Don't get me wrong, if your aim is to create new enemies, it sounds like well thought out policy. However, if your goal is to actual eliminate the threat to your safety, it is not sound policy.

Also consider that 1% of the total Muslim population is 15.7 Million about four times larger than the largest standing army in the world.

[andyt]

Delwin Delwin:

Has everyone lost their marbles ? Lets do the math for a second. First off, their are about 1.57 billion Muslims in the world according to wiki, I don't feel like sourcing. Consider the fact ISIS has an army of 50 k in Iraq and Syria. Also consider the fact that Most of those responsible in this attack (and others) are residents of the respective countries they have attacked. This equates to 0.00003 of their population. You are proposing that your attempt to eliminate this group, by any means necessary, would not have the potential to trigger animosity among the 44 million Muslims in Europe and another 5 million in North America.

If your actions result in just one percent of the Muslims in Europe and North America to strongly object, you have created 490k new enemies, or 9 times the force in Iraq and Syria, embedded in western countries.

Don't get me wrong, if your aim is to create new enemies, it sounds like well thought out policy. However, if your goal is to actual eliminate the threat to your safety, it is not sound policy.

Also consider that 1% of the total Muslim population is 15.7 Million about four times larger than the largest standing army in the world.

Yep. Fortunately these are just armchair psychopaths, and our leaders don't seem to have lost their heads yet. But this sort of reaction is exactly what ISIS is aiming for -stirring us up against the Muslims, which in turn radicalizes more and more of them. We may win that final conflict, but it would get very very ugly for both sides in the mean time. And democracy will be the first victim. Or is that truth?

[BRAH]

andyt andyt:

Delwin Delwin:

Has everyone lost their marbles ? Lets do the math for a second. First off, their are about 1.57 billion Muslims in the world according to wiki, I don't feel like sourcing. Consider the fact ISIS has an army of 50 k in Iraq and Syria. Also consider the fact that Most of those responsible in this attack (and others) are residents of the respective countries they have attacked. This equates to 0.00003 of their population. You are proposing that your attempt to eliminate this group, by any means necessary, would not have the potential to trigger animosity among the 44 million Muslims in Europe and another 5 million in North America.

If your actions result in just one percent of the Muslims in Europe and North America to strongly object, you have created 490k new enemies, or 9 times the force in Iraq and Syria, embedded in western countries.

Don't get me wrong, if your aim is to create new enemies, it sounds like well thought out policy. However, if your goal is to actual eliminate the threat to your safety, it is not sound policy.

Also consider that 1% of the total Muslim population is 15.7 Million about four times larger than the largest standing army in the world.

Yep. Fortunately these are just armchair psychopaths, and our leaders don't seem to have lost their heads yet. But this sort of reaction is exactly what ISIS is aiming for -stirring us up against the Muslims, which in turn radicalizes more and more of them. We may win that final conflict, but it would get very very ugly for both sides in the mean time. And democracy will be the first victim. Or is that truth?

Takes one to know one.

[andyt]

good one. Everything you need to know you learned in kindergarten?

[BRAH]

andyt andyt:

good one. Everything you need to know you learned in kindergarten?

Yep and he was my teacher anymore questions?

[N_Fiddledog]

xerxes xerxes:

My buddy and I were discussing this last night and he made a good point (at least I thought so):

Let's say we (the West) bomb the piss out of ISIS. What exactly will that accomplish? Sure, we'll kill a good number of them and their things. But does that really affect their menace? Would it stop young people from the West going over to Syria to fight for them? It doesn't help the people from whom ISIS is an actual threat. It's pure catharsis on our part.

Does it make us safer? It won't stop people from self-radicalising on the Internet.

What you don't do is allow those who would corrupt them freedom to do so.

For example, this is what you don't do. You don't encourage this.

$1:

BEDFORD, United Kingdom – As the distressing attacks in Paris were occurring last night, some of Britain’s most high profile and notorious Islamist extremists gathered just north of London, unimpeded, to tell hundreds of British Muslims to “struggle” for an “Islamic State.”

Tolerating that is the road to Dhimmitude.

Now I'm told people like that don't represent all of Islam. Or at least that was the story. Now the story seems to be if you educate the Islamo-fascists you're declaring war on all of Islam.

Make up your minds. Are the Islamo-fascists representative of all of Islam, or aren't they?

Cause if they aren't wipe em out until they don't have a voice or know better than to use it.

If they are then, are we their Dhimmis then, because there's too many of them? I don't agree, but I want to know where the line is with you where you're willing to "pay the jizya and accept submission".

[andyt]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

$1:

BEDFORD, United Kingdom – As the distressing attacks in Paris were occurring last night, some of Britain’s most high profile and notorious Islamist extremists gathered just north of London, unimpeded, to tell hundreds of British Muslims to “struggle” for an “Islamic State.”

Tolerating that is the road to Dhimmitude.

If we really are at war, this sort of shit may well be shut down. I sure hope we can find our way back where it once again is tolerated and becomes no big deal again. If not the terrorists will have won as we traded our liberty for security that we don't then deserve. It seems a determined enemy can force you to take on the very traits that you are fighting. Well, we did it after WWII, so I guess there' hope.

[Jabberwalker]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

Don't insult Conservatives by saying that they read and believe newspapers with pictures of dead aliens at the head.

Wait a minute. You were serious about that? The only alien on the home page of the express was Doctor Who. You do know he's not real, right?

Go back to the original link and look at the masthead on the Daily Express. The Alien is gone and has been replaced by the Mafia hitman who shot JFK and the Antarctic UFO mystery. Tomrrow, it will be the two headed dog who quotes Shakespeare.... the magic of an on-line tabloid. Close it then hit the link and open it, again and enjoy some other outrageous story. Ahh, the Alien is back again on the third try!

The terrorist could very well be a Syrian refugee but quoting such a dodgy source sort of weakens the argument.


Here it is:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/619 ... t-official

[ShepherdsDog]

As pointed out, the Syrian passport story has been carried by several msm outlets.

[N_Fiddledog]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

Go back to the original link and look at the masthead on the Daily Express. The Alien is gone and has been replaced by the Mafia hitman who shot JFK and the Antarctic UFO mystery. Tomrrow, it will be the two headed dog who quotes Shakespeare.... the magic of an on-line tabloid. Close it then hit the link and open it, again and enjoy some other outrageous story. Ahh, the Alien is back again on the third try!

Well now I am intrigued, but damned if I can find it.

Do you mean the little icon on the title bar where it says it's the Express?

I get a little Knight with a spear. He's also holding a shield with the cross of Saint George. It just seems Britishy to me.

You sure you're not having me on? Or as the Brits say, "Taking the piss out."

[andyt]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Why do you need the draft?

One brigade of troops from any NATO country would annihilate the 20000 fighters ISIS has.

But it doesn't have to come to that.

Instead of a single CF-18 dropping a bomb or two on an artillery battery, we need to send a squadron of B-52s to flatten ISIS fighters any time they mass. By starting out with a huge coordinated strike, it would be easy to wipe out most of their combat power in one go.

After we really flattened them and their troops a couple times, they would likely disperse and then we'd have to send in special forces to deal with them in close. That would no doubt cause casualties, but I'll take JTF2 over punk ass jihadists any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Either way, they would learn not to fuck with the West or we'd kill them all eventually. It might take a couple years, but it would work.

There are other hard line ways too, like tit-for-tat atrocities by hitting them at home too or using nukes and so on. To me, those are methods of last resort.

Either way, the West needs to relearn its baser side (like we had during World War 2) and stop being so soft on our enemies.

As for the naive idea that ideas cannot be dealt with with military force, we did it with slavery and National Socialism, so there is no reason to believe we can't do the same with radical Islam.

It just takes time and a willingness to do so.

ISIS surround themselves with civilians. You talked about the West toughening up, so presumably you have no problem with bombing the civilians as well as ISIS (One reason the current bombing campaign is so ineffective is because the West is very squeamish about killing civilians currently) You think that will calm the Muslim world? In fact we are bombing them now, presumably wherever they mass - doesn't seem to have worked so far.

Slavery and Nazi fighting involved conventional mass armies going at it, as well as decimating populations and their production centers. ISIS has no army like that no production centers. Start your tit for tat atrocities, and you'd better wipe out the whole Muslim world, because for every one you kill you'll create 5 new ones. So unless you are willing to totally go over to the Bart side, that will just create more problems. And exterminating 1.5 billion people has repercussions on our society all on its own.

Nope, I think what you are proposing will just create more evil in the world. Sometimes there just aren't simple solutions. If there were we would have done them by now.

Actually I've heard said that ISIS is on its back foot in the ME, which is why these attacks are getting ramped up in other places. So things may get worse while they are getting better. But unless we find a new way of existing with the Muslims, we're going to go round and round for a long time on this. Some of it may involve getting tough - getting tough with Saudi Arabia instead of sucking up to them. Not dancing to Israel's tune, but allying more with Iran. Not trying to bring democracy to the region, but also maybe disengaging, telling them to stuff their oil and using other oil sources, including Canada to supply areas that are dependent on ME oil.

[sandorski]

MeganC MeganC:

sandorski sandorski:

martin14 martin14:

And again, what difference does it make to you ?

Oh, right, this must be the white man's fault because the French aren't integrating
their Muslims properly.
So the real solution is to spend more money and bend over even more, and we need
more diversity.

This is laughable, the bodies aren't even cold yet, and you and BF are busy
trying to apologize for it.

...and you with others are spreading your xenophobic hateful BS.

The xenophobic hateful BS came from the people who did this attack.

Certainly they had it as well, but they are not the only ones.

[Canadian_Mind]

andyt andyt:

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

You wouldn't need to draft anyone if you just nuke Raqqah.

I'm sure that will calm things down.

If all else fails, it most certainly will. Nukes have a habit of effecting calm upon the areas they fall.



Fiddledog, I wasn't kidding. If I meant drop 16 MOABs or twenty thousand 1000lb iron bombs I would have said 16 MOABs or twenty thousand 1000lb bombs.




Fear is the most powerful force on earth. ISIS has grown as powerful as it has because it's power is it's ability to instill fear. They know and understand fear. If you willfully demonstrate the capacity to not just defeat them, but to utterly destroy them to the point where they are literally disassembled down into their individual atomic components en-masse, you will instill such fear that the will to wage war against their own people, never mind the west, will be irrevocably erased.



And to those who say that killing 100 will inspire 1000, you are right. That is the nature of war. It is always an escalation of force until both sides are fully committed. I don't want to see our troops go off to die going through the escalation of force motions before we reach the conclusion outlined above. I suppose the other conclusion is a stalemate, but then our civilians and soldiers die for nothing. Lets get it over and done with so that our people don't have to die needlessly.



I'd prefer we not be involved at all and that we shouldn't have to be discussing this, but we committed ourselves the moment we chose to meddle with the Arab spring. Once you step over the edge, you can't stop yourself from falling... so you better be attached to something when you do.

[Canadian_Mind]

sandorski sandorski:

Certainly they had it as well, but they are not the only ones.

So you are saying that our desire to kill those who seek to attack our civilian populations is equally evil to the actions committed by those who attacked civilians in France?

[andyt]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

andyt andyt:

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

You wouldn't need to draft anyone if you just nuke Raqqah.

I'm sure that will calm things down.

If all else fails, it most certainly will. Nukes have a habit of effecting calm upon the areas they fall.

You're going to have to nuke an awful lot of terrain before things calm down. That many nukes will calm us down too with the fallout. That is assuming Russia and China just stand by while we go throwing nukes around a lot of the planet. Pakistan for instance. It will also be pretty hard on the Israelis - having nukes go off in their neighborhood.

You and others here are just engaging in some mental masturbation. Or as I said before, armchair psychopathy.