Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

How many deaths by ISIS will it take before action is taken?

page: 1
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 03:39 PM
link   
With the recent moves against Yazidis, Chaldeans (Christians) and Kurds, I am wondering how much longer the world can ignore what ISIS is doing? ISIS executed 1,500 Iraqi POW's and the world has seemingly ignored that. They have about 40,000 Yazidis trapped on mountains and have forced almost 200,000 Chaldeans to flee their homes. Now they are making inroads against the Kurds even. It has the potential for a huge disaster to happen.

My question for ATS is when is enough, enough? Will ISIS have to execute a whole major town before the world collectively acts?

I am surprised by the lack of any offensive against ISIS by either Syria, Iraq or the Kurds. ISIS isn't a major military power. They have little to no armor and artillery, no Air Force and no means of weapons production or resupply. They should be able to be easily routed from controlling areas and turned back into the guerrilla force they are by any halfway competent military. It's almost as if TPTB WANT ISIS to be a bigger "boogie man" than they actually are.

What is the Arab League's stance on ISIS?




posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Why did we even get involved in Iraqs business. Many more lives have been lost there than would have been lost under Saddam. We weakened their forces and now they are being overrun by radical people.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   
I don't know, I suppose it won't be long now. It seems the justification is there so I'm assuming they are still waiting for a better justification for ground troops "along" the Iraq/Syria border....perhaps a little in to Syria. No further than Damascus, I swear.

edit on 7-8-2014 by Rosinitiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   
When gas goes up more than 25 cents.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Problem, reaction, solution.
2nd line



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: pavil

Is very simple the muslim president doesn't give a crap about anything, we as a nation broke Iraq and now we owned plain and simple.

Obama just handle Iraq in a silver plater to Isis, is good to have terrorist friends in the middle east.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   
I think it should be the responsibility of the middle east nations to take care of the problem. The US should stay out of it because we helped ISIS gain popularity and control by taking out the man that kept them suppressed.....Saddam Hussein.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: jaws1975
Problem, reaction, solution.
2nd line


David Icke....

But you have a point.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Wouldn't be Ironic if it comes down to Iran and Israel taking care of the ISIS problem? They seem to be the only militaries in the region capable of fighting ISIS and actually taking the battle to them.

Its always gnawed at me how quickly ISIS rose and became a defacto nation/military power. They must have some very powerful and wealthy benefactors.........cough cough Saudi Arabia and Qatar. I think they have created a creature that they won't be able to control.

How did we spend a decade rebuilding the Iraqi Army and have them just utterly fall when faced with at best a rag tag, albeit bloodthirsty and psychopathic guerilla force. To some extent, I have to point a finger at our Military for doing such a crappy job training the Iraqi Army.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: pavil
My question for ATS is when is enough, enough? Will ISIS have to execute a whole major town before the world collectively acts?


Unfortunately it's not about the numbers. The actual question isn't "when will they have killed enough?" but "when will they kill someone that the west considered important enough to react?"

Despite the outcry, unless governments are looking for a reason to intervene, they won't really care if ISIS slaughters an entire city - just as long as that city is full of locals.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: abe froman
When gas goes up more than 25 cents.


As far as I know, ISIS hasn't gained control of any significant Oil Fields. It will be a disgrace to the World if we collectively do nothing while ISIS slaughters Tens, if not Hundreds of Thousands of civilians.

Unfortunately, I think that is what it's going to take before action is taken against ISIS.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: pavilTo some extent, I have to point a finger at our Military for doing such a crappy job training the Iraqi Army.


No. There are many studies about attempts to train soldiers in the middle east. There are cultural issues so deeply embedded that they are generally considered impossible to train to any reasonable degree - certainly not to a level that would be expected from a modern military.

It's not a matter of intelligence or motivation of the recruits or the capability of the trainers, it's a significantly different cultural approach than runs from the private all the way up to the top of the command chain.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: pavil

You know that is a big red flag that shows what Isis truly is, a proxy.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: pavil
My question for ATS is when is enough, enough? Will ISIS have to execute a whole major town before the world collectively acts?


Unfortunately it's not about the numbers. The actual question isn't "when will they have killed enough?" but "when will they kill someone that the west considered important enough to react?"

Despite the outcry, unless governments are looking for a reason to intervene, they won't really care if ISIS slaughters an entire city - just as long as that city is full of locals.


I agree. When does the UN step in? I have a feeling there is enough nations out there to run interference long enough for ISIS to slaughter a whole lot of people before the UN even has real "boots" on the ground.

Srebrenica comes to mind.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob

I agree to a certain extent. Egypt at least in the Yom Kippur War seemed to have a decent backbone and were disciplined, at least compared to Arab Standards. During the Iran Iraq War both sides seemed pretty determined. I understand your point but I would have thought, given the option of fighting for your home turf or fleeing and getting executed by the same foe, I would choose fighting. It's not like ISIS had a reputation for treating captives nicely.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 04:13 PM
link   
The many nations surrounding the area are more than capable of dealing with it. Its a problem in the middle east, for middle eastern nations.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: pavil

You know that is a big red flag that shows what Isis truly is, a proxy.



I think that shows also how much money has been funneled to them, that they don't even need to drive to the Oil Fields to get income. From a strategic standpoint, the Oil Fields of southern Iraq and in the Kurdish North is where the tipping point of Iraq is. ISIS already has the Dam at Mosul, that's the other "flag" in this giant game of capture the flag.
edit on 7-8-2014 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 04:25 PM
link   


My question for ATS is when is enough, enough? Will ISIS have to execute a whole major town before the world collectively acts?


My question is who is going to PAY for it this time? Last time I checked my country and I were broke.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: pavil

That is truth, but remember that taking over the oil fields and destroying them will cause an international crisis that will call for "intervention", Isis look to me that they have been promised that they can to take control of Iraq as long as they don't mess around with the Oil fields.

This needs more scrutiny, because one of the things that an invading force will do is to take over the resources of the country they are conquering, remember the US did that in Iraq.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 04:27 PM
link   
I don't think anyone has a significant strategy to attack ISIS!!!

It seems they roll in en masse armed to the teeth and strike randomly!!!

I think the international community is waiting to see how close they get to Israel...
Or more nefariously, hoping they go the other direction into Iran in an attempt to destabilise part of the "Axis of Evil"!!!



We're all just gonna have to wait for action to be taken sadly!!!



S&F!!!

Peace Pavil!!!
edit on 7-8-2014 by CharlieSpeirs because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join