ISIS needs to be exterminated on sight!

page: 9
36
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Our leadership wants to bomb or "exterminate" them on their turf. Let the indigenous fight them.. those in the ME. Our "leadership" should be rousting out and handling our homegrown ISIS traitors and those who have come into this country to do us harm. This "leadership" seems to never want to handle our homeland threats and is quick to expend our military might in other arenas.
Sure, exterminate them. In our OWN COUNTRY. Easy peasy is you dont happen to be in bed with them...




posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: yourmaker

Yep, to me it seems this is by design.. even liberals are itching to do something about it.
It's kind of ironic in a way I guess. Even us conspiracy theorists that are usually very skeptic about the foreign ventures of the US are totally reversing our opinions, can't say I'm not included.

Seems this is a position wherein we're damned if we do and damned if we don't, they've got us by the balls and I can't help but feel that either way we're playing into someone's hand, or am I being far too paranoid?

Do something about it and we're continuing the war on terror, don't do something about it and the Middle East keeps getting divided, they're always ten steps ahead.. Though, to be honest I can't really make any sense of the situation.

What's the end game here?



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Advantage

...and just how many do you actually think are here?

I suppose, given the membership here is from all over the world, I should ask where you're from...

I simply don't see a problem here, at least not at this time... Which is, I suppose, subject to change, given the open status of our borders.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 02:59 PM
link   
DAM-MIT!

A while ago I finally watched Obama's speech from last night on his strategy for dealing with ISIS (which he erroneously continues to call "ISIL", giving it more territory than even Gomer claims).

It's almost point for point what I already outlined over the past few weeks here at ATS.

Almost.

He's taken a perfect plan, and injected it with a couple of details that will guarantee failure.

DAM-MIT!

The most glaring detail is his intended handling of "The Syrian Problem", as if it is ours to handle. it's not. His plan is to take out a potential ally against ISIS by continuing to arm and support it's "opposition" within Syria.

How did ISIS come about to BEGIN with again?

Furthermore, his inclusion of Syria on the opposite side of the conflict is PRECISELY the same mistake Bush made in the wake of 9/11 which led to what we have now. Bush, instead of concentrating on the enemy in Afghanistan, decided to open a war on a second, unnecessary, front in Iraq - which eclipsed the war he should have been concentrating on. he took his eye off the ball.

Which, it appears, Obama is all too willing to repeat.

GODDAMMIT!

Syria's internal problems (i.e. their "civil war") are none of our business. An effort to oust Assad will eclipse the war against ISIS, and allow them the time to strengthen their ranks - the very thing I warned against before, over and over. Furthermore, it alienates not one, but at least two and probably more, potential allies against ISIS. Syria, of course, but I'm sure Russia ain't gonna like that focus much, either. Iran, relations with which are already on rocky ground, damn sure ain't gonna like it. Instead of making friends and forming a "coalition", Obama seems to be hell bent on LOSING a war against a "JV team".

Sweet Jesus in a sidecar!

I think I need a beer...



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Trouble is the UK doesn't recognise the Assad government as the legal government and instead recognise the Syrian national council based in Turkey as the legitimate government

Perhaps POTUS looks at this the same way?

That way giving money and weapons to the FSA who will target Assads forces while also bombing Isis (and Assad from time to time) is a win win situation and they can bypass sovereign rights of Syria by claiming they are acting on behalf of the SNC who will take over if they get their way



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Whereismypassword

Precisely.

Except for the "win-win situation" part.

Opening war on two fronts, one of which is utterly and completely unnecessary and irrelevant.

That's a practical recipe for failure and potential disaster.

Who gives a damn about the legitimacy of Assad's government vs. the legitimacy of a group in Turkey as government of Syria? It's entirely irrelevant in a fight against ISIS. Worse than irrelevant, it's a distraction and WILL divide resources - resources needed against ISIS, with the lion's share going to the distraction - the Syrian internal conflict.

George Bush all over again.

No wonder I prefer living in the woods and staying away from humans - the planet cannot learn from past mistakes, and is losing it's marbles!

ETA: The SNC includes as a large part of it's membership the Muslim Brotherhood. It's absolute madness to support them with one hand and slap ISIS with the other, since they are essentially the same, springing from the same root. The only difference is which person is at the steering wheel at the moment - they are both steering in the same direction.

That direction is not in the best interests of either America OR Europe.




Plagued with internal conflict, the SNC on March 13, 2012 saw three prominent members resigning, giving as their reason that the SNC "had not gotten very far in working to arm the rebels,". The three were Haitham al-Maleh, a former judge and long-standing dissident, Islamist-leaning liberal and opposition leader Kamal al-Labwani and human rights lawyer Catherine al-Talli.[29][30] Their reasons for resigning were that the SNC is corrupt, a liberal front for the Muslim Brotherhood and had not made significant progress in arming the rebels.[29][31] One secular member of the SNC claimed that more than half of the council are Islamists.[32]



Source

Their own leaders jumped ship over the Muslim Brotherhood connection. Those 3 later returned, but it in no way changed the character of the SNC.


edit on 2014/9/11 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 06:03 AM
link   
a reply to: SLAYER69

Amen to that!
Erase them and lets move on



posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 12:15 PM
link   
ISIL needs to be stopped. But I don't like the coding for Isis, and then the words Isis needs to be exterminated on sight. For Isis metaphorically is Mother, Feminine Energy, Equality, Mother Earth, and when they're invoking this Name, and making people want to kill and stop this, its not positive, instead it can be translated as: Kill Equality, Kill Countries that Operate out of Equality, ie Northern Hemispheres, and even Kill all Equal and Free Women.



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: SLAYER69




If they are a CIA op, turn the table on them by bringing many warring factions together, if they're a bunch of Religious zealots, then send them to oblivion. I dunno, some here feel that ISIS will gain more recruits if fought by this or that group. If everybody went after these cheese #s they'd have no safe haven.


Who is supposed to bring these factions together to fight ISIS?



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: SLAYER69




If they are a CIA op, turn the table on them by bringing many warring factions together,


Let's analyze this suggestion.

So you know they are CIA backed, and your course of action would be to create a coalition and start a war which you know is based on false pretences.

How can you justify this?

I get it, very smart. If they are CIA it is ok as long as we only let the Arab's fight them. If they truly are what they are then we can even send in western troops because then it would be ok.

It doesn't really matter, as long as the result is war.

I love how you tried to unite both people that think ISIS is just ISIS and people that believe they are CIA backed.

Amazing.

What's even more amazing is that people swallow it.

edit on 23-9-2014 by AntiDude because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: AntiDude
a reply to: SLAYER69




If they are a CIA op, turn the table on them by bringing many warring factions together,


Let's analyze this suggestion.

So you know they are CIA backed, and your course of action would be to create a coalition and start a war which you know is based on false pretences.

How can you justify this?

I get it, very smart. If they are CIA it is ok as long as we only let the Arab's fight them. If they truly are what they are then we can even send in western troops because then it would be ok.

It doesn't really matter, as long as the result is war.

I love how you tried to unite both people that think ISIS is just ISIS and people that believe they are CIA backed.

Amazing.

What's even more amazing is that people swallow it.



It a Conspiracy website...You mean how dare he float a Conspiracy Theory ?

That is just how we roll around here...And Slayer is driving the Conspiracy Train.

Catch up



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: whyamIhere

Your reply is completely irrelevant and besides the point.



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: AntiDude
a reply to: whyamIhere

Your reply is completely irrelevant and besides the point.



Thank You,

You Mad Bro ?



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: whyamIhere

And he strikes again....



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Anyone who has a minimum idea about Islam understands that ISIS ISIL or Daesh is not an extremist group per se. It is rather the true expression of Islam as written by the prophet Mohamed. So then have at it, 'cos it seems to me that if you really want to understand Islam in its truest form, watch the news.
edit on 23-9-2014 by Jonjonj because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join