Does " No boots on the ground" mean more blood on ours ? And is our fate sealed already ?

ISIS is a death cult.
I don't prescribe to the collective term of "terrorist group" to describe what ISIS are. You can argue that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. But you cannot ascribe this to ISIS. They do not fight for freedom, not even their own. They do commit atrocious acts of terrorism and because they have risen up out of what were once stable Muslim countries within the ME, we fall into the trap of labeling them Islamic terrorists, Jihadists etc
But are they? or could have such a death cult risen up out of anywhere? Probably not, as fast as the ME was being decimated by the West, and frontiers and boundaries were being breached and broken, ISIS was ripening.
But I contend that there is nothing spiritual about ISIS. Instead I think that they are cloaking themselves under Islam to achieve their ends, which is an all out Global War.
What better way for ISIS to achieve this than to play on our weaknesses. Xenophobia, prejudice, racism, fear. ISIS have got our number and they are using it to their full advantage. Their tactics are working. The Right Wing groups throughout Europe are feasting on the suspicion and hatred. Calling for Mosques to be closed, and maybe even Islam to be outlawed. ISIS sets the fire and the Right Wing fuel it for them.
For years now we have been exposed to the " War on Terror " Did terrorism exist pre 9/11 ? of course it did. We have fought terrorism many times before. But I think that War on Terror tactics will fail and fail again when it comes to ISIS.
We don't negotiate with terrorists, but if we did, what would we negotiate with ISIS for exactly? I think that the answer is nothing, they have made no demands. France declares War, but who are they at war with ?
We would like to think that ISIS is made up of rampant hoards of displaced insurgent groups with leaders, with a common goal and some kind of ideology. Something that we could weaken and destabilize and ultimately defeat.
In reality, I don't believe that we have faced such a dark enemy before. If " Evil " was ever able to manufacture itself into an actual living breathing thing as opposed to a concept, then ISIS would be it.
I have added a few links, about the rise of ISIS, the weapons they have, and how organised they are. They are in this for the long game.
I hope that one day we will be reading about the " End of ISIS " But I think that day is a long way away.

ISIS publication
link
weapons
link

I don't subscribe to the word 'evil', there is always a reason for this kind of behaviour. Are you saying they are just killing for the sake of it out of some bloodthirsty urge with no gripe or ideology whatsoever?

Sounds like the language of the warmongers who would have us believe the only way is the blow the whole area and everyone in it to bits.

a reply to: Scouse100

There may be a reason but it's not a good enough reason for what they're doing.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Scouse100

There may be a reason but it's not a good enough reason for what they're doing.

Didn't say it was, but by ignoring the reasons or outright denying the reasons, we will be stuck in an eternal cycle of war as the same problems will come back again and again.

a reply to: cosmickat

I believe your premise is off base.

For some reason, you point out that the ME was 'stable'. As if that state was, in and of itself, worthy of any particular value.

Many countries, empires, etc. have been stable. That doesn't make them good.

Many try to point out there wouldn't be an Isis if the U.S. hadn't gotten involved in the ME. I rebut, the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and the radical teachings in Saudi Arabia where around before U.S. involvement.

Not any real differences between them that I can see. Perhaps Isis is even worse, yet that's their doing. Not anyone else's.

This will not end without either boots on the ground or frying the whole region with nukes.

Separating all these groups from the general Muslim label is also disingenuous. There are a number of groups not even mentioned that are as bad, overall. They all claim to promote Islam.

Who are we to claim they aren't representative of Islam? THEY DO!

It IS possible they ARE the representatives of the true Islam,,,,,

'Boots on the ground' doesn't work in this situation. Or has the last 14+ years escaped your notice? People have a very distorted (intentionally fostered by people with agendas) view of the motivation of these 'fighters'. It's not some high-and-mighty ideal. It's the manipulation of disenfranchised, hopeless people by well-heeled, affluent sociopaths. The only way to end this is to eliminate the people fostering and funding this entire thing and give the general populace something worth living for. The problem is, the people behind this are too powerful/valuable to our 'leaders' for them to want to do anything about it. War, of any kind, is a vastly profitable business. There are lots of people who will do anything to perpetuate it.

originally posted by: Scouse100
I don't subscribe to the word 'evil', there is always a reason for this kind of behaviour. Are you saying they are just killing for the sake of it out of some bloodthirsty urge with no gripe or ideology whatsoever?

Sounds like the language of the warmongers who would have us believe the only way is the blow the whole area and everyone in it to bits.

Yes there is always a reason for this kind of behavior....it's also called insanity. Pure semantics on your part. Not much different than the insanity of "there's always a reason".....

One deals with it. Pure and simple.

a reply to: cosmickat

This came up last night on Sky's Press Review when both guests agreed that instead of wasting resources bombing these nasty people we should be using these resources to ensure our safety at home and weeding out extremists here.

I saw a bit on the tv about women dressed in Islam's glad rags dissing this country and saying how they wanted to destroy it. What was disgusting was they had British accents. These people need to be weeded out and deported to a nice islamic country where hey would not be so offended by their own culture and be better suited to the ideals of Saudi rather than the UK.

Jeremy corbyn is exactly right when he says bombing is far too dangerous to innocent people because their deaths make more terrorists who want revenge for unnecessary suffering and death of their beloved ones and neighbours. Ghastly Oinky cameron I suspect has the arms lobby wanting to earn tax payers money by suppling these costly bombs. Look after one's friends and investments wink-wink!

a reply to: nwtrucker

You may well be correct, and I have " got it all wrong "
So far though, I have not seen anyone come up with any kind of plausible reasoning for the actions of ISIS and what their goals actually are.
I also am aware that the radical teachings that they claim as their ideology have been around for a century, I guess my angle was, is it possible that within this recent tumultuous state of chaos in the ME, have ISIS, born from Taliban and Al Quaeda grabbed this and effectively ran with it to recruit and radicalize, not for Islam, but for whatever their evil goals are. As it is all speculation, then I don't think my theories are any further off than any others.
True followers of Islam, tell us time and time again that they ( ISIS ) are NOT committing these atrocities in the name of Islam. I am not an Islamic scholar or follower, so I will bow to their knowledge and conclusions. I do not think that ISIS are representative of Islam at all.
These regions where ISIS has sprung from were indeed made worse by US, Russia, UK and allies, all them have dirty hands. They laid the foundation for a extremist group to get together at some point and bite off the hand that had been feeding them for 50+ years. It doesn't take a massive leap in logic to see that the same destabilizing tactics that the West used in the ME is now being used against them?
There are already boots on the ground... the ground is ours. And we bought the boots.

originally posted by: jtma508
'Boots on the ground' doesn't work in this situation. Or has the last 14+ years escaped your notice? People have a very distorted (intentionally fostered by people with agendas) view of the motivation of these 'fighters'. It's not some high-and-mighty ideal. It's the manipulation of disenfranchised, hopeless people by well-heeled, affluent sociopaths. The only way to end this is to eliminate the people fostering and funding this entire thing and give the general populace something worth living for. The problem is, the people behind this are too powerful/valuable to our 'leaders' for them to want to do anything about it. War, of any kind, is a vastly profitable business. There are lots of people who will do anything to perpetuate it.

Completely contradictory. Boots on the ground doesn't work? Yet boots on the ground is the only way to 'eliminate the people fostering and funding this'.

Boots on the ground didn't work solely due to it wasn't allowed to. It was left incomplete with nowhere near the time and effort required to get the job done.

It took three generations and an unending military presence to get an equally screwed up region on track. It was called Europe.....

a reply to: Shiloh7

This I agree with, the only way forward to ensure our safety is fight this fight from within, because this is where the true danger lies. As an example the attacks in Paris, most if not all being European Nationals.
This kind of war will never be won with bombs or troops.


( maybe my thread title was misleading instead of provoking )

although my signature lets you know how I feel about
the subject..
I had an idea to get this over with once and for all.
A three month long Pay Per View Event:
Cue deep dudes trailer voice...
"One Island, 20 of the worlds most elite Special Ops teams
battle to the death with live ammo.
Two teams 100 strong meet on a 10 mile wide Island and
use any means necessary, short of mass destructive weapons,
for Island domination."
The winner receives a used middle eastern country and the political move
they were originally willing to start a world war over.
One they were sending you and me (PTSD squared) to die for.
If it's a draw, then Cyborg Cheney and Shirtless Putin will don exo suits and
finish each other off . The winner will fight in the final against whoever Mossad is sending.
Since they actually are in charge.

a reply to: cosmickat

"Does " No boots on the ground" mean more blood on ours ?"

Ask the leading members of your ruling political class. They are the ones who have sealed your fate.

a reply to: cosmickat

I won't disagree that Isis sprung from that region of U.S., et al, involvement.

Yet that fact omits the acts in Africa that are as bad as anywhere in the world that has zero to do with the U.S..

The recent goings on in Mali. France has no particular involvement-other than allowing a high number of refugees in. Then there's the Philippines...India. Pakistan. None 'U.S. issues' whatsoever.

I really don't give much weight to one group saying Isis doesn't represent Islam and Isis saying it does. Or all the rest of the groups, for that matter.

Keeping it rather simple, if, in the day, I got into a fight....there were more than a few...lol, it became largely academic who started it, who was in the wrong. It was WIN, survive it.

I have been, lately, of a mind they we stay out of it. Let them sort it out and then decide on a course of action, if any.

THAT HAS CHANGED. Now that the compassionate and the appeasers are committed to importing the problem into our backyards, there is no let them sort it out. It's in my face like it or not.

Therefore, it does now need boots on the ground, if for no other reason than to ensure this ended without importing it into our face. The whole idea was to take the fight to them, in their backyard, not ours. Now the morons are importing it.

OK. Then take it back to their house AND END IT.

originally posted by: Scouse100
I don't subscribe to the word 'evil', there is always a reason for this kind of behaviour. Are you saying they are just killing for the sake of it out of some bloodthirsty urge with no gripe or ideology whatsoever?

Sounds like the language of the warmongers who would have us believe the only way is the blow the whole area and everyone in it to bits.

Quote from tv series Homeland:
"They're there for one reason and one reason only," he continues, "to die for the Caliphate and usher in a world without infidels. That's their strategy and it's been that way since the 7th century."

^^sounds about right.

a reply to: nwtrucker

That's BS. The people funding/fostering this aren't 'on the ground'. They live in affluent, gated communities in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran and elsewhere. The only people we're going to find 'on-the-ground' are the operatives and we can kill as many of those as we want --- there's plenty more where they came from. We've been doing it for 14+ years and things have gotten worse, not better. The problem is, the people we SHOULD be eliminating, our leaders don't have the collective nads to go after.

originally posted by: nwtrucker

This will not end without either boots on the ground or frying the whole region with nukes.

IMO, this issue is a lot like insisting on absolute border security before addressing immigration reform.

It's NOT going to happen because absolute border security is an impossible goal that has never been accomplished by any nation.

When it comes to terrorism and the radical ideologies that fosters it, the same truth can be applied.

Total elimination is not a realistic goal and minimizing it is probably about the best we can hope for, or expect to accomplish.

That being said, I doubt that nuking the ME will do anything other than exasperate the refugee crisis we're already facing, coupled with an entirely new dimension of hatred directed at those who just turned the refugee's homeland into an uninhabitable wasteland.

When it comes to boots on the ground, just know that we're talking about a lot of boots and we're talking about a "permanent" presence. Anything less is doomed to the same failure we witnessed in Iraq.

Furthermore, considering that functioning elements of ISIS exist in a dozen or more countries, it's pretty clear that any "permanent" presence is going to have to come from localized sources.

ISIS is attempting to start a global religious war by eliminating all but their own perverted version of Islam coupled with a declaration of all out war against all other faiths.

If hordes of Americans began to adopt the hate mentality embraced by the Westboro Babtist Church, (and sometimes I wonder if this isn't happening as we speak) I seriously doubt that Muslim boots on our ground would help to alleviate the problem and I suspect the same is true with respect to American boots in the ME.

I'm not saying that "boots" aren't needed, but I definitely don't think that interjecting large numbers of American combat forces is sustainable. Nor does it accomplish anything other than to provide a common enemy to the various Muslim factions currently fighting for the heart & soul of Islam.

I'm not saying that I have the answer but IMO, this is really about hearts & minds.

You know how Muslim countries play their prayer call over loud speakers several times a day so that everyone can't help but hear it?

Maybe... the rest of us should start playing John Lennon's "Imagine" with the same frequency and proliferation.

a reply to: jtma508

OK. Your partly correct. The funding. Yet without the Imam's, the Fatwas, the morons that buy into it, the Jihads...the 'money' is useless.

You can take away the funding, but if the concept, the belief system is removed or shown to be wrong....it's been there since the beginning of Islam, through the Ottoman Empire right to the present, it just festers until it raises it's head once again.

It isn't just funding. 'Funding' isn't motivating them. It's empowering them. Besides are you saying the Saudis, etc. that are funding this aren't 'Believers'?

This is more than funding.

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: nwtrucker

This will not end without either boots on the ground or frying the whole region with nukes.

IMO, this issue is a lot like insisting on absolute border security before addressing immigration reform.

It's NOT going to happen because absolute border security is an impossible goal that has never been accomplished by any nation.

Sigh, enforcing the existing laws will disincentive the vast majority form even coming in the first place...simple.

When it comes to terrorism and the radical ideologies that fosters it, the same truth can be applied.

They don't even relate and it isn't a 'truth' whatsoever.


Total elimination is not a realistic goal and minimizing it is probably about the best we can hope for, or expect to accomplish.

Agreed.

That being said, I doubt that nuking the ME will do anything other than exasperate the refugee crisis we're already facing, coupled with an entirely new dimension of hatred directed at those who just turned the refugee's homeland into an uninhabitable wasteland.


so do nothing? Let them win? No thank you.

When it comes to boots on the ground, just know that we're talking about a lot of boots and we're talking about a "permanent" presence. Anything less is doomed to the same failure we witnessed in Iraq.


Agreed. Those are the options. Waste it. A European-like long term occupation, or....lose.

Furthermore, considering that functioning elements of ISIS exist in a dozen or more countries, it's pretty clear that any "permanent" presence is going to have to come from localized sources.


That doesn.t make any sense, at all.

ISIS is attempting to start a global religious war by eliminating all but their own perverted version of Islam coupled with a declaration of all out war against all other faiths.

I question how 'perverted' it is. Basic tenets of the Islamic faith.

If hordes of Americans began to adopt the hate mentality embraced by the Westboro Babtist Church, (and sometimes I wonder if this isn't happening as we speak) I seriously doubt that Muslim boots on our ground would help to alleviate the problem and I suspect the same is true with respect to American boots in the ME.


The Westboro Baptists aren't killing anyone.

I'm not saying that "boots" aren't needed, but I definitely don't think that interjecting large numbers of American combat forces is sustainable. Nor does it accomplish anything other than to provide a common enemy to the various Muslim factions currently fighting for the heart & soul of Islam.


It needs an international force to be sustainable.

I'm not saying that I have the answer but IMO, this is really about hearts & minds.

You know how Muslim countries play their prayer call over loud speakers several times a day so that everyone can't help but hear it?

Maybe... the rest of us should start playing John Lennon's "Imagine" with the same frequency and proliferation.


Too much John Lennon and not enough Battle hymn of the Republic.....

a reply to: cosmickat

I see they are devout followers of Joseph Goebbels. To be honest I dont think they understand the west as well as they think and t is their undoing.