It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I have to change my mind on the ME...Again!

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 12:47 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

Here's what we do. We stop this malarkey about gun control and let anyone who isn't a). a criminal, b). mentally ill, or c) both own guns provided they've taken a course and have proven they know how to handle one. On a federal level, do nothing. Isis is trying to start something - don't let them. Let's say we (the West) carpet bombs Isis strongholds in Syria and Iraq. I realize many people have an image of Isis as going around chopping off heads - but there's far more to it. For many people in that region, Isis has brought terror - but they've also brought medicine, education, infrastructure, and other things you would expect to find in any other nation or "state." Drop bombs and it will quickly be spun into another example of the kafir trying to destroy Muslim livelihood. Right now, ISIS does not have the support it needs to actually succeed in its plans, but if we retaliate, which they are counting on, it will be that much easier for them to get support from the Muslim world, especially in areas they already control.

Now, on an individual level - this is why I say allow people to pack heat. If ISIS wants to invade American homes, they do so at the risk of getting capped before they make it to the doorstep.

Let's take the Paris bombing for example. All this talk of WW3 is utter nonsense. How many people planned and carried out the attack? Punish those people and those people alone. Give the death sentence to anyone who plans and/or executes a terrorist attack resulting in deaths. Yes, Europe, you can make the exception. Show the world that attacking the West will have dire consequences for the attacker - not entire nations.




posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 02:08 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

There is obviously much disagreement surrounding the beginnings of IS. Their self proclaimed objectives certainly appear to be rooted in an interpretation of their religious texts (an interpretation with which the vast majority of Muslims disagree with). Whether this apocalyptic vision is their true objective, or they are using it as a cover/driving force for some other agenda, I don't know.

What we do know, is that the group relies on funding and recruits for its very survival. If we bomb them, we create an environment which breeds yet more extremists, this has been self evident over time. If we understand why recruits are flocking, we can work to break the cycle. It seems many do not join on the premise of IS' proclaimed extreme religious ideology but out of desperation, displacement, isolation, oppression, marginalisation, anger..... Some are then radicalised and/or given a regular supply of craze inducing drugs.

Example: Iraqi Sunnis feel marginalised by the Shia government that replaced the Ba'ath party overthrown by US forces during invasion. Government use military force against Sunni protestors. Desperate people with no voice then look for other ways to effect change/express their anger.



Why did he do all these things? Many assume that these fighters are motivated by a belief in the Islamic State, a caliphate ruled by a caliph with the traditional title Emir al-Muminiin, “Commander of the faithful,” a role currently held by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi; that fighters all over the world are flocking to the area for a chance to fight for this dream. But this just doesn’t hold for the prisoners we are interviewing. They are woefully ignorant about Islam and have difficulty answering questions about Sharia law, militant jihad, and the caliphate. But a detailed, or even superficial, knowledge of Islam isn’t necessarily relevant to the ideal of fighting for an Islamic State, as we have seen from the Amazon order of Islam for Dummies by one British fighter bound for ISIS.


www.thenation.com...



“They have lots of pills with them that they all keep taking. It seems to make them more crazy if anything. “They become agitated and excited, desperate to punish even children for the smallest thing.”


www.mirror.co.uk...

It is claimed IS are being funded by various parties, they are receiving/buying arms from somewhere, they are raking in estimated over $1.5m a day* in oil sales, they need this money to survive.

* Source www.ft.com...

So when you say "it needs to be dealt with", I don't agree that bombing hell out of the area is dealing with it but rather making matters worse and perpetuate this eternal cycle of violence.


edit on 23-11-2015 by Scouse100 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 04:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Scouse100
a reply to: nwtrucker

There is obviously much disagreement surrounding the beginnings of IS. Their self proclaimed objectives certainly appear to be rooted in an interpretation of their religious texts (an interpretation with which the vast majority of Muslims disagree with). Whether this apocalyptic vision is their true objective, or they are using it as a cover/driving force for some other agenda, I don't know.

What we do know, is that the group relies on funding and recruits for its very survival. If we bomb them, we create an environment which breeds yet more extremists, this has been self evident over time. If we understand why recruits are flocking, we can work to break the cycle. It seems many do not join on the premise of IS' proclaimed extreme religious ideology but out of desperation, displacement, isolation, oppression, marginalisation, anger..... Some are then radicalised and/or given a regular supply of craze inducing drugs.

Example: Iraqi Sunnis feel marginalised by the Shia government that replaced the Ba'ath party overthrown by US forces during invasion. Government use military force against Sunni protestors. Desperate people with no voice then look for other ways to effect change/express their anger.



Why did he do all these things? Many assume that these fighters are motivated by a belief in the Islamic State, a caliphate ruled by a caliph with the traditional title Emir al-Muminiin, “Commander of the faithful,” a role currently held by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi; that fighters all over the world are flocking to the area for a chance to fight for this dream. But this just doesn’t hold for the prisoners we are interviewing. They are woefully ignorant about Islam and have difficulty answering questions about Sharia law, militant jihad, and the caliphate. But a detailed, or even superficial, knowledge of Islam isn’t necessarily relevant to the ideal of fighting for an Islamic State, as we have seen from the Amazon order of Islam for Dummies by one British fighter bound for ISIS.


www.thenation.com...



“They have lots of pills with them that they all keep taking. It seems to make them more crazy if anything. “They become agitated and excited, desperate to punish even children for the smallest thing.”


www.mirror.co.uk...

It is claimed IS are being funded by various parties, they are receiving/buying arms from somewhere, they are raking in estimated over $1.5m a day* in oil sales, they need this money to survive.

* Source www.ft.com...

So when you say "it needs to be dealt with", I don't agree that bombing hell out of the area is dealing with it but rather making matters worse and perpetuate this eternal cycle of violence.



Listen, I'm fine with some other solution. No one seems to have come up with one. So what is the alternative?

I have a hard time buying into the motivation of individual oppression as an 'reason' for messing with the whole world. Mess with those in your own country if that's one's 'beef'. Bring it here and there needs to be consequences. Consequences so significant that even the slow witted can understand that continuing is fruitless.

If you are correct in your assessment, does that mean take no action? If it is then I cannot agree.



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 04:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: nwtrucker

Here's what we do. We stop this malarkey about gun control and let anyone who isn't a). a criminal, b). mentally ill, or c) both own guns provided they've taken a course and have proven they know how to handle one. On a federal level, do nothing. Isis is trying to start something - don't let them. Let's say we (the West) carpet bombs Isis strongholds in Syria and Iraq. I realize many people have an image of Isis as going around chopping off heads - but there's far more to it. For many people in that region, Isis has brought terror - but they've also brought medicine, education, infrastructure, and other things you would expect to find in any other nation or "state." Drop bombs and it will quickly be spun into another example of the kafir trying to destroy Muslim livelihood. Right now, ISIS does not have the support it needs to actually succeed in its plans, but if we retaliate, which they are counting on, it will be that much easier for them to get support from the Muslim world, especially in areas they already control.

Now, on an individual level - this is why I say allow people to pack heat. If ISIS wants to invade American homes, they do so at the risk of getting capped before they make it to the doorstep.

Let's take the Paris bombing for example. All this talk of WW3 is utter nonsense. How many people planned and carried out the attack? Punish those people and those people alone. Give the death sentence to anyone who plans and/or executes a terrorist attack resulting in deaths. Yes, Europe, you can make the exception. Show the world that attacking the West will have dire consequences for the attacker - not entire nations.



So your solution is let them in, then shoot them if they try anything.... I suppose it's workable. How about not letting them in in the first place? We had restrictions on immigration right from 1945 through 1962.

Let the Russians and French take care of business and make it tougher to get into the U.S.. Until we get a similar hit...and we will.



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 05:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: aorAki

Fine point, philosophically. If I have my druthers, it'll be them and not mine.

Just my bias, I suppose. Then again, I suspect you'd modify your views on that if you or yours were threatened, methinks.

Fine for a discussion...otherwise I prefer lock and load....







Part of the reason I think you are missing the big picture is this attitude, your mindset is lock and load...what I get from your thread is your mind is made up already....please correct me if I am wrong

And may I ask why you believe you and yours are in danger ? I assume that you believe you are based on the quoted statement from you above.....

The wests meddling in the middle east is now coming back to bite us in the ass....these people did not just randomly wake up one day and say "we hate the west let's go and kill them "


No you are not wrong. That is the conclusion I've come to. "Lock and load". I am open to alternative solutions....that's why I said 'dammit' in the OP.

I do not see all human life as equal. I do not consider the lives of murders, rapists, et al, 'equal' in any sense of the word.

You see infrastructure and support. I see that ONLY if they follow the tenets they demand. The rest? Eventually erased. Choice gone. Comply or suffer the consequences.

That, sir, violates every premise I hold dear. It speaks that many would allow the formation of an 'Islamic' state if they'd just stop their attacks on the rest of us. A new long term enemy to freedom-choice- and everything we've fought wars to avoid.

I see it as just a new 'flu virus'. A different version of the same old, same old....



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 05:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: nwtrucker

Im glad you accept Bush was a idiot to invade Iraq.

After that though?

To be honest I dont know what was the right or wrong. We were dammed if we stayed in iraq and dammed it seems now we left.

The event leading up to today were set in motion the day we declared war on Saddam. Not sure we could of avoided ISIS after that, though bombing libya didn't help.

As you know I am not a war hawk and can be about as anti intervention you can get.

But ISIS? Well I just cant see us avoiding military action now. Whether we like or not we are at war with them it seems. Hopefully if we do go in we take the gloves off and exterminate them to the last jihadi scum bag a d only leave when the jobs 100% done. Then once left never go back to the ME.

O and cut off all support to the dammed Saudis.


Excepting your first line, I agree.


O come on!

If he had not invaded iraq most the crap going on never would have happend!

And Iraq was never the US and UK buisness!


Yes, none of our business, just like when you were up the creek with no paddle after Dunkirk. NO OF OUR BUSINESS...yeah, right.



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 06:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: nwtrucker

Listen, I'm fine with some other solution. No one seems to have come up with one. So what is the alternative?

I have a hard time buying into the motivation of individual oppression as an 'reason' for messing with the whole world. Mess with those in your own country if that's one's 'beef'. Bring it here and there needs to be consequences. Consequences so significant that even the slow witted can understand that continuing is fruitless.

If you are correct in your assessment, does that mean take no action? If it is then I cannot agree.



Yes take action, just not military action. Starve IS of the very things they need to survive (recruits, weapons and funding) and help Syria unite together to weaken IS' position.



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 06:36 AM
link   
Consequences suck. Buckle up for the next few decades. The Dixie Chicks were right and were persecuted for it.



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 06:51 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

I agree pretty much with your assessment.

We should never have gone into Iraq and Afghanistan in the first place, and that was based on lies and biased ambitions of our leaders - basically, they took advantage of a terrible event to further their own ideological ambitions. I fully believe that Bush, Cheney and Blair SHOULD be charged with war crimes.

However, once we were in there, we were stuck. The blame should have been on those who took us in there.

We left too early, our efforts were narrow and limited, we should have known that removing the insane tribalism of these nations would take decades. It's all very well taking out a leader and killing a few thousand radical fighters, but you need to destroy the ability for those left to continue to indoctrinate the young.

We didn't do nearly enough in these countries to stop this disease.

Thankfully, things are a little different when it comes to Syria.

For a start, we're not going to be fighting against a population who deems us to be an invading army. Millions of everyday Syrians want an end to ISIS too, they want to see Assad gone and a democratic government in his place. They want to see a stable country and they want our help to achieve that.

The vast majority of Syrians want a stable and peaceful country, they have been calling out for support from the outside world for years.

It's still a country of tribal divides, but most of these tribes are able to be joined together in their fight against the common enemy.

However, we need to make sure that we know this is not going to be a quick solution. We cannot do what we did in Iraq. We can't leave early thinking it's all over and hand the country back to warring factions.

We need to go in there and do the following:

Take out ISIS
Take out Assad
Form a coalition democratic government representing all groups
Install an educational standard across the country headed by the UN, assuring the rights of all to a free and thorough education free of religious bias.

The last thing is going to be tricky, because there are a lot of people who will want to inflict their religious views onto the young. This is what we need to focus on once the bullets have stopped. We need to make sure there is not another generation ready to be indoctrinated into a tribe/religion by an ignorant older generation who would sacrifice their entire country for a perceived superiority over another tribe/cult.



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 06:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Danowski
To fight a disease, eliminate the cause, not the symptom.


To fight a disease you combat both the cause AND the symptoms.

We do need to take out the terrorists. That requires military power.
I'm sorry, but the world is not all unicorn farts and pixie dust. It would be great if we could just click our fingers and make all these psychopaths go away, but this is REALITY, not a fairytale.

What is the alternative to not taking military action? I see a lot of pacifists (and believe me, I have been a pacifist for years, until I grew up and realized that there are plenty of psychopaths out there who just don't give a damn about peace) absolutely saying we cannot bomb ISIS, but they never offer any alternative.

So, what do you suggest we do instead?

Do you want boots on the ground?
Do we just do nothing and let ISIS take over Syria completely?
Do we just watch while another town or city is taken over, women and children raped and murdered, young men forced to fight for the cult against the next town or city?

Seriously, I would love to know what you think the alternatives are, because all I see is a lot of pretty simple-minded tree-hugging sing-a-long people so detached from reality they seem to think ISIS can be "reasoned with".



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 07:09 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

I don't believe I said anything about "letting them in." The fact is, some are going to get in - hell, some may be in already. You do realize that American citizens could end up joining Isis, right? My point is, let ISIS argue with a nation full of armed civilians and don't let them bring the US into a war. Why isn't ISIS attacking Switzerland? Could it have anything to do with the rather high ratio of population:gun owner in that country? I'm not an expert in this field, but I'd guess that being a terrorist is a lot harder with a double barrel in your face.



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 07:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013




To fight a disease you combat both the cause AND the symptoms.



Is that true? I thought it was just necessary to kill the infection.




We do need to take out the terrorists. That requires military power.


Are you sure about that? If it were just about military power, why the heck is Abu Sayyaf still around? They have something like 200 or so members- shouldn't be that hard to wipe out. America has spent 14 years kicking ass and forgetting names in Afghanistan (and other places around the world)...yet Al-Qaeda is still around. Not only that - there are even more terrorist groups popping up. We may differ in opinion here, but if military power doesn't get the job done in 14 years, it's time to try something different.




What is the alternative to not taking military action? I see a lot of pacifists (and believe me, I have been a pacifist for years, until I grew up and realized that there are plenty of psychopaths out there who just don't give a damn about peace) absolutely saying we cannot bomb ISIS, but they never offer any alternative.



By "bomb Isis" do you mean bomb all the innocent people who happen to be sharing that space? Identify ISIS bases and liquidate them. I staunchly support mandatory execution for terrorists. Let's not forget that they are human and as humans, they are susceptible to fear. I'm reminded of the story of the Ottoman general who went to conquer Vlad's kingdom and saw a forest full of people impaled - some dead, some still dying - and said, more or less, "f*** this" and left. Hey...maybe that's something - we just impale the terrorists. I would bet jihad is less attractive with the thought of a stake going up your anus and out of your mouth. Seriously, though, brute force causes more problems - if you haven't already noticed.




Do you want boots on the ground?


Absolutely - in a primarily defensive role. Attacks done on ISIS should be covert when possible and involve as little strain on the surrounding population as possible.




Do we just do nothing and let ISIS take over Syria completely?


In the case of Syria, how much worse can it get? At least ISIS would bring some amount of stability there. I'm not saying it'd be good stability - but it'd be something. But, no - of course not. I'm trying to think of a good solution for Syria and can't come up with one. Either the warring parties just stop fighting and agree to a peace deal - or Syria purges itself and starts over.




Do we just watch while another town or city is taken over, women and children raped and murdered, young men forced to fight for the cult against the next town or city?


Of course not! We turn our heads to our own country where women and children are raped and murdered, young men are molested by members of a cult, etc. One day, America will realize that not every battle needs to involve her. This is one of them. If they bring the fight to us, we crush them quickly and decisively. Going back to my Swiss example - Switzerland isn't attacking anyone as far as I know - but neither is anyone attacking them.



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 07:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Danowski

It's a bit simplistic, but the 'cause' is insanity. It afflicts the whole race.

Some more than others.

There is no apparent solution to that insanity. There is a solution to this particular 'symptom'.



I think it is a sad state of things that you can get away with calling the whole Islamic "race" (sic) insane and not only get away with it, have people agree with you by starring your posts.



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 08:57 AM
link   
www.infowars.com...

Meanwhile, on the front lines of the war on terror, the Obama administration gives the enemy a 45 minute notice before bombing.



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Sorry I take anything coming from Inforwars with a grain of salt. Get a better source if you want me to believe that.



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: nwtrucker

Im glad you accept Bush was a idiot to invade Iraq.

After that though?

To be honest I dont know what was the right or wrong. We were dammed if we stayed in iraq and dammed it seems now we left.

The event leading up to today were set in motion the day we declared war on Saddam. Not sure we could of avoided ISIS after that, though bombing libya didn't help.

As you know I am not a war hawk and can be about as anti intervention you can get.

But ISIS? Well I just cant see us avoiding military action now. Whether we like or not we are at war with them it seems. Hopefully if we do go in we take the gloves off and exterminate them to the last jihadi scum bag a d only leave when the jobs 100% done. Then once left never go back to the ME.

O and cut off all support to the dammed Saudis.


Excepting your first line, I agree.


O come on!

If he had not invaded iraq most the crap going on never would have happend!

And Iraq was never the US and UK buisness!


Yes, none of our business, just like when you were up the creek with no paddle after Dunkirk. NO OF OUR BUSINESS...yeah, right.


Dont start that bollocks.

We fought off the German invasion before you guys entered. Dunkirk was our pear habour, didnt mean we lost the war.

And the USA never entered because they wanted to help or interfere but because you had war thrust on you by the Japanese! You got dragged into WW2! You didnt enter out of charity or to save anyone so dont use that bull#!



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: nwtrucker

Im glad you accept Bush was a idiot to invade Iraq.

After that though?

To be honest I dont know what was the right or wrong. We were dammed if we stayed in iraq and dammed it seems now we left.

The event leading up to today were set in motion the day we declared war on Saddam. Not sure we could of avoided ISIS after that, though bombing libya didn't help.

As you know I am not a war hawk and can be about as anti intervention you can get.

But ISIS? Well I just cant see us avoiding military action now. Whether we like or not we are at war with them it seems. Hopefully if we do go in we take the gloves off and exterminate them to the last jihadi scum bag a d only leave when the jobs 100% done. Then once left never go back to the ME.

O and cut off all support to the dammed Saudis.


Excepting your first line, I agree.


O come on!

If he had not invaded iraq most the crap going on never would have happend!

And Iraq was never the US and UK buisness!


Yes, none of our business, just like when you were up the creek with no paddle after Dunkirk. NO OF OUR BUSINESS...yeah, right.


Dont start that bollocks.

We fought off the German invasion before you guys entered. Dunkirk was our pear habour, didnt mean we lost the war.

And the USA never entered because they wanted to help or interfere but because you had war thrust on you by the Japanese! You got dragged into WW2! You didnt enter out of charity or to save anyone so dont use that bull#!


How soon the forget.....lend lease, food, kids to fly your planes....nah, we were dragged into it. Of course, your right. The majority of the population believed as you say "none of our business". Hello?

Let's see, next. You fought off the German invasion? If I recall correctly, old Adolf took pity on you and let your troops go home. More like a gentlemanly reprieve than a Pearl Harbor....



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Danowski

It's a bit simplistic, but the 'cause' is insanity. It afflicts the whole race.

Some more than others.

There is no apparent solution to that insanity. There is a solution to this particular 'symptom'.



I think it is a sad state of things that you can get away with calling the whole Islamic "race" (sic) insane and not only get away with it, have people agree with you by starring your posts.


WOW! Your really off your game! Islam is a religion, not a race. I didn't say anything but 'race'. No modifier of any sort. If you were up on the Queen's English, you'd know that meant the human race.



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   
you know what nvm. I don't feel like arguing this.
edit on 23-11-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   
The solution is easy. Leave them alone. By alone, I mean the following: Support Israel-not the apartheid-but their right to exist. Support Jordan. They are our closest ally there. Get the heck out of Iraq, Syria and stop helping Saudi Arabia in anyway.

Everything will work out on it's own then. Remember that we made up most of those borders for oil and colonialism. When we quick meddling things will work out. Iraq was about oil and making money for Dick Cheney and Haliburton. That's it.

Russia and France are more than capable of defeating ISIS>

9/11, Boko Harem, ISIS, Bin Laden, extremist ISlam...it all comes from Saudi Arabia. ISolate them.
edit on 23-11-2015 by amazing because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join