Everyone hates ISIS....So what do you want to do about it ?

[Rhinodawg]

Read the posts...

Everyone wants ISIS either destroyed or wiped out.....nice sentiment.

So talk is cheap.

What do you want to happen ?



Stay the course with bombings?...... (not exactly super effective)

You want a coalition of boots on the ground?.....(beautiful words that is NOT happening and will never happen)

Nuke em?....(not a great idea)

Send US troops even if no one else does?....(not a popular idea)

Should we wait for genocidal death stats and then go in ?...(I think we are there)



Don't throw your hands up....take a stand.

What do YOU think should be done to stop these "scumbags" ? (not my word)



btw... was there the same conversation about Nazi Germany ?

[potone]

1. The problem is that we felt much the same way for years about the Taliban.

When we finally acted after 9/11, we ended up putting in place a government that was deeply corrupt and alienated the Afghan people. Overthrowing a regime is one thing, replacing it with an honest and competent government is quite another. I don't see any easy answers here, especially in regard to Syria. As for Iraq, we all know what a disaster Bush et al created and no one wants to repeat that.

[YvonneCa]

13. It will take all of...

...us. Please listen to the end:

http://www.c-span.org/video/?323960-3/secretary-state-john-kerry-address-world-economic-forum

[MH1]

21. We didn't even TRY in Afghanistan, remember?

Overthrew the government, then pulled most of our troops to start another war with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

It was almost like TPTB actually thought peace, harmony, and competent, honest government would just happen in Afghanistan after we threw out the Taliban.

Plus our crazy and ineffective policy towards opium that pretty much forced rural farmers to embrace the Taliban or starve.

Afghanistan was always going to be a very difficult putt. Maybe not even possible. But the U.S. did not even make a credible effort.

[JonLP24]

124. Trying is where we screwed up in Iraq

Installing Al-Maliki as prime minister. Raiding homes, killed, & charged crimes against elected Sunni officials of Iraqi Parliament. Then when the Sunnis protested they were brutally oppressed. All the while the Iran backed Shia militias continued to grow, ISIS offered a protection from the Shia militias.

Sunnis in Iraq Often See Their Government as the Bigger Threat

BAGHDAD — A group of Iraqi Sunni refugees had found shelter in an abandoned school, two families to a room, after fleeing fighters from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. They were gathered in the school’s courtyard last week when the Iraqi Air Force bombed them.

The bombing, in Alam District near Tikrit, may well have been a mistake. But some of the survivors believe adamantly that the pilot had to know he was bombing civilians, landing the airstrike “in the middle of all the people,” said Nimr Ghalib, whose wife, three children, sister and nephew were among at least 38 people killed, according to witnesses interviewed last week, as well as human rights workers who detailed the attack on Wednesday.

The attack fit a pattern of often indiscriminate shelling and airstrikes on Sunni areas by the armed forces of the Shiite-led Iraqi government. The strikes have added to a long and bitter list of Sunni grievances, leading many to view the government’s leaders as an enemy — and some to regard the government as an even greater threat than the Sunni extremists in ISIS.

Overcoming that mistrust is a fundamental challenge facing the new Iraqi government, led by Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, as it tries to win Sunni Iraqis over to its side in a fight against the Sunni extremists. And it is a prerequisite of President Obama’s new plan to fight the militant group.

Mr. Abadi’s admirers, including American officials, have insisted that he is an intrinsically more inclusive leader than his predecessor, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, whom many Sunnis accused of using the government, the security forces and the cover of law to serve narrow Shiite interests and subjugate the Sunni minority.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/11/world/middleeast/sunni-mistrust-is-major-hurdle-for-new-iraqi-leaders.html?_r=0

Its all about money & maintaining control & influence over the region. ISIS=Taliban=House of Saud

[leveymg]

2. Cut off ISIS' supply of money from KSA and GCC elites. We know who the funders are - just do it.

Last edited Sun Feb 1, 2015, 12:16 PM - Edit history (1)

Simple, except for the fact that the Saudi royals and Emirs own a huge chunk of corporate America along with most (a lot) of the real estate in London that isn't owned by the other Royal family.

Dilemma - cut off their funding to ISIS without foreign disinvestment in the NY and City of London exchanges. I'll bet the terrorist atrocities continue.

[Rhinodawg]

4. I agree ...You can cut off the funds and it wont stop the killings.

[leveymg]

8. ISIS wouldn't last a month without constant financing from Jeddah and Doha.

Most of their fighters are Arab mercenaries who are into it for the paycheck, not because Allah told them to do it. The source and fuel of this war is petrodollars. Cut off the gas pump, and the fire burns itself out.

[glasshouses]

3. We broke it and made a safe haven for them

and before you say It was Bush...

All irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Obama , Hillary in the future , maybe Warren ..

Are all going to have to deal with this and make a decision .

[tabasco]

5. Air support for the Kurds & Iraqis seems to be working

Why don't you carry your ass over there, like I did twice, and help out?

[KingCharlemagne]

7. The PKK has apparently decisively defeated ISIS in Kobani. But we can't help them because, um,

Turkey and socialism, I guess.

[tabasco]

83. What, exactly, are you talking about?

Kurdish ground forces, helped by U.S. and allied air support, have retaken the Syrian town of Kobani from Islamic State militants, U.S. Lieutenant-General James Terry said on Saturday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/31/us-mideast-crisis-syria-kobani-idUSKBN0L40U420150131

[KingCharlemagne]

110. The PKK is the Kurdistan Workers' Party (Partiya Karkeren Kurdistani). While I don't have any links

immediately at hand to support this, my understanding was that the PKK had constituted the bulk of the resistance to ISIS at Kobani and had basically been left to sink or swim on its own, i.e., without U.S. and allied air support.

The PKK is Kurdish, thus anathema to Turkey, and Socialist, thus anathema to the capitalist West.

Can't link to the reportage that had PKK alone defending\re-taking Kobani. But here's a link to a good Wiki about PKK:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistan_Workers%27_Party

ETA: Thinking I might have been imagining things, I did a little backtracking and found this link from this past Monday. Turns out PKK was in coalition with YPG (a Syrian Kurdish group) and, together, the two are credited with re-taking Kobani from ISIS.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/26/kurdish-forces-take-control-kobani-syria

[jwirr]

9. Roosevelt knew we needed to go against the Nazi's long before the American people could be

convinced of the need. If it had not been for Pearl Harbor I wonder if we would ever have gone in.

[Rhinodawg]

10. Ahhhhhhhhhhhh.....very good.

[CJCRANE]

14. Reminds me of that PNAC document

that came out before 9/11 which said the political will for military expansion wasn't there "absent a Pearl Harbor-like event".

Well, we already had the "new Pearl Harbor", unless it's time for another one.

[jwirr]

16. I know that there are many who believe that regarding 9/11. And to be fair FDR was accused of

allowing PH. I do not believe that but some still argue that he did.

In the WWII era I don't think many citizens actually knew what the Nazis were doing regarding the death camps. Before the war that was known to leaders but was not a regular news story like the ones we see about ISIS and the Nigerian killer.

[Rhinodawg]

17. CJ...How does the world stop ISIS ?

[Rhinodawg]

42. No response ?

I swear it wasn't a trick question. lol

[CJCRANE]

44. We'll find out soon enough

probably within the next year or two.

They seem to be dripfeeding these provocations every few weeks.

They'll do something big and then we'll be forced to react (if the narrative continues as it seems to be playing out).

Or we could actually find out the truth about what's going on in the world and take a different path based on mutual benefit for all of us. But that seems unlikely at this juncture.

[Rhinodawg]

47. So you can envision a scenario where you would support the use of US ground troops?

[CJCRANE]

48. If they release the rest of the 9/11 report and the Iraq Inquiry report soon

then we'll find out how we were suckered into the last disaster.

Failing that, I think it'll happen again.

[Rhinodawg]

50. I wanted to know whether YOU would support the use of US troops.

No problem

Thanks

[CJCRANE]

51. I don't support the use of US or foreign troops in the region. nt

[Rhinodawg]

53. Thank you.

[ND-Dem]

33. +100

[Lurks Often]

20. It's was Hitler's declaring war on the U.S. that actively involved the country in Europe

Hitler foolishly decided to declare war, in part because Japan was an ally, although Germany was not required to declare war if Japan attacked another country.

Additionally Germany declared war against the U.S. due to what Germany viewed as the U.S. actively helping the British despite the our country's stated position of being neutral.

I have no doubt we would have ended up fighting Germany in WWII even if Hitler had not declared war on the United States. The question is when would we have joined the war in Europe and what could have Germany achieved in the meantime.

Long range rockets or long range bombers armed with atomic weapons striking U.S. cities?

[JonLP24]

127. I don't blame him for this since he had no idea in 1945

but can't help but wonder if Roosevelt choose to not do business with the 'House of Saud' who used their petro dollars to invest in ISIS/global terrorism. Saudi Arabia was taken over in much the same way ISIS is seizing land.



Their strategy — like that of ISIS today — was to bring the peoples whom they conquered into submission. They aimed to instill fear. In 1801, the Allies attacked the Holy City of Karbala in Iraq. They massacred thousands of Shiites, including women and children. Many Shiite shrines were destroyed, including the shrine of Imam Hussein, the murdered grandson of Prophet Muhammad.

A British official, Lieutenant Francis Warden, observing the situation at the time, wrote: “They pillaged the whole of it [Karbala], and plundered the Tomb of Hussein… slaying in the course of the day, with circumstances of peculiar cruelty, above five thousand of the inhabitants …”

Osman Ibn Bishr Najdi, the historian of the first Saudi state, wrote that Ibn Saud committed a massacre in Karbala in 1801. He proudly documented that massacre saying, “we took Karbala and slaughtered and took its people (as slaves), then praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, and we do not apologize for that and say: ‘And to the unbelievers: the same treatment.’”

In 1803, Abdul Aziz then entered the Holy City of Mecca, which surrendered under the impact of terror and panic (the same fate was to befall Medina, too). Abd al-Wahhab’s followers demolished historical monuments and all the tombs and shrines in their midst. By the end, they had destroyed centuries of Islamic architecture near the Grand Mosque.

***

With the advent of the oil bonanza — as the French scholar, Giles Kepel writes, Saudi goals were to “reach out and spread Wahhabism across the Muslim world … to “Wahhabise” Islam, thereby reducing the “multitude of voices within the religion” to a “single creed” — a movement which would transcend national divisions. Billions of dollars were — and continue to be — invested in this manifestation of soft power.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/why-does-the-u-s-support-saudi-arabia-a-country-which-hosts-and-finances-islamic-terrorism-on-behalf-of-washington/5398408


Wikileaks: Saudis 'chief funders of al-Qaeda'

Private individuals in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states friendly to the United States are the chief source of funding for al-Qaeda, the Taliban and other terrorist groups, according to leaked US diplomatic cables.


Despite extensive efforts to limit the distribution of funds to extremists from the Middle East, the documents show deep frustration in Washington with the level of co-operation from governments in the region.

"It has been an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority," read a cable from Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, dated Dec 30, 2009.

"Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide," added the document.

The Saudis have recognised that they have trouble policing the annual pilgrimage to Mecca, when it is estimated that millions of dollars are raised for militants who send agents into the oil-rich kingdom under the cover of Muslim pilgrims.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8182847/Wikileaks-Saudis-chief-funders-of-al-Qaeda.html

For some reason the Telegraph is incredibly friendly to Saudi Arabia but I refuse to believe the government is that dumb.

Wahhabism is named after an eighteenth century preacher and scholar, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703–1792).[16] He started a revivalist movement in the remote, sparsely populated region of Najd,[17] advocating a purging of practices such as the popular cult of saints, and shrine and tomb visitation, widespread among Muslims, but which he considered idolatry, impurities and innovations in Islam.[5][18] Eventually he formed a pact with a local leader Muhammad bin Saud offering political obedience and promising that protection and propagation of the Wahhabi movement(Jihad), would mean "power and glory" and rule of "lands and men."[19] The movement is centered on the principle of Tawhid,[20] or the "uniqueness" and "unity" of God.[18]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism

Do I have to mention their human rights violations & just like ISIS have a Hisbah as well.

difficulty policing the pilgrimage my ass. They regulate the shit out of it.

[99Forever]

11. Do something?

Considering how well "do something" really meaning "use military force" is working so far...


BRILLIANT thinking there.

(Note to OP: Please research how Einstein described insanity.)

[Rhinodawg]

12. ********

thanks.

[qazplm]

15. ok then what?

We don't drop another bomb, we use no force at all.

What do WE do to stop ISIS? That will be effective? That will push them back, and stop the killing?

Insanity is also not looking at each situation and recognizing that it is somewhat unique and just because an answer was wrong in one scenario, it's wrong always and forever.

[99Forever]

18. Apply, lather, rinse, repeat..

[Rhinodawg]

26. 99...Take a stand.

You told us what youre against.

I hear you.....now.....What should the world do about ISIS ?

[99Forever]

111. We get the fuck out of other nations business...

... and stay the fuck out.

Duh.

[JonLP24]

125. Saudi Arabia, Burma, North Korea,

President Karzai, Bashar al-Assad... this list goes on and on when it comes to human rights violators.

I'd stop with the (speaking from US foreign policy POV) hypocrisy, stop giving money to financiers of the Wahabbi global terrorist organization. All these bombs, CIA installing Al-Maliki as Prime Minister (and that's just Iraq), and Al-Assad himself for Syria is why they're there.

I disagree why Obama continues to use "tensions" to block torture photos & other crimes committed by the US government but he is right they certainly will use it for propaganda for recruiting (my position is NOT to do these things in the first place)

----

After the 9/11 attacks, the United States quickly declared a "war on terror." In the conduct of that war, the United States invaded Afghanistan and then Iraq, imprisoned hundreds of captured "enemy combatants" without trial, tortured suspected terrorists, drastically ratcheted up homeland security, conducted drone strikes and/or targeted assassinations in several countries, and conducted a vast campaign of electronic surveillance at home and abroad.

Virtually all these actions were designed to detect or eliminate actual terrorists or prevent them from carrying out deliberate attacks. In other words, whether offensive or defensive in nature, they were actions designed to win the war by thwarting or eliminating existing terrorist organizations.

But what about the parallel problem of terrorist recruitment? The other way to defeat terrorism is to make it harder for movements employing terrorist methods to recruit new followers, and to gradually marginalize the radicals within the societies in which they were trying to grow. There was a lot of talk about trying to do this immediately after 9/11: The State Department commissioned a task force report on public diplomacy toward the Arab/Islamic world, George W. Bush’s administration hired a series of public diplomacy czarinas, and various experts offered advice on how the United States could undercut Osama bin Laden’s message and rebuild the country’s dubious image in that part of the world. This goal also underlay Barack Obama’s initial outreach to the region and especially his infamous Cairo speech in June 2009.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/26/our-one-sided-war-on-terror/

Austin, Texas — The Islamic State terrorists who have emerged in Iraq and Syria are neither new nor unfamiliar. Many of them spent years in detention centers run by the United States and its coalition partners in Iraq after 2003. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State, spent nearly five years imprisoned at Camp Bucca in southern Iraq. A majority of the other top Islamic State leaders were also former prisoners, including: Abu Muslim al-Turkmani, Abu Louay, Abu Kassem, Abu Jurnas, Abu Shema and Abu Suja.

Before their detention, Mr. al-Baghdadi and others were violent radicals, intent on attacking America. Their time in prison deepened their extremism and gave them opportunities to broaden their following. At Camp Bucca, for example, the most radical figures were held alongside less threatening individuals, some of whom were not guilty of any violent crime. Coalition prisons became recruitment centers and training grounds for the terrorists the United States is now fighting.

This process began when coalition forces arrived in Iraq in 2003 and detained alleged terrorists with little preparation or oversight. Although soldiers tried to document the circumstances behind the detentions of Iraqis and foreign fighters, the process broke down under the pressure of fighting, the shortage of trained Arabic speakers, and the fog of war.

Simply being a “suspicious looking” military-aged male in the vicinity of an attack was enough to land one behind bars. There were 26,000 detainees at the height of the war, and over 100,000 individuals passed through the gates of Camps Bucca, Cropper and Taji. Quite a few were dangerous insurgents; many others were innocent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/02/opinion/how-america-helped-isis.html

[randome]

28. ISIS was just forced to abandon a city (I forget which one) because of the bombing campaign.

It isn't a total solution but to say we aren't having an effect is to ignore facts.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[ND-Dem]

34. A guerilla group just kicked them out of northern iraq. It's not like they're some magic invincible

force.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/10/17/pkk-s-rise-in-iraqikurdistan.html

[randome]

54. They think they are. Bomb them with cubicles and they'll come around!

Or they'll be too busy trying to figure it out and we can sneak up on them.

"What is that? It fell from the sky, you said? Get that Western hostage over here and have him defuse it."

Six hours later: "How's it going over there? Is it defused?"

"Not yet. I need paperclips. And a stapler and writing pad and a calendar to hang on the wall. Oh, and thumbtacks for the calendar. Should be finished when I get the corporate restructuring memo."

"What. The. Hell?"
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[ND-Dem]

67. as i said: guerillas just kicked them out of iraq. somehow their fearsome invincibleness did not

hold.

[LiberalElite]

19. Everybody

talks about ISIS but nobody does anything about it. (Apologies to Mark Twain.)

[Rhinodawg]

24. Thats what i was getting at .

[Igel]

22. I really don't like IS. And think there's little we should do about it directly.

That's how I felt about Syria when Bush II was badmouthing Assad and Pelosi went over and called him a partner for reform. He was a bad guy and I fought with DUers who insisted that he wasn't all that bad. Then Obama said he was bad and many DUers had mental whiplash.

That's how I felt about Libya when Reagan/Bush I, Bush II was badmouthing Qaddhafi. Sudden Qaddhafi sided with the US and turned on North Korea and he was a good guy. Nopity. He was still a bad guy. Some DUers had a case of double whiplash, as they went from not liking him to liking him (when Bush II approved of him) and then not liking him (when Obama disapproved).

Didn't like Mubarak. Didn't like Mursi (but thought he had some chance of not being as bad. Some. Not a large change. But > 0). Don't like al-Sisi.

Still, like IS, not a burning issue. It can lead to change. It will have to change. But only when the majority of people on the ground want it to change. It's like some of the religious wars in Europe: Until there's something that affects the thinking of a large segment of society, you're going to get the tribalism and religious/ethnic warfare. If you stopped all of the wars, if you stopped the triggers for the Reformation and for the Enlightenment and tried to impose them from the top down they'd have failed.

IS will burn itself out. Or it'll be another Islamic Expansion, one that "we" can oppose, and as it sweeps across N. Africa, Asia Minor, and West Asia with its pillage and oppression it'll be dealt with. And perhaps it'll have the same kind of chilling effect among the losers that WWII had on some kinds of virulent nationalism. Because if an ideology's supporters aren't forced to face that they've been defeated, the attitude typically is that somehow they were wronged and victimized and haven't been given their due. And humiliation is worse for peace than ideology.

[AngryAmish]

23. Choices:

1. Arm every side and hope the bleed each other white (current policy).

2. Genoicide against the Sunni tribes.

3. Seperate ourselves from that part of the world.

I think folks from that sort of society are incapable of democracy for a host of reasons. I prefer seperation.

[H. Cromwell]

25. Air, fuel Munitions

Last edited Mon Feb 2, 2015, 09:56 AM - Edit history (1)

Every time someone is beheaded, deploy/drop a large air-fuel bomb on an ISIS controlled area. Beheading people becomes less cost effective, terrorist wise when you lose 1000 supporters every time you chop off a head.

[Rhinodawg]

27. Yours is the first tactical military response.

thank you.

[ND-Dem]

36. Let Kurdish communist separatists deal with it.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/10/17/pkk-s-rise-in-iraqikurdistan.html


You seem very eager to get the US involved in yet another military adventure. Yet it's clear that ISIS isn't equivalent to the Nazis if some guerillas can rout them.

[Rhinodawg]

39. Another ********

thanks.

[ND-Dem]

41. ***** yourself. if you can't rebut the argument, why resort to disguised name-calling?

I repeat: if a guerilla force can rout ISIS they're not the supermen you make them out to be. Nor are they the equivalent of the Nazis.

[BlueCaliDem]

37. Using military force WILL NOT defeat ISIS. They'll just morph into another terrorist group

as long as they have the funds.

ISIS was born because of the U.S. invasion of Iraq...but you foolishly believe we should have more military responses? Really??

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

45. Not enough

Proactive application of GBU-43/B on ISIS territory seems prudent, at least to me.

[BlueCaliDem]

29. Cut off their funds by freezing their bank accounts. You don't think ISIS is caring millions of

petrol dollars in large rucksacks through the desert, do you?

You want to kill off ISIS? Kill off their flow of money - it's their life's blood. It's what they want MOST, hence the $200 million dollar ransoms they keep demanding. They don't give a good goddamn about jihad. Jihad is a means to a goal. They're in it for the CASH. Money = Power, and their leaders damn well know it. Cut off their money supply and ISIS will shrivel up.

[Rhinodawg]

30. Sounds wonderful.

Any historical proof of that ?

[BlueCaliDem]

35. Yeah. History on war itself. eom

[Exultant Democracy]

64. But then we miss out on the righteous bloodshed as we smite the wicked. Boring

[JonLP24]

128. Historical proof of what

the funding or stopping the funding?

There are mountains of evidence referring to the funding. The funding has never been stopped, at-best the US strong arms Saudi Arabia in publicly opposing terrorism & develop red flags in their banking systems as well as anti-terrorism legislation (which they use to sentence activists to long prison terms, also indefinite detain civilians, all in a grossly unfair legal system.

How does ISIS fund its Terror

<snip>

Royal Donors in the Gulf

Grossing as much as $40 million or more over the past two years, ISIS has accepted funding from government or private sources in the oil-rich nations of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait—and a large network of private donors, including Persian Gulf royalty, businessmen and wealthy families.

Until recently, all three countries had openly given hefty sums to rebels fighting Bashar Assad’s Syrian regime, among them ISIS. Only after widespread criticism from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the international community did Saudi Arabia pass legislation in 2013 criminalizing financial support of terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra and ISIS.

<snip>

A couple of factors are frustrating attempts to dam these rivers of cash. First, the relatively open banking systems of Qatar and Kuwait are being skillfully exploited by ISIS, since, unlike Saudi banks, they do not automatically raise red flags when money is siphoned to Islamist causes.

Second, Qatar and Kuwait are loath to limit the activities of highly influential ISIS donors due to the political fallout such intervention may cause. In Kuwait, a family of parliamentarians—including Kuwaiti member of parliament Mohammed Hayef al-Mutairi—has raised funds for jihadist groups with direct ties to ISIS. “Cracking down on some ISIS financiers is politically complicated for these countries’ leaderships,” Boghardt says.

http://www.newsweek.com/2014/11/14/how-does-isis-fund-its-reign-terror-282607.html

There article also mentions charity fronts which is interesting....

Internal Treasury Department documents obtained by the lawyers under the Freedom of Information Act, for instance, said that a prominent Saudi charity, the International Islamic Relief Organization, heavily supported by members of the Saudi royal family, showed “support for terrorist organizations” at least through 2006.

A self-described Qaeda operative in Bosnia said in an interview with lawyers in the lawsuit that another charity largely controlled by members of the royal family, the Saudi High Commission for Aid to Bosnia, provided money and supplies to the terrorist group in the 1990s and hired militant operatives like himself.

Another witness in Afghanistan said in a sworn statement that in 1998 he had witnessed an emissary for a leading Saudi prince, Turki al-Faisal, hand a check for one billion Saudi riyals (now worth about $267 million) to a top Taliban leader.

And a confidential German intelligence report gave a line-by-line description of tens of millions of dollars in bank transfers, with dates and dollar amounts, made in the early 1990s by Prince Salman bin Abdul Aziz and other members of the Saudi royal family to another charity that was suspected of financing militants’ activities in Pakistan and Bosnia.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/world/middleeast/24saudi.html

Follow the money.

[JonLP24]

129. I'm not an ISIS propaganda expert

but I don't believe the high ransoms are serious, part of their propaganda. Tit-for-tat kidnapping has been going on for years since the Iraq civil war (simultaneously going on during America's occupation) which one side holds the victim for ransom & offer detailed instructions where to deliver the money, where to meet, much like the film 'Man on Fire'. It is more reasonable or in that they are specifically doing the kidnappings for profit

This, it doesn't strike me as serious or just part of their propaganda. ISIS emphasizes video taped beheadings. Also targeting journalists for these public executions suggests that is the primary motive. Also humanitarian aid workers are a target. While they do make money off kidnappings, this isn't how. They don't want journalists (much like Al-Asad) there nor humanitarian workers providing aid when cutting off aid is a major part of their operation (ISIS already does what you suggest, but for their benefit).

I just don't believe the $200 million is serious at all, a lot of what they do is for show.

[on point]

31. Under principle of ' Never Again' need international military force

They are clearly committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. Doesn't matter if they are not a nation state, but a group of thugs. World needs to step in and take them out. Same for Boko Harem

[Comrade Grumpy]

32. This can be largely a local affair.

1. End the Syrian civil war. Some sort of negotiated settlement between the Assad regime and the non-ISIS opposition needs to happen. Then, Syrian forces can go after ISIS. They've largely been leaving ISIS alone, since they have other battles to fight and since ISIS also happens to fight other Syrian rebels.

2. Threaten Turkey with being thrown out of NATO if it doesn't stop being a pipeline for ISIS fighters.

3. Work quietly with Iran, since Iran is already our de facto ally against ISIS, especially in Iraq.

4. The Iraq military and the Kurds need to retake Mosul. That squeezes ISIS into Syria.

5. Put the heat on the Saudi and Gulf State backers of ISIS. Sanctions, anyone?

6. Disengage the air bombing campaign slowly as the tide turns.

[Rhinodawg]

40. Grumpy... I was waiting for you.

I hope youre right.

on edit... Throwing Turkey out of Nato would be a move that would cause a lot of problems.

[Comrade Grumpy]

120. The goal is not to throw Turkey out of NATO, but to change it's behavior.

Turkey is supposed to be an ally, but it has largely turned a blind eye to ISIS. It needs to be pressured to behave.

[JonLP24]

131. That is because they don't like Assad

No one who is near him likes him, especially Turkey. In fact one of their planes was shot down by Syrian armed forces. In any case, they have accepted many Iraq & Syria refugees but they have a lot of problems in government much like we do.

I don't have an issue with your suggestions except with NATO strong arm tactics and who is or who isn't supposed to be our ally, they have their own interests & that Syria-Turkey border is one of the most dangerous in the world. (CIA also used those Turkey smuggling routes to deliver arms to the rebels). Also teaming up with Iran would be a bad mistake. They back the Shia militias in Iraq & the guy the CIA installed as PM in Iraq was a Shia in exile in Iran & both terrorize Sunni populations, people that don't want war & also don't want to be killed if they don't find their way out of the country. I agreed with John Kerry it was inappropriate for Iran to join discussions but for the same reasons, I felt it was inappropriate for us to be there as well.

Situations are different but I think a lot of what this article mentions applies here as well given that it is an identity politics driven conflict which artocities are being committed by all sides, leading to the current political instability that exists. My problem is the US & or NATO picking a side because whoever is being picked against are massive war crimes waiting to happen. The situation in Syria is incredibly complex & will be like this for years. In Iraq, all that is necessary is for Shia majority elected officials (rather than CIA installed) allow Sunni(as well as Kurds, Mandeaens, etc) participation & protests & inclusion). Don't use an Iraqi Army/Shia militia to raid the homes & kill elected Sunni officials. Not only we shouldn't do it, we're also very bad at it.

-------------

And yet, nagging questions remain. Making the wars even more difficult to grasp is the uncomfortable reality that there were no clear-cut “good guys” and “bad guys” — just a lot of ugliness on all sides. When considering specifically the war between the Croats and the Serbs, it’s tempting for Americans to take Croatia’s “side” because we saw them in the role of victims first; because they’re Catholic, so they seem more “like us” than the Orthodox Serbs; and because we admire their striving for independence. But in the streets and the trenches, it was never that straightforward. The Serbs believe that they were the victims first — back in World War II, when their grandparents were executed in Croat-run Ustaše concentration camps. And when Croats retook the Serb-occupied areas in 1995, they were every bit as brutal as the Serbs had been a few years before. Both sides resorted to genocide, both sides had victims, and both sides had victimizers.

Even so, many can’t help but look for victims and villains. During the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina, several prominent and respected reporters began to show things from one “side” more than the others — specifically, depicting the Bosniaks (Muslims) as victims. This reawakened an old debate in the journalism community: Should reporters above all remain impartial, even if “showing all sides” might make them feel complicit in ongoing atrocities?

As for villains, it’s easy to point a finger at Slobodan Milošević, Radovan Karadžić, Ratko Mladić, and other political or military leaders who have been arrested and tried at The Hague. Others condemn the late Croatian President Franjo Tuđman, who, it’s now known, secretly conspired with Milošević to redraw the maps of their respective territories. And of course, the foot soldiers of those monstrous men — who followed their immoral orders — cannot be excused.

And yet, you can’t paint an entire group with one brush. While some Bosnian Serbs did horrifying things, only a small fraction of all Bosnian Serbs participated in the atrocities. Travelers to this region quickly realize that the vast majority of people they meet here never wanted these wars. And so finally comes the inevitable question: Why did any of it happen in the first place?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/why-does-the-u-s-support-saudi-arabia-a-country-which-hosts-and-finances-islamic-terrorism-on-behalf-of-washington/5398408

I know big differences but basically leaders/fascists commit atrocities & people recede to their groups for protections & so many things due their neighborhoods becoming war-torn.

[Rhinodawg]

138. Wow... "needs to be pressured to behave"

not too paternal, Grumpy.

Actually I think ISIS "needs to be pressured to behave".

[polly7]

76. +1000. nt.

[guillaumeb]

38. Yet another existential threat to humanity?

What do you do against a force that threatens people and governments all over the world? A force that tries to spread its message by armed attack or the threat of armed attack, and insists on its "right" to interfere all over the world. Good question.

What if this force is killing innocent people all over the world in the name of a religion/ideology? Again, a good question.

What if this force is always at war and cannot be restrained by diplomacy or international law?

What if the force of which I speak, a military power with over 700 military bases worldwide, a power that spends more on its' war machine than the rest of the world combined, is the United States? Cognitive dissonance anyone?

Does violence ever really stop violence, or does it engender a reaction equal to the original action? Does Newton's 2nd law apply to world affairs as well as physical objects?

[stevenleser]

58. And I think that is the problem with those trying to say our best response is "Stay out of it"

I think if any situation warranted copious use of Drones and A-10's this is it.

I see other folks upthread advocating use of MOAB, and if ISIS presents a large number of troops in the field and we could use it without killing civilians and friendly troops of any origin, then fine. But I dont think many of those chances will present themselves.

Edited to add: I'd like to see us triple the amount of planes we have bombing ISIS, move lots of AEGIS outfitted navy ships into the gulf and start hammering them with tomahawks and similar missiles.

[guillaumeb]

60. world cop

Exactly who appointed the US to be the leader of the whole world? If Vladimir Putin decided to drone strike the White House because he believed the American President was a threat to world peace would you still agree with the "send in the drones" strategy? Most of this discussion exemplifies American arrogance and exceptionalism at it's worst.

[stevenleser]

63. Your rhetoric is not an answer to the question posed by the OP. Try again. nt

[guillaumeb]

80. Au contraire

But it is. The point that I make is that the US does not have the right, obligation, duty to police the world and decide whom to punish and whom to reward. The US would not admit that any other country has the right to interfere. The US has spent 240 years interfering in affairs that do not concern it.
This is your history, admit it or not. The US has invaded, directly or by proxy, nearly every country in the western hemisphere, sometimes multiple times. The US has invaded countries everywhere in the world, using the 700 plus military bases as staging points. That is your history and THAT, not any supposed freedoms, is why the US is not trusted. Emperor Obama is no different from the Emperors before him. He is merely more articulate than the previous Emperor, George the 2nd.
Hurray for American exceptionalism, defined as the exceptional ability to justify actions by Americans that you would not tolerate if performed by others or performed against you.
You might wish to google "blowback".

[stevenleser]

85. Nope. The answer to what to do about ISIS is not "America bad"

No matter how much you seem to want it to be.

[guillaumeb]

86. ignore the point 101

What I "want it to be" has nothing to do with what is. Ignoring or being unaware of your history leads to the endless repetition of things that do not work. Perhaps a little more reading of actual history rather than a comic book version of "Captain America vs, the evildoers" type of historical fantasy might help.
As to the original post:
The ISIS group was born in a region of the world where the US has been invading, overthrowing and otherwise interfering since the CIA overthrew Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran and installed a puppet ruler. Why did the US do that? To ensure access to oil. No silly rhetoric about promoting human rights. Just raw military power in service of empire.
Every times the US intervenes militarily it adds fuel to the flames. Why is the answer always to add more fuel? Do we add enough fuel to ignite the world?

[stevenleser]

97. You have no point that addresses the question of the OP. Nt

[Hissyspit]

89. Actually, yes. They did answer the question.

[stevenleser]

96. No, they didn't. Nt

[Exultant Democracy]

88. Off the top rope for the win with one simple word... "blowback."

[guillaumeb]

94. thanks

Thank you Mr. Douglass.
Having good feelings about your country is one thing, but blind faith in America's good intentions in spite of reality denies reality. Many in the US are surprised that any in the world can doubt the good intentions that supposedly lie behind all of the US interventions.

[Exultant Democracy]

99. The cave man thinking on this thread amounts to "Enough gasoline will put out that fire."

Then again we as a people build thousands of mansions every year out of balsa wood and paper, so we probably shouldn't expect sound long term thinking and problem solving from us. "Solving" the Isis problem like we "solved" the Saddam Hussein and problem and the al qaeda problem before that and the Afghanistan problem we had before that and the Iran problem we had before that... how anyone cold mistake that for insanity is beyond me.


Take up the White Man's burden, Send forth the best ye breed
Go bind your sons to exile, to serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness, On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples, Half-devil and half-child.

Take up the White Man's burden, In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple, An hundred times made plain
To seek another's profit, And work another's gain.

Take up the White Man's burden, The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly Bring all your hopes to nought.

Take up the White Man's burden, No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper, The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter, The roads ye shall not tread,
Go mark them with your living, And mark them with your dead.

Take up the White Man's burden And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better, The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour (Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought he us from bondage, Our loved Egyptian night?"

Take up the White Man's burden, Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom To cloke your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper, By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples Shall weigh your gods and you.

Take up the White Man's burden, Have done with childish days--
The lightly proferred laurel, The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood, through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom, The judgment of your peers!

[stevenleser]

95. Nope, that is not an answer to the OP, or alternate suggestion to mine. Nt

[Exultant Democracy]

100. You mean your "bomb our way out of this problem we bombed our way into" was serious?

Hard to tell the difference between 'real' absurd opinions and bad parody these days. Is the concept of blowback really that hard to figure out?

[guillaumeb]

115. choices

On the right, we have lunatics like Cheney, and McCain, and assorted other war whores who are always trumpeting the NEED to use military force. But when a nation spends 1 trillion a year on the war machine we do not want that machinery to rust.

On the American left, we also have war whores like Obama, Kerry, and others who feel the same obligation to use the war machine. Perhaps Nader was correct to refer to the 2 major parties as 2 sides of the same coin.

As to solutions, the saying "when one only has a hammer every problem looks like a nail" comes to mind.

As to blowback, the concept is easy, but when people are convinced of their essential rightness, especially citizens of the Number 1 military power, the assumption is that if intention is good than only good can follow.

[stevenleser]

117. No, it means that person has to come up with an idea of some sort, they didn't. nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

43. re: "So what do you want to do about it?"

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6163650

re the nazis: I have no idea and don't care. I've read that all of Europe was unwilling to consider another continent wide war and negotiated, appeased and, in general, acted whimppy and stupid.

[quadrature]

49. start a REAL war....or not, decision needed

why are foreign aid groups
trucking-in food,
to feed the fighters in ISIS land?

( just a suggestion, I would remind these
aid-workers to keep their 'will' up to date,
in the event of a beheading)

we have some tough choices to make,
that have humanitarian consequences.

flatten their cities? starve them out?

[Hissyspit]

90. You don't have any tough choice to make at all.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

52. Not much.

I don't think there is a course of action available whose likely outcome is not appalling.

I guess that continued bombing, support to their opponents and pressure on their supporters to stop is probably the least worst approach, but I doubt if that will be enough to stop them.

But, obviously, that's not an informed opinion.

[Rhinodawg]

55. Great honest answer.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

66. I wish I had a better one.

But as far as I can see (which is not far), the options for the USA boil down to "let ISIS get on with murdering huge numbers of innocent people" or "join in the a war to stop them, and huge numbers of innocent people get killed in the crossfire".

[Astrad]

56. Mexican Drug Cartels

kill more innocent people each year and as violently as ISIS. The Mexican government is unable or unwilling to grapple with the problem. Corruption in the police and military means they aren't very effective at dealing with it. Areas of Mexico are becoming ungovernable.

So is it incumbent on us or wise to intervene in Mexico and take on the cartels? I don't see why any policy applied to ISIS shouldn't also be applied to the cartels. And yet most people would balk at US military intervention in Mexico (I realize there is already extensive cooperation between law enforcement agencies of the respective countries.)

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/10/isil-vs-mexican-drugcartelsunitedstatesislamophobia.html

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-25774430

[ND-Dem]

70. +100. It's interesting to see who's for US intervention.

[AngryAmish]

81. Have Congress issue Letters Marque and Reprisal authorizing Zetas to eliminate Daesh

1 Billion down, 1 Billion when Daesh surrenders. USN provides transport.

Plata o Plomo, motherfuckers. Santa Muerte v Allah.

[Generic Brad]

57. My ideas would violate the Geneva Convention I suspect

Screw torture. I would mass release their prisoners after implanting a GPDS tracking device on them. Then I would track them and direct air strikes where they nested.

More extreme, I would expose them to ebola and send them back to Syria to hook up with their pals so they could infect each other.

It is good for this country and the world that I am not in charge of anything.

[Exultant Democracy]

59. Porn, drugs, booze and video games. Just air drop that shit on top of them all the time.

A few thousand pounds of pot, lots of opium and all the pain pills they could pop. (no uppers of course)

A pallet of pot cost a lot less then a missile and the asshole who gets a joint dropped on his head isn't going to have a kid who wants to kill us in 15 years.

That is the problem with force, even if we kill every last member of Isis it will only in turn build an even stronger next generation of extremists. Isis is classic blowback (as was Osama bin Laden) and as long as we partake in the cycle of violence it will never end.

So what will we do about Isis, probably the dumb thing and go to another stupid war that can not be won by any conventional measure of the term "winning."

[guillaumeb]

65. amen

I say it again, amen. Finally a voice of sanity amid the calls for endless violence and war.

[Man from Pickens]

61. Step 1: stop funding the problem

The overwhelming bulk of financial and arms support we give to groups in that region make its way to ISIS somehow - either by intent or by incompetence, it happens so often that us intervening appears to always mean supplying and funding the alleged enemy.

The proper policy is to not get involved in the first place. When we're not funding both sides of every war, maybe there won't be quite so much war then.

[ND-Dem]

68. +100

"When we're not funding both sides of every war, maybe there won't be quite so much war then."

[Exultant Democracy]

72. One critical flaw in the logic of your post... crusades are awesome!

Think of the heroes who will never have a chance to beat the new top American sniper ever record if they don't have a bunch of handy brown people to blow away.

And have you stopped to consider the amazing stride we have made in artificial limb technology and the treatment of battlefield wounds since we started our interventions. Think of how much more we can learn about how to restore a human body if we send a bunch more of our kids back into that desert meat grinder.

[samsingh]

62. they should be taken out militarily asap.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

69. Erect Bogeyman, wave flag, declare we need protection, give more money to the MIC.

[alcibiades_mystery]

71. I could take Rhinodawg's posts about ISIS more seriously if he wasn't also running around here

promoting the liquidation of all of Europe's Muslims.

[Marr]

73. Green energy. Remove the impetus for the western energy industry to be there.

I've noticed the locations of our 'righteous wars' tend to line up pretty well with the investments of our 1%. So let's get out of the region economically.

You're not going to kill a radical religious/nationalist group with force. You'd think we would've learned that by now.

[CJCRANE]

105. Great answer. I agree. nt

[moondust]

74. Want? Send Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, & Co.

to clean up the mess they created for the world. Maybe drop them out of an airplane over Kobani and let them go to work.

[GP6971]

77. They wouldn't know how to clean up

They just create the mess and walk away and let someone else clean up

[moondust]

78. I think it's worth a try. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

75. Scott Walker agrees that we "should do something".

We have to do something...no matter how stupid, counter-productive, or useless. See Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan for precedents.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-02-01/wading-into-foreign-policy-walker-says-he-wouldn-t-rule-out-boots-in-syria

Wading Into Foreign Policy, Walker Says He Wouldn't Rule Out Boots in Syria

“Marco is a great guy,” Walker said, highlighting terrorism assessments he said he has received from the FBI. He said he has not only met with Kissinger but also former Secretaries of State George Shultz and Madeleine Albright.

“What's your big, bold, fresh idea in Syria?” Raddatz asked, paraphrasing what Walker had said earlier about America's needs.

“Well, I think…I go back to the red line,” Walker said.

Pushed further, he continued: “I think aggressively, we need to take the fight to ISIS and any other radical Islamic terrorist in and around the world. ... We have to look at other surgical methods. And ultimately, we have to be prepared to put boots on the ground.”

“I don't think that is an immediate plan, but...I wouldn't rule anything out,” he said.

[kelliekat44]

79. Deal with the source of the ISIS problem. Take three steps back in international actions since 9/11

We simply continue to refuse to believe people when they tell us why they are angry about our actions and policies. Instead we ascribe what we want to their motives to them. It continues to amaze me.

[Warpy]

82. Obama's military has been smart so far

in bombing their oil depots and refineries. That's where their funding has largely been from, that and a few of the more rabid Wahabs in the House of Saud. I also suspect he released oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to start knocking prices down, something the non-rabid Wahabs in the House of Saud have been complicit with.

Unfortunately, every drop of oil is bought and sold about ten times before it gets to a refinery and several times after that, so there is no way to track a tanker full of oil to its origin. Had there been, I think the world would be acting as one in leaving those crooks sitting in a sticky oil patch with no way to get rid of it.

One thing executing the Japanese journalists has done is demonstrate to the world that ISIS are nothing but a bunch of overly armed brigands whose only use for the rest of us is as ransom bait. If we fail to generate millions in ransom money, they execute us for the crime of being alive.

All the west can do is try to cut off their funding, something that is being done via low prices and strategic bombing of facilities. It's up to the rest of the Muslims to repudiate these war lords, isolate them, and eliminate their ability to poison the young with their violent perversion of Islam. I wish them luck in that endeavor.

[whatchamacallit]

84. You're like their publicist

Getting the word out.

[Exultant Democracy]

87. Terrorists, your game is through cause now you have ta answer to America, Fuck yeah! So lick my butt

and suck my balls!

[Hissyspit]

91. I think we should fuck some more shit up.

To try to fix the shit we fucked up by fucking more shit up when we tried to fix the shit we fucked up.

[Exultant Democracy]

103. Thing about the middle east, dig that hole deep enough you'll hit oil someday right?

Or more to the point every time you dig a hole, yeah some bodies go in an some oil comes out.

We wouldn't keep digging holes there if someone wasn't getting rich off of it.

[ChosenUnWisely]

92. Now hear me out, The US Gov puts a bounty, dead or alive, of $500 a head on ISIS

Open to any US Citizen who wants to go and fight ISIS and Muslims for Jesus. The volunteers can have their choice of rifles and pistols they want in the US arsenal, free ammo, food (MRE’s) and water. The gov will also supply 4WD pickups, parts and fuel, they can modify all they want, they will know how.

Heavily advertise with plenty of over the top propaganda on Fox, RW Hate Radio and Churches.
Call it the Pat Robertson Brigade or something like that.
There will be plenty of volunteer’s.

Now the good part….we will get to ship a whole bunch of our religious nut jobs to go fight religious nut jobs and the odds are very good they will pretty much take each other out.

Win, Win for everyone!

[KG]

93. you want shit blown up and people killed

we get it already.

[Exultant Democracy]

101. Not people, brown people big difference. Brown people we want to kill are savages and savages

are basically just animals that need to be bombed into submission. It's the white mans burden after all to tame these wild savages and maybe bring them democracy and Christianity while we are at it.

[WinkyDink]

102. You aren't defending ISIS, are you?

[Exultant Democracy]

104. If that is what you are reading you have a serious reading comprehension issue.

More to the point I an a few other poster on this thread are not working off of taking point from the Isis PR desk.

[Warren Stupidity]

119. Is it OK if we support the Kurds in their efforts to get fucking ISIS out of Kurdistan?

Or are they not brown enough?

[kwassa]

98. well, like we did after WWII in Japan .... which went from dictatorship to democracy.

Re-take Iraq set up a US military government there and in Syria, leave the military in place as democratic institutions are set up and developed, in a system that guarantees individual rights and ethnic and religious group rights. Get it running for a number of years, and stay until those democratic institutions and the tradition of voting and honest elections is strong enough to be self-sustaining. Ignore local requests to leave until we think it is do-able.

This should also be done as part of a United Nations action. The great danger is in leaving these countries too soon.

[Agnosticsherbet]

106. Because the Islamic State continues to expand the battlefield by directing its followers

to attack Europe, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Japan (through the murder of its reporters), Australia, and the US, I think a war to end its existance is inevitable and necssary.

I would prefer countries who find the IS an immediate exestential threat such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran (All Shia Muslims are to be murdered because they are not Suni), Turkey, Egypt, and the gulf states should go to the UN and request that the Security Council approve a war. Once approved, the US, NATO, and Russia should provide air support, logistical support, medicine, hospitals, and money to support the nations that are fighting for their survival.

Unless there is no other way, I oppose putting US troops on the ground in Syria and Iraq to fight this war.

[whatchamacallit]

107. Yes, ISIS = Nazi Germany

Another quality OP

[napi21]

108. We should get the hell out of the ME!

I think we should get out of the ME completely and let them solve their own problems. It's too damn bad the Iraqis wouldn't fight after we provided all their equipment & training. If they don't care enough to fight for their land, then why should I?

If all the different countries withdrew their troops from the ME, Isis would leave them alone. If the people who live there don't want them, they THEY should fight them off.

I don't see that affecting the precious OIL either. Does anyone really believe those oil rich countries would turn dow the opportunity to make billions by selling their commodity to the rest of the world? HAH!

[MannyGoldstein]

109. Air support of reliable friendlies on the ground.

Air power keeps the enemy from moving and being supplied, but ground troops are needed to complete the task. Unless we plan to stay for decades, they shouldn't be our ground troops.

[TheKentuckian]

112. Stop being a crutch for regional powers, get out of dodge making in clear to the local

bigwigs that they are on their own and we won't be interfering with these internal matters which once backed up with action of getting out will result in the locals cleaning up their own yards to maintain their own positions and skins.
There is more than sufficient capacity, what is lacking is the will power. If capacity issues become real and present then aid can be rendered as needed (which it isn't) to repel the threats.

Our direct involvement is toxic and fuels an escalating cycle in the region and you don't have to believe me but you do have to open your eyes to what has already gone down without rationalizing how more of the same will this time be different other than worse as the amount, complexity, and reach of treacherous fault lines ratcheting up the level of difficulty, players involved, and magnifying the blowback potential while increasing the "you break it, you bought it" levels.

Do? Stop playing benevolent, wise, white, Great Father over the sea and get our own dilapidated house in order while we cool it with the over the top NAZI comparisons feverishly conflating intent with capacity and legitimacy of threat.

[Rhinodawg]

113. Really ? I guess I'll just say...

thank you for responding.

[pathansen]

114. Whatever is done, it must be a united world wide effort

[Rhinodawg]

116. I'm not sure that will happen.

[Warren Stupidity]

118. They've stepped out on civilization.

So I'm all for arming and supporting organized forces in the area that will kill them until they either surrender or are all dead with some conditions.

Number one: give the Kurds their own state, finally, almost 100 years after that should have been done, and give them all the arms they need to kill the crap out of ISIS.

Number two: accept the reality that for now the Iranian shiite side in this cluster-fuck is preferable to the sunni-wuhabi-jihadists we keep trying to parse the good guys out of. Stop it. There are not any good guys there. Accept that what is left of Syria is going to continue to be run by Assad for the near future.

Number three: I was wrong about our air intervention, it is helping, we should continue to give air support to THE KURDS (see number 1) and to whatever is currently the Iraqi government, but we should not give air support to wuhabi-sunni-jihadists pretending to be on our side (see number 2.)

[JonLP24]

126. Number two is why ISIS is there

If Al-Maliki allowed Sunni participation in government Iraq wouldn't be in this mess. You seem to be arguing the point or maybe not but if Sunnis, Kurds, Mandaeans & others exist in that country but be careful whoever we decide to support.


Survivors say Iraqi forces watched as Shi'ite militias executed 72 Sunnis

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Survivors tell the same story: they were taken from their homes by men in uniform; heads down and linked together, then led in small groups to a field, made to kneel, and selected to be shot one by one.

Accounts by five witnesses interviewed separately by Reuters provide a picture of alleged executions in the eastern village of Barwanah on Monday, which residents and provincial officials say left at least 72 unarmed Iraqis dead.

The witnesses identified the killers as a collection of Shi'ite militias and security force elements.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-22811108

Both ISIS & Shia militias feed the cycle. I don't have a problem with the Kurds per se, they'd probably also want a piece of Turkey but they violently oppress them as well as the Southern countries -- http://news.yahoo.com/turkish-kurds-bury-slain-child-government-denies-shooting-161613921.html

I think the solution (probably far out there but the current approach isn't working) is the civilians of all sects should be free & safe & able to participate. Kurds, they're oppressed by their governments & their neighbors but they also are a target of Shia militias. Al-Assad, world class human rights violators, is terrible for the people that live there. Refugees everywhere. Of the people, I don't favor one or the other but the armed groups, they're all human rights violators & also oppose the fascists in charge.

[Violet_Crumble]

122. You forgot a few options. Their social media policy shows some vunherabilities...

We could:

Send them over to Twitter and insert them in the middle of an Iggy Azalea vs American hip-hop/respected shoe designers/whoever else she hates today rant. After a few hours of reading that badly spelt stream of idiocy they'll all behead themselves. Problem solved.

or

Elect someone at DU who talks about ISIS a lot when they're not scouring the globe to locate that elusive 'moderate' Muslim (not my words) to start a massive thread in GD about how much ISIS suck. That won't sway ISIS, but when they spot the obligatory cute kitten thread that's sure to be lurking on the front page of GD they'll see the light and realise no-one's going to allow them to adopt a fur baby when they're running round beheading people and being all murdery.

No. Wait. Yr talking about what the US and not DU should do? I'm not sure it should do much else than what it's doing now. Going in there all guns blazing and killing lots of civilians for some reason might not go down well with the locals that the US would be trying to protect.

This song's for all the keyboard warriors out there. It has things in common with them...

[JonLP24]

123. Syrian Women Know How to Defeat ISIS

<snip>

So what do they recommend? To create stability (which is kryptonite to extremists), Syrian women say three things must happen.

First, humanitarian aid must get to the millions in grave need. Almost three million people are registered as refugees in neighboring countries and over six million are displaced inside Syria. That’s in a country with a pre-war population of just under 18 million. Approximately half of the remaining inhabitants live in extreme poverty.

In response to this disaster, the UN made an urgent appeal for $2.28 billion just to meet the critical requirements of the internally displaced. So far, Member States have committed only $864 million—a little over one-third of the total. Last month, the UN was forced to cut the delivery of food aid by 40 percent.

<snip>

Which brings us to the third, and potentially most important, step: The parties must return to internationally-mediated negotiations and agree on a political solution to the conflict. The last round of talks in Geneva failed, it’s true. But this is still the best solution to the burgeoning civil war and the opportunistic extremism that has followed it. Only a unified Syria can beat back the ISIS threat.

Convincing both parties to come back to the table won’t be easy. But Syrian women have identified concrete ideas that could help unite disparate factions by encouraging them to cooperate on mutually beneficial activities. For instance, the regime and opposition could coordinate the safe passage of university students between government- and nongovernment-controlled areas to allow them to resume their studies. The women also call on parties to prioritize construction of temporary housing for those displaced by the conflict on both sides. These actions could help cultivate trust between the regime and opposition and encourage popular support on all sides for renewed negotiations.

http://time.com/3513830/syrian-women-defeat-isis/

I'd also add stop giving Wahabbi dictatorships money & weapons. Follow the money.

[Chemisse]

130. Get the hell out of the Middle East!

Let them sort out their own problems.

If ISIS is such a huge threat, then why aren't the neighboring countries taking care of it - or at least TRYING? Why does the U.S. have to be the Big Daddy of the world?

You may say we need to intervene because they are terrorists who could someday go after our country. Well the only damned reason all these terrorists are trying to attack us is because we are all in their faces in the Middle East!

Just get the fuck out!!

[Vattel]

132. I prefer containment.

Defending the Kurds as needed seems doable and justifiable. Beyond that, do nothing unless the Iraq government gets its shit together and starts including the Sunnis.

[LWolf]

133. "Everybody" makes your statement wrong.

Clearly, "everybody" doesn't hate ISIS, and excluding those who don't, as if we don't count, to make your point, is dishonest.

ISIS doesn't hate ISIS. They are "somebodies." I don't hate ISIS. I do my best not to hate, as I find it counter-productive and self-destructive.

What do I think "we" should do in response to radical religion across the globe?

First, I think we should work together with the UN to promote freedom of and from religion across the globe, so that people can practice a faith, or not, without threat.

Secondly, I think we should clean up the shit in our own house before we police the world...in this matter and in every other.

I don't think either of the above, or any other reasonable solution, requires a military solution.

[Rhinodawg]

135. Well, I guess i meant "the vast majority of people here".

my apologies.

[LWolf]

140. That's why

I'm LWolf; I'm very rarely in the vast majority of people's thinking anywhere.

[raouldukelives]

134. I've always felt not flooding the region with money and weapons would be a good start.

If you know you are arming and subsidizing enemies of democracy, maybe not doing that would help.

[Waiting For Everyman]

136. Execute a prisoner of theirs every time they kill a civilian.

You asked, that's what I would do. That means both for a hostage killed or a terrorist bombing. Apparently, that is the only language they understand.

Also, I'd say if you go to Syria or some other terrorist-supporting country, you're not getting back in here. Your choice, stay or go, but it's only one choice.

[Rhinodawg]

137. Thank you for your honest response.

I don't necessarily disagree with you .

The trouble is they couldn't give a rats ass how many of them die.

[LanternWaste]

139. I imagine a lot of people don't pretend to have absolute answers...

I imagine a lot of people don't pretend to have absolute answers, and have enough knowledge of the law of unintended consequences to realize a poorly thought-out, highly-editorialized question when posed with one.