Voices
in
Japan

poll

The U.S. is putting together a coalition, including Japan, to eradicate the threat to the global community from the Islamic State. Do you think military action will be effective or will it make the si

79 Comments

The U.S. is putting together a coalition, including Japan, to eradicate the threat to the global community from the Islamic State. Do you think military action will be effective or will it make the situation worse?

© Japan Today

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

79 Comments
Login to comment

Depends whether it is military action from the air or from the ground. Western troops on the ground is only giving in to what ISIS wants. We don't want to be subject to IEDs for another decade.

8 ( +12 / -4 )

It depends on how the operation unfolds. If it becomes too difficult to eradicate the senior top ISIS structure with drones, which realistically cannot be done, sooner or later you will have to utilize ground forces. There are already more than 1000 special forces present and if the fight becomes more intense, they will increase the number of special forces and they need to increase the bombing raids to instead of 160 a week which is a joke to about 160 a day and not just your basic military soldier is not going to get the job done. No one wants to see an escalation and a long drawn out conflict, but you might have to plan another military surge to weed out these scum.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

Horrible idea. Stay out. Let them work it out themselves. It's a religious war, and any country backing it is backing one side of a religious war. Add this to the fact that the side they back may very well turn into their enemy at any given time in the future.

-3 ( +8 / -11 )

Since the US is largely responsible for the situation in the first place, with various covert and overt activities, it is hardly likely that its tactic of "Shoot up everything in sight" will make it better.

-3 ( +13 / -16 )

It will make make it worse. Why? A full scale confrontation is just what the Caliphate ordered: oil for their propaganda machine that the West is undoubtedly out to kill all Muslims; and a full scale confrontation is the main ingredient to fulfill prophesy according to their ideology. In short, a full scale confrontation will be met with the Islamic State's response of: "Bring it on!"

When that happens, IS militants will blend in with the civilian population and use them as shields-- women and children, and all-- and draw the the fighting to residential backyards. Then they will launch a propaganda attack that the coalition are an evil entity that are out to kill all Muslims, starting with women and children first. As a response, the coalition will start pussyfooting their way about eradicating IS. In the end, the whole operation will deteriorate into a never-ending series skirmishes; the civilian population will end up paying a heavy toll.

3 ( +11 / -8 )

Here is the thing, I don't know what the most effective way to deal with it is.. and people could argue that perhaps previous military action lead to a power vacuum allowing this to occur in the first place..

Please put aside any idea of being against a particular religion, I am no fan of Islam, but none of the others either.. this while, irrational fanatical dogma based on a particular religion has its basis there we can't both be promoting freedom and human rights while simultaneously suggesting people can't have theirs when there is one particular facet we don't like.

I feel strongly that the only way forward is to begin building a world were we value substantive evidence based policies while putting the protection of human rights at the pinnacle, in that you are free to believe what you like but not free to enforce your belief based ideas on other people, as by definition they are not supported by evidence.

If we look at the issue as a human rights and freedom issue its much more clear I think.

However on the specific question of religion, any religion, I don't think countries should be so accommodating.. This has lead to sub communities around the world feeding indoctrinated well funded people into these fanatical organisations.

The promotion of education, and human rights, everywhere is all communities surely has to be the way forward, and if any organisation or religion is against education and human rights then I think its pretty clear which should be preferred and where the problem lay.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Noidall - good breakdown.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

NZ2011,

I agree with what you post.

The situation in the Middle East is not caused by religion. Wolves in sheep's clothing, they use religion as a cloak. Basically, like any war, it's about economics. Oil and power.

"All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are NOT fighting."

George Orwell

-7 ( +7 / -14 )

Horrible idea. Stay out. Let them work it out themselves. It's a religious war, and any country backing it is backing one side of a religious war. Add this to the fact that the side they back may very well turn into their enemy at any given time in the future.

The best and only way to deal with radical Islam is to hit them where it hurts the most and attack their senior top leader structure. If they want to kill themselves, I could care less, once they start killing our people and attempting to plot terror attacks across the US and other countries, we need to act, there are already "military advisors" (special forces) I don't know why Obama keeps saying that instead of what these men are? Maybe he thinks special forces sounds too intrusive, strange.

@bertie

Since the US is largely responsible for the situation in the first place, with various covert and overt activities, it is hardly likely that its tactic of "Shoot up everything in sight" will make it better.

So you suggest, we just keep allowing them to behead people? You heard what happened in Australia and now the trickle effect in Europe and the broader West. You think walking away will have them thinking. Now we really want peace? Or is it better to wait until someone is beheaded on TV in our own countries and then take decisive action? I prefer taking the fight to them, you'd rather wait until they are here and then engage the enemy. The heck with that!

I feel strongly that the only way forward is to begin building a world were we value substantive evidence based policies while putting the protection of human rights at the pinnacle, in that you are free to believe what you like but not free to enforce your belief based ideas on other people, as by definition they are not supported by evidence.

That's all nice and cozy, but please tell that to the people that are chopping the heads off of people. You make a valid point, but realistically, it ain't gonna happen, sadly.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

I agree with the above posters. ISUL's weakness is that they have no air power whatsoever. If the Coalition (which is, increasingly, including other Middle Eastern regions) focus on strategic air strikes, then they will be rendered powerless.

The moment the Coalition puts boots on the ground, things will get much, much worse. Let's hope that it never gets to that stage.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

The best and only way to deal with radical Islam is to hit them where it hurts the most and attack their senior top leader structure.

They already have numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc waiting in the wings.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

The best and only way to deal with radical Islam is to hit them where it hurts the most and attack their senior top leader structure.

This is based on the failure of logic that:

1) Radical Islam can be identified

2) It needs to be dealt with by the US

The fact is, today's 'friend' is tomorrow's 'radical enemy'. Assad was the enemy last year, now he's a friend? Saddam was the friend in the '80s, then in the '90s he was the enemy? The West has shown that they have no clue who are friends and who are enemies in the Middle East. The Russians figured this out decades ago, and got out of Afghanistan. They are laughing at the Americans trying to fumble their way through an unfixable mess in the Middle East.

once they start killing our people and attempting to plot terror attacks across the US and other countries, we need to act

Except that you are preaching acting when they haven't attacked the US or other countries.

So you suggest, we just keep allowing them to behead people?

If those people want to go to places where they may be beheaded, that is the risk they take. No one is making them go there. To start a war based on some people's misjudged risk is ridiculous. You are preaching the deaths of thousands of more, because these people want to be able to go into a pit of vipers and come out unscathed? Ridiculous.

You think walking away will have them thinking. Now we really want peace?

No, I don't think that. I'm just not misguided enough to think that bringing war to them is going to make them want peace. I'm also not misguided enough to think that bringing war to them is going to lower the risk of attacks, when anyone with a brain knows that it only creates new terrorists out of people who wouldn't have been terrorists in the first place.

I prefer taking the fight to them

And they'll bring it right back to you. Live by the sword...

Leave the vipers to themselves. No good has ever come out of meddling in the Middle East by western nations. Never once.

-5 ( +6 / -11 )

'No one wants to see an escalation and a long drawn out conflict, but you might have to plan another military surge to weed out these scum.'

Yep, that should sort it. The last surge really worked and weeded out the scum, leaving behind a legacy of inclusiveness, freedom and democracy. Can't the right just face up to the fact that the west's involvement in this part of the world has been an utter disaster? Is anyone selling the idea that this time things will be different? Politicians are at least warning us, for the moment, of a long campaign this time ( covering their backs ready for another drawn-out disaster which is inevitable ) rather than using the jingoistic and idiotic rhetoric we heard in 2003 to rattle the cages of boneheads.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The crazy thing is that people are saying 'they are coming to our country and attacking', completely oblivious to the fact that they are preaching going to their country and attacking, which makes them as bad (if not worse) as the people they condemn.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

BAD IDEA , because those people are similar to evangelical group in texas who are armageddon-centric , Japan is used in islamic as the people with slant-eyes , don't forget that some of its phrases was copied from other religion ,

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

So to those saying we do nothing and stay out of that fight, what do you say when it shows up on your doorstep? If left unchecked this bunch of nutters will end up at your doorstep but it won't be those from the middle east, it will be those from your very own neighbourhood that saw the IS propaganda and saw the chance to act it out at home.

Take IS out now before it gains momentum and becomes a force to recon with at home. Copycats that see how the west did nothing will try the same fearing no reprisal. A swift end to this group of IS terrorists is the only way to show world solidarity against terrorism. One can only hope this makes those countries working together see eye to eye on other issues and maybe let us get on with other pressing events that help mankind as a whole such as eradicating this new Ebola strain for starters. Famine next and so on. I dream big, I know, but at least it's possible once people cooperate. On your own, not so much.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

To the one person who gave me the thumbs down. Take a look whenever a senior member is killed at how long it takes for the next one in line to take his place. Hint: It does not take long at all.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

This is based on the failure of logic that:

1) Radical Islam can be identified

3 people were recently beheaded, I think that's more than identifiable.

2) It needs to be dealt with by the US

Because NO one else will and what is the solution to deal with radical Islam in Europe? The rise of the far-right which is a cancer in itself and That's the solution radical extremism, Naziism?

The fact is, today's 'friend' is tomorrow's 'radical enemy'. Assad was the enemy last year, now he's a friend? Saddam was the friend in the '80s, then in the '90s he was the enemy? The West has shown that they have no clue who are friends and who are enemies in the Middle East. The Russians figured this out decades ago, and got out of Afghanistan.

I agreed with you up that point.

They are laughing at the Americans trying to fumble their way through an unfixable mess in the Middle East.

They can laugh all they want, no one gives a fig what Russia thinks.

Except that you are preaching acting when they haven't attacked the US or other countries

9/11, Fort Hood, Boston, US Embassy in Libya those were attacks on US soil, therefore, they did attack the US, not to mention, they beheaded 2 US citizens, so it does deserve a harsh response.

If those people want to go to places where they may be beheaded, that is the risk they take. No one is making them go there.

True, that doesn't give a green light, nor justification to chop someone's head off and to think there won't be a response is pure ingnorance on the part of the Jihadists.

To start a war based on some people's misjudged risk is ridiculous. You are preaching the deaths of thousands of more, because these people want to be able to go into a pit of vipers and come out unscathed? Ridiculous.

Either way, we can't allow or should ever allow the jihadists to think they can harm innocent people with impunity humanitarian workers, Jornalists, civilians and US politicians.

No, I don't think that. I'm just not misguided enough to think that bringing war to them is going to make them want peace.

No matter what happens, they will NEVER want peace until Sharia is implemented everywhere in the world.

I'm also not misguided enough to think that bringing war to them is going to lower the risk of attacks, when anyone with a brain knows that it only creates new terrorists out of people who wouldn't have been terrorists in the first place.

No one has ever said that, but you kill enough of them to slow them down, dismantle their senior structure, take as much fight out of them as possible. Everyone knows that you can't eradicate them, but we need to never allow these attacks to happen on such a horrific scale.

And they'll bring it right back to you. Live by the sword...

That's ok, they can live by their 8th century way of life and and use their sword, I'll live by US 21st century with modern firepower.

Leave the vipers to themselves. No good has ever come out of meddling in the Middle East by western nations. Never once.

If they keep Sharia regulated to their country and leave the WEST alone, I will agree with you and if they don't, they they need to be stopped.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Strangerland,

Good post.

Especially this:

Except that you are preaching acting when they haven't attacked the US or other countries.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

bass4funkSep. 22, 2014 - 01:58PM JST

As always your posts are excellent examples of not seeing anyone else's point.

This is based on the failure of logic that:

1) Radical Islam can be identified

3 people were recently beheaded, I think that's more than identifiable.

Earth to Bass4funk, he's talking about the radicals, not their victims. The victims are identifiable, the radicals are anonymous.

What this means is that there'll just be a repeat of the situation in Afghanistan, where a drone from 500m is trying to identify a bunch of guys based on male pattern baldness and a fuzzy photograph that's 40 years out of date, and then "precision" bombing them resulting in dozens of innocent deaths... plus that they got the wrong guy.

2) It needs to be dealt with by the US

Because NO one else will and what is the solution to deal with radical Islam in Europe? The rise of the far-right which is a cancer in itself and That's the solution radical extremism, Naziism?

... the far right? Ironic since last time we discussed this you were advocating for the suppression of free speech, and such rampant xenophobia that you'd rather kill innocents than have a foreign neighbour. The point is that if there's anyone here who exemplifies the far right it is you.

And the ONLY reason that the US is getting involved is because the US economy is so far in debt to their military-industrial complex that if they stopped blowing up other countries for 10 years the US economy would sink like a stone.

The US tries to coat this capitalism killing agenda in moral terms, but anyone with half a brain can see that the US agenda here is economic, not moral.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

The U.S. never learns that Muslim extremists aren't keen on them playing world police. Extremists like ISIS are like shark teeth: they grow back over and over again. This conflict will be in vain just like the gulf wars and will make the innocent be the sufferers once again.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Japan shouldn't get involved. It has nothing to do with them. Not even the collective defence argument works here, because no ally has been attacked. That man-child who was captured is going to be in the news again soon.

Any coalition doesn't need weak links in it. No countries like Japan. Israel shouldn't get involved either. They have enough terrorists to deal with as it is.

"All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are NOT fighting."

Because the people who are fighting have more important things to think about. Don't forget that the propaganda comes from BOTH sides. The only side sending out propaganda in this case has been ISIS.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Any coalition doesn't need weak links in it. No countries like Japan. Israel shouldn't get involved either. They have enough terrorists to deal with as it is.

Just which terrorists are Japan dealing with?

0 ( +6 / -6 )

I voted for 'don't know'... with IS you never know what will happen... it could hurt them and cause them to retreat, or it could just embolden them. I just don't know.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I say let them kill each other to thin the herd of nutballs who are at some point going to unite and turn their gun sights on you and me... en mass. By proxy of Sharia Law there are no alternatives.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Just which terrorists are Japan dealing with?

Any reasonable person would see I was talking about Israel there.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Odd, since about the only uprising in that part of the world that wasn't mostly directed by Islamist extremists was in Iran. And the US left those idealistic young people to the mercy of the mullahs. No help at all. And barely any media coverage to boot. Makes me wonder what the US is really trying to achieve there.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

"The situation in the Middle East is not caused by religion."

That's the funniest thing I've read all day.

ISIS, Al Qaeda, Taliban, Boko Haram, etc. etc.....hello, they're ALL religious groups. They all read the same book. Where do you think their ideas come from, (ideas that are pretty much consistent from terror group to terror group)?

The London murderers in that video said: "The Koran made us do it." They weren't lying.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

I voted "make it worse", because Obamas policy is based on several flawed assumptions. And if you act on phantasy instead of reality, the result can only be worse.

In praxis that means if Obama gets his wish and his "vetted rebels" manage to replace the Assad regime, the ISIS will expand to include all of Syria. That, I would definitely classify as "worse".

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

There strategy they are doing/playing now........... NO. They could win if they put boots on the ground. People must remember its not 2006 Iraq war, that was turned around and lighting fast at that.

Its pointless unless they take on Syria government and also force a new constitution in Iraq and Syria.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

"Japan shouldn't get involved. It has nothing to do with them"

tell that to the families of the 10 Japanese engineers murdered by Muslim terrorists in Algeria last year. There's also Yukawa, now held by ISIS.

Sorry, non-believers are non-believers, according to Jihadis. All deserve to die in their twisted minds.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

How bad can it be with a small surge on the ground?

The IS have taken over city's and to take them back "its easy" :). Checkpoints, road blocks, sniffer dogs. Start at a point, then go house to house putting up cement walls and checkpoints within, stopping weapons getting back in. Can even make Id cards stopping and endless supply of men.

How can boots on the ground go wrong people? They won the battle after the strategy's come in, in Iraq............................................................. stop living in the past peoples.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

@bertie

Obviously, you didn't read what I wrote. Let's try this again: 9/11, Fort Hood, Boston, US Embassy in Libya those were attacks on US soil, therefore, they did attack the US, not to mention, they beheaded 2 US citizens, so it does deserve a harsh response.

So yes, we have not only the right, but a moral obligation to eradicate this filth.

@frungy

As always your posts are excellent examples of not seeing anyone else's point.

Right back at you, buddy.

Earth to Bass4funk, he's talking about the radicals, not their victims. The victims are identifiable, the radicals are anonymous.

I know.

What this means is that there'll just be a repeat of the situation in Afghanistan, where a drone from 500m is trying to identify a bunch of guys based on male pattern baldness and a fuzzy photograph that's 40 years out of date, and then "precision" bombing them resulting in dozens of innocent deaths... plus that they got the wrong guy.

Amazing, so you know more about the military, drones, NSA and the CIA. I had no idea.

... the far right? Ironic since last time we discussed this you were advocating for the suppression of free speech, and such rampant xenophobia that you'd rather kill innocents than have a foreign neighbour. The point is that if there's anyone here who exemplifies the far right it is you.

You know, I don't want to get my post deleted, but I'll say this as nice as I can, I was never against FREE speech, I'm against radical Islam. I hope you can understand that. As for killing, I'd rather we do away permanently with ISIS or as many as we can. They want to die so bad, I'm all for Obama obliging them.

And the ONLY reason that the US is getting involved is because the US economy is so far in debt to their military-industrial complex that if they stopped blowing up other countries for 10 years the US economy would sink like a stone.

Please,stop reading Think Progress and MoveOn.org, please Frungy

The US tries to coat this capitalism killing agenda in moral terms, but anyone with half a brain can see that the US agenda here is economic, not moral.

And your documented proof of that is.....?

The U.S. never learns that Muslim extremists aren't keen on them playing world police. Extremists like ISIS are like shark teeth: they grow back over and over again. This conflict will be in vain just like the gulf wars and will make the innocent be the sufferers once again.

And when we don't play the police ( much to my dislike ) you see after 4 years of what happens.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

Assuming that the islamic states reasons are both of religious and economical natures, I see this (perhaps completely wrong): How funny is history in the macroscopic scale? Just a loop of similar facts in the core with some different details of characters and places. What's happening now looks like as what the christians done from the middle ages through modern age untill early contemporary history. "Go spreading the word, crush the non believers while we count the gold". Then, a war would solve nothing for now. Only makes things worse. And a good solution is a big question mark.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bass4funkSep. 22, 2014 - 09:02PM JST

What this means is that there'll just be a repeat of the situation in Afghanistan, where a drone from 500m is trying to identify a bunch of guys based on male pattern baldness and a fuzzy photograph that's 40 years out of date, and then "precision" bombing them resulting in dozens of innocent deaths... plus that they got the wrong guy.

Amazing, so you know more about the military, drones, NSA and the CIA. I had no idea.

You're right, you have no idea. There's released drone footage on the internet, accompanied by articles written by drone operators and frankly the quality is so amazingly awful that it is no surprise that the statistics show that they get the wrong target 90% of the time.

You know, I don't want to get my post deleted, but I'll say this as nice as I can, I was never against FREE speech, I'm against radical Islam.

Your post advocated deporting anyone who proposed Sharia law. That's not "radical Islam", that's proposing a change in the legal system. It is not a position I would support since I believe that Sharia law is fatally flawed and discriminatory, but in a society that practices free speech people should be free to propose the idea, if only so it can be publically addressed and shot down.

I hope you can understand that. As for killing, I'd rather we do away permanently with ISIS or as many as we can. They want to die so bad, I'm all for Obama obliging them.

Who is this "they"? That's the point you've never been able to address satisfactorily. How do you tell a moderate Muslim man in an Islamic country like Syria from a fanatic Jihadist from a drone 500m up in the air? You can't, the CIA can't, the NSA can't, and "military intelligence" (that most famous oxymoron) definitely can't.

The US tries to coat this capitalism killing agenda in moral terms, but anyone with half a brain can see that the US agenda here is economic, not moral.

And your documented proof of that is.....?

Start by reading President Eisenhower's farewell address in 1961, and then keep reading another 50 years worth of documents, then come back and post again.

And when we don't play the police ( much to my dislike ) you see after 4 years of what happens.

Excellent idea. The US can lay off for 4 or 5 years and we'll try something else, because after 13 years of the war on terror there has been no real progress. The Boston Marathon bombing still happened, there are more than half a million dead, and for all that pain and suffering the world is actually LESS safe and LESS stable, and it has provided Russia and China with the moral authority to invade sovereign nations and point to the US and their allies and say, "You guys do this all the time!!".

0 ( +4 / -4 )

I changed my mind... destroy them.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@Willi

Embassies are considered foreign soil. Everywhere, not just in Libya.

Urban myth. Embassies are just given special regard, out of diplomatic consideration. The London police could march into the Ecuadorean embassy tomorrow to arrest Julian Assange and nobody could do anything in law to stop them. It just wouldn't be the thing to do in diplomatic circles.

There is actually one area of the UK that is officially "foreign soil": a cemetery for US airmen somewhere down in the south. (Don't remember the name,sorry), but that apart, it's all UK as far as the eye can see.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Since the US is largely responsible for the situation in the first place,

Ah, the masochism of the anti-American left.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

@frungy

There's released drone footage on the internet, accompanied by articles written by drone operators and frankly the quality is so amazingly awful that it is no surprise that the statistics show that they get the wrong target 90% of the time.

Hey, as long as they get ANY jihadists that hang around for a smoke and the likeminded ilk, i'm cool wit it!

Your post advocated deporting anyone who proposed Sharia law. That's not "radical Islam", that's proposing a change in the legal system. It is not a position I would support since I believe that Sharia law is fatally flawed and discriminatory, but in a society that practices free speech people should be free to propose the idea, if only so it can be publically addressed and shot down.

Putting a gun to someone's head and telling them to convert and Oh, by the way, after the person converts, THEN chop of the persons head has absolutely NOTHING to do with free speech. NOTHING. If it were free speech, the people, the moderates, the Christian and Yazidi population would and should have nothing to fear, if that were really true. But we know it's NOT.

Who is this "they"? That's the point you've never been able to address satisfactorily. How do you tell a moderate Muslim man in an Islamic country like Syria from a fanatic Jihadist from a drone 500m up in the air? You can't, the CIA can't, the NSA can't, and "military intelligence" (that most famous oxymoron) definitely can't.

Hey! LOL, if you say so. Anyway, someone who preferably cut off someone's head and would allow the person of any faith live alongside in peace and harmony.

Start by reading President Eisenhower's farewell address in 1961, and then keep reading another 50 years worth of documents, then come back and post again.

I did and don't need to again, it's not relevant with what we are dealing with now. I like to stay current circa 2014

Excellent idea. The US can lay off for 4 or 5 years and we'll try something else, because after 13 years of the war on terror there has been no real progress.

As I said, there is nothing else. Unless the West bows down to Sharia, they won't let up, ANY idea of the Jihadists wanting to live side by side and existing in peaceful harmony is hysterically laughable and ludicrous. Never going to happen.

The Boston Marathon bombing still happened, there are more than half a million dead, and for all that pain and suffering the world is actually LESS safe and LESS stable, and it has provided Russia and China with the moral authority to invade sovereign nations and point to the US and their allies and say, "You guys do this all the time!!".

But we also had 6 years of THE most wimpy, pacifist, narcissistic and most selfish President ever and that's why a lot of this happened under his watch, but the good thing is... Only 850 more days to go until the madness ends.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

9/11, Fort Hood, Boston, US Embassy in Libya those were attacks on US soil, therefore, they did attack the US

ISIS was not responsible for 9/11, Fort Hood, Boston, or the US Embassy in Libya. So no, they didn't attack the US.

not to mention, they beheaded 2 US citizens, so it does deserve a harsh response.

No, it doesn't. Those people made a fatal misjudgment in the risk they faced, and they died for that mistake. Starting a war in which thousands of innocents will die is not a justifiable response, neither morally nor logically.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

ISIS was responsible for 9/11, Fort Hood, Boston, or the US Embassy in Libya that attacked us.

ISIS was responsible for murdering 3 citizens, 2 US and 1 British. They practice a radical extremist version of Islam, they are an offshoot of Al Qaeda, they want to establish a Caliphate. They are from the same tree, same vine, therefore it is exactly part of the network or radical extremist Islam that was part of the bigger unit that associated and affiliated did the above attacks.

No, it doesn't. Those people made a fatal misjudgment in the risk they faced, and they died for that mistake. Starting a war in which thousands of innocents will die is not a justifiable response, neither morally nor logically.

Yes, it does reserve a harsh response. ISIS already started the war on the West and to be frank Islam itself.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

ISIS was responsible for murdering 3 citizens, 2 US and 1 British.

And as a result you want to start a war, that will result in the deaths of thousands of innocents? Wow, talk about an overreaction. Tell me, do you generally also pull a gun on people who bump into you on the subway? Or burn down your neighbors house if he says something bad to you? Because those would be similar overreactions.

They practice a radical extremist version of Islam, they are an offshoot of Al Qaeda, they want to establish a Caliphate. They are from the same tree, same vine, therefore it is exactly part of the network or radical extremist Islam that was part of the bigger unit that associated and affiliated did the above attacks.

They have killed three people, and you are advocating a war, with the above being the justification for said war. So it would appear that your biggest issue with them is that their religious affiliations scare you.

That would explain the overreaction alright.

Yes, it does reserve a harsh response.

Not by America it doesn't. It deserves a harsh response by the law in the country where it happened. If the law in that country is not up to the task, then people would be better off not visiting a country where they don't have the protection of the law. But if the Americans start invading any country in which one of their citizens are killed, America will be at war with every country in the world.

ISIS already started the war on the West

No, ISIS is provoking a war with the US. And the US seems to be falling for their ploy.

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

Why is there no mention of the atrocities committed by the U.S.A. in the middle east?

We know some of these from Wikileaks.

Hundreds of thousands of non-combatants have been killed or maimed by the US.

More killing will not solve it.

It didn't solve it in Vietnam or Korea and it's not solving it now.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

And as a result you want to start a war, that will result in the deaths of thousands of innocents? Wow, talk about an overreaction. Tell me, do you generally also pull a gun on people who bump into you on the subway? Or burn down your neighbors house if he says something bad to you? Because those would be similar overreactions.

Beheading someone is NOT an overreaction.

They have killed three people, and you are advocating a war, with the above being the justification for said war. So it would appear that your biggest issue with them is that their religious affiliations scare you.

And allow them to come to our shores, Europe, Australia and beyond to force us to comply with Sharia and in Australia they wanted to randomly kidnap and behead someone and in the UK, practically did, but you think, we shouldn't overreact, uh-huh....

That would explain the overreaction alright.

On their part, I agree.

Not by America it doesn't. It deserves a harsh response by the law in the country where it happened.

In your worldview opinion that's fine, you are entitled to your opinion, I'm not going to say anything.

If the law in that country is not up to the task, then people would be better off not visiting a country where they don't have the protection of the law. But if the Americans start invading any country in which one of their citizens are killed, America will be at war with every country in the world.

No, just the rogue countries and the radical ME.

No, ISIS is provoking a war with the US. And the US seems to be falling for their ploy.

Yes and they are threatening and have followed up on that threat to expand Sharia, if they want to keep on their side of the fence and spread it, fine. Leave the rest of us alone and when these pathetic losers come to our countries and threaten to kidnap and behead us, there IS ONLY ONE response and it should be condemned to the pinnacle.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

Readers, please stop bickering and being impolite toward one another. If you cannot be tolerant of opposing points of view, then your posts will be removed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@stranger

It wasn't an insult, it was a statement of fact. You were either intentionally being ignorant about my comments, or unintentionally. Either way, it's ignorant. If you don't like that truth being pointed out, you should either stop being willfully ignorant, or try to read more carefully to ensure you are not unintentionally ignorant.

No, it was an insult, pure and simple.

That completely ignores the fact that no one has asked you to do this, it has nothing to do with you, and that in doing so you are making the problem worse, not better.

I think eradicating or diminishing ISIS capability to launch attacks and to stop them from imposing their Caliphate and Sharia, the better we all will be better.

Well, your posts prove quite clearly that you are not very good at judging the difference between right and wrong.

I am good, but we just have a difference in what we value and view right from wrong.

Three beheadings of people who went into the region. The imposition of radical Islam in THEIR region. Sorry, but your justifications just do not work. No matter which way you cut it, the US has no right, nor any responsibility, to be there. And being there will result in absolutely no good whatsoever to the US.

I guess it seems like the US is not going about it alone and good for the international community to stop these animals.

Moderator: Sorry, we said no bickering.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I'm normally a pacifist, but I am not against nuking the whole region. If only we could evacuate the innocents first,

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Strangerland,

They have killed three people, and you are advocating a war, with the above being the justification for said war. So it would appear that your biggest issue with them is that their religious affiliations scare you.

That would explain the overreaction alright.

Well said.

One US drone kills far more than three incidental bystanders.

But that's OK because they are terrorists!

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

One US drone kills far more than three incidental bystanders.

But that's OK because they are terrorists!

If you lay with dogs.....

2 ( +5 / -3 )

bass,

Explain yourself. What do you mean by this?

And for ONCE answer the question EXACTLY!

If you lay with dogs.....

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Bertie Wooster:

" Hundreds of thousands of non-combatants have been killed or maimed by the US. "

Oh stop the hype already. I think US policy has been misguided constantly, but "hundreds of thousands"?? Only if you include the Iran-Iraq war, and the US stayed ouf of that one.

" More killing will not solve it. "

Agreed.

" It didn't solve it in Vietnam or Korea and it's not solving it now. "

Very confused statement. In Vietnam, the US withdrew and left the South to the Communists. In Korea, they stayed kicked the Communists back to the North.... would you prefer ALL of Korean to be united unter Kim Yong Un? Really? And both of those conflicts were in the Cold War context, and not related to the Jihadist war that we are looking at now. Are you desperately trying to see some conspiracy pattern where there is none?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

@bertie

Meaning, if people get caught in the crossfire, as tragic as it will be, what else can you do? You are engaging a vicious enemy that cares NOTHING about life, glorifies death, so as much as you want to avoid civilian deaths, they will happen without question, always have happened throughout history and always will. Many people that choose to stay and fight with ISIS are also part of the problem. There is an estimate of close to 100,000 fighters so far and....

**“If you can kill a disbelieving American or European—especially the spiteful and filthy French—or an Australian, or a Canadian or any other disbeliever… including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him,” said Abu Mohammed al-Adnani, the group’s spokesman.

“Kill the disbeliever whether he is civilian or military,”**

Sounds like a threat to me, not only that, it's giving me the Green light to confidentially go with the basic premises that we should do everything in our power to neutralize this threat, not only WILL they make good on their promises, if we don't do anything now, the situation will get to the point where that is nothing we can do and we will all be dead. And for once, this is NOT an American thing only as was clearly stated, we are all involved in this.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Probably a very difficult question, because we all remember the fatal invasion of Iraq in 2003. It was a non succesfull operation because it made the hate and expressions against the west even worse, and of course the War against Terror. Terrorism cant be completely broken, but it is a good thing that the world society is reacting with power when terrorism is being used on civilians, Terrorism will never stop because it will only go on when the West continues to bomb them, but the west and the world cant just stand and look at the terrible actings!! When already started, no turning back!!:(:(:(

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

To those who want us to intervene more, I say "GO!". I already did it, and learned my lesson.

Now, it is YOUR turn.

GO!

0 ( +4 / -4 )

" the threat to the global community"

Threat? Seriously? Your odds of getting struck by lightning are probably greater than being harmed by IS if you just stay at home.

I have to complete reject the idea that we "must" do something. We don't need to do anything. There are quite literally greater threats to us just waiting outside our own homes.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

I'm with bass4funk on this.

ISIS will kill more innocent people if they are left to run free than will die as collateral damage.

They have killed three people, and you are advocating a war, with the above being the justification for said war. So it would appear that your biggest issue with them is that their religious affiliations scare you.

They have not "killed 3 people". Have you seen how many they have killed?

These are old numbers, but:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/11/isis-iraq-numbers_n_5659239.html

Also search for "ISIS dock shooting" on Google and tell me that they are not barbaric scum.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

They have not "killed 3 people". Have you seen how many they have killed?

Probie it will immensely help your case to read entire posts and those that were quoted so you will understand context. The three killed were specifically 2 Americans and 1 British citizen. That represents how much they have made good on being a threat to US and Britain. Except for one thing. I don't know where those people were killed. If it was in the Middle East, well that's no threat to America or Britain is it? And if it was in their home countries? More people die shoveling snow off their roofs in winter, so give me a break.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@_Jack

Any country stepping in to stop scum like ISIS killing any more innocent people should not be a subject of debate. It should be applauded.

I don't know where those people were killed. If it was in the Middle East, well that's no threat to America or Britain is it?

So everyone should just let them continue? You're fine with genocide?

And if it was in their home countries? More people die shoveling snow off their roofs in winter, so give me a break.

Trying to be edgy and missing the real points. Well done.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

gkamburoff wrote: ||To those who want us to intervene more, I say "GO!". I already did it, and learned my lesson. Now, it is YOUR turn. GO! ||

Right on. I remember when many first lieutenants fresh out of West Point got shipped off to Vietnam never to return from their first tour. Some of them came back to small towns around America in flag draped coffin boxes carried on top of fire engines driven down main streets by local volunteer fire house brigades.Their kodachrome photographs still sit in frames on walls and mantle places (and on top of upright pianos) in homes that never healed. America needs to be more sparing in making patriotic calls to arms. The proper answer to ISIL begins with a rational international perimeter containment strategy (not aerial bombardment). The U.S. does not have a border on that perimeter (nor is there any 51st state in that region). Graphic executions and radical calls for vengeance against the West are incitements and provocations intended to trigger exactly the kind of hawkish response which is happening at present. Playing into that game will ultimately be counterproductive to U.S. interests and a tragic waste of more service personnel. Support for Assad and his fight to ring off Damascus is the only other contribution worthy of consideration. Unfortunately getting "turned-around" on this issue requires the kind of executive decision the lobby shackled POTUS seems to be incapable off.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Don't thank me Probie or admit your error. Instead, change the subject and put words in my mouth.

Any country stepping in to stop scum like ISIS killing any more innocent people should not be a subject of debate.

Goal post moved. We were talking about the threat to the west. But if all IS militants drop dead tomorrow, guess what? The civil war continues and innocents still die at the hands of the other groups.

So everyone should just let them continue?

The point (sigh) was the threat to the west. The Assad regime, the moderate militants, etc. can and will keep fighting them. There is little guarantee or proof that meddling will save any innocent lives.

You're fine with genocide?

Are you accusing IS of genocide? Did not move the goal post enough earlier?

Trying to be edgy and missing the real points.

Snow in winter is a greater threat to the west. Its undeniable fact. But you have to stick with the point to understand, and the point, the entire point of this thread, is about the threat to the west of IS.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

What's the proverb? 'Either put up or shut up?'

You gotta show these Jihadists that you aren't fooling around anymore. Airstrikes, using conventional weaponry have very limited success because of the low yields of the bombs / missiles being used. Detonating a few low yield Nukes in Jihadists strongholds will deliver the message that you're prepared to do whatever it takes and a further ultimatum that with every future televised beheading, another Nuke goes off.

Easy as pie.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@_Jack

Don't thank me Probie or admit your error. Instead, change the subject and put words in my mouth.

I don't have to thank you for anything, and I made no error.

Goal post moved. We were talking about the threat to the west.

De-stabilizing the ME leads to danger in the West.

But if all IS militants drop dead tomorrow, guess what? The civil war continues and innocents still die at the hands of the other groups.

The scale is different.

The point (sigh) was the threat to the west. The Assad regime, the moderate militants, etc. can and will keep fighting them.

Once a country expands its borders and takes over more land, gains more followers, you never know what is going to happen. With the amount of money they have, buying nuclear or biological weapons and using them on targets in the west, or certainly Israel, is highly likely.

There is little guarantee or proof that meddling will save any innocent lives.

I send that back to you. There is little guarantee or proof that meddling will not save any innocent lives.

Are you accusing IS of genocide? Did not move the goal post enough earlier?

Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Yazidis_by_the_Islamic_State

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29026491

*Reported atrocities by Islamic State (IS) in Iraq

At least 1,000 members of the Yazidi faith are thought to have been killed in recent weeks, with close to 2,750 kidnapped or enslaved

12 June - Following an IS attack on an Iraqi air force base near the city of Tikrit, more than 1,500 young soldiers went missing; many bodies were subsequently found in the Dijla River

2 July - IS fighters entered the village of Omar Khan in the Nimrod area of Nineveh province, looking for Shabak people, many of them Shia; they kidnapped some 40 Shabak and Turkmen

7 July - IS stormed the village of al-Rashidiya in Mosul, and abducted 40 Turkmen; some were killed

10 July - At least 650 male inmates of Badouch Prison in Mosul were murdered by IS; witnesses say inmates claiming to be Sunni were transported away, while Shia or members of other religious and ethnic communities were ordered into ditches and shot

3 August - Dozens of men and boys were killed on the edge of the village of Qinyeh, south-east of Sinjar after a group of 300 or more Yazidis fleeing nearby Tal Qasab were caught by IS, survivors say

15 August - The mainly Yazidi village of Cotcho, south of Sinjar, was attacked by IS fighters; survivors say at least 100 men were killed, and hundreds of women and children were abducted*

Snow in winter is a greater threat to the west. Its undeniable fact. But you have to stick with the point to understand, and the point, the entire point of this thread, is about the threat to the west of IS.

So is influenza. So what. You can't stop winter. We can stop IS.

Also, the entire point of this thread is NOT the threat to the west of IS. It's the "threat to the global community from the Islamic State". By the "Global Community" I include the people being murdered by IS. It's the duty of the rest of us to stop that.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Probie wrote: ||(1) Once a country expands its borders and takes over more land, gains more followers, you never know what is going to happen. (2) With the amount of money they have, buying nuclear or biological weapons and using them on targets in the west, or certainly Israel, is highly likely.||

(1) Exactly. So let it be and don't swing a bat at a swarm of hornets. Better just stay indoors for awhile.

(2) The only effective way to stop proliferation of WMD is to limit them at the source. ISIL is not a source of WMD. As for their having financial resources that is true, but most did not come from selling oil to Turkey or donations from wealthy individuals in Arab states. In fact the U.S. has been their primary benefactor - albeit unwittingly. In 2004, the Bush administration reportedly flew twenty billion dollars of shrink-wrapped cash into Iraq on pallets. All that money subsequently disappeared. The funds flown into the war zone unprotected were made up of surplus from the UN oil-for-food program, as well as money from sales of Iraqi oil and seized Iraqi assets. Much of this U.S. cash was certainly recycled into weapons, and/or currently sits idle "on account" with global arms brokers. This cash LOST by the U.S. during its previous invasion of Iraq has played a hugely detrimental (but never mentioned) role in expanding this conflict.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Probie, my point was that by saying "genocide" you were changing the subject again. But okay, I will play. According to the 2014 Syrian detainee report, the Syrian government has murdered 11,000 detainees. UNICEF says 400 children have been arrested and tortured by the Syrian government. A quote "According to various human rights organizations and United Nations, human rights violations have been committed by both the government and the rebels, with the 'vast majority of the abuses having been committed by the Syrian government'. That includes mass killings and the Syrian government is being blamed for the overwhelming majority of them.

And lets not forget that the Syrian government was murdering people before this civil war even started and that is why this war started and that is how IS got in. You hate IS. I get it. I hate them too. But you need to figure out which is the lesser evil here. Forget about the rhetoric. Look at the body counts. Its the Syrian government taking first place for genocide.

We can stop IS.

I don't think we can. But even if we could, what happens? Assad wins? Its a strong possibility. And we already know Assad murders even without a civil war.

And now, for Pete's sake stop changing the subject! The subject is the threat to the "global community" of specifically IS and its a bunch of hot air!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Things won't get better no matter which side prevails. Both sides are guilty of countless atrocities and both sides use extremist actions as a norm. Anyone who thinks more guns bombs and missiles, will bring peace and stability to the average citizens will be proven wrong.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The U.S. is putting together a coalition, including Japan, to eradicate the threat to the global community from the Islamic State.

After cuddling up to radicals President Obama is starting to wake up. Bomb their forces into their caves and then hope that the spineless Iraqi forces can do the rest.

The blame for this war lies squarely on the shoulders of the radical Islamic fanatics and the Political Correctness that gives these radicals asylum, a home, tax payer welfare and rights to spread their hate in the West.

The West needs to wake up and go after those Muslims that support these madmen. The West needs to round up anyone that fuels, funds or supports these fanatics in anyway! The West needs to protect it's citizens from these madmen.

But, the PC crowd with their, "We don't want them for feel discriminated" are protecting these madmen and their hate.

The only way to end this madness is to remove the supporters of Political Correctness bunk from power and bring in politicians who have a pair.

Here is are some beautiful examples of what PC fear does to a nation citizens.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/enza-ferreri/when-progressives-consider-child-rape-defensible-1/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerscruton/2014/08/30/why-did-british-police-ignore-pakistani-gangs-raping-rotherham-children-political-correctness/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/sweden/10080320/Stockholm-riots-leave-Swedens-dreams-of-perfect-society-up-in-smoke.html

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2012/06/to-be-politically-correct-u-s-ignores-threat-of-radicalized-muslim-americans/

http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/britains-shocking-muslim-political-correctness

Political Correctness shield radicals and allows them to spread their hatred. Time to end Political Correctness.

BertieWoosterSep. 22, 2014 - 08:56AM JST Since the US is largely responsible for the situation in the first place, with various covert and overt activities, it is hardly likely that its tactic of "Shoot up everything in sight" will make it better.

No, the US isn't largely responsible, put aside your bias for a bit and stop trying to justify what these fanatics are doing by saying it's not their fault, they are just mad.

If they were just upset because of the US they would be executing followers of Shia and other religion.

This war is a secular war based on the most radical of teachings and not because the US supports Israel and any other Liberal talking point.

This war that ISIS is fighting is a war created off the idea that through war Islam will be spread to in infidels.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2020382/You-entering-Sharia-law-Britain-As-Islamic-extremists-declare-Sharia-law-zone-London-suburb-worrying-social-moral-implications.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10939235/Rome-will-be-conquered-next-says-leader-of-Islamic-State.html

This is a war based on religious hatred and ISIS will do whatever it takes to try and win it.

There is only one way to deal with fanatics and radicals, but the PC crowd would rather hug them.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

This govt wanted to step up, has removed Article 9's obstacles and so, well, here we have it: Action and ALL that comes with it. Be ready Japan. Be vigilante because the reality of Realpolitik ALWAYS has consequences.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

The poll question is stupid. Obviously military action will never stamp out the fundamentalist nutjobs because they breed like flies. But if the world does nothing we run the risk that these sort of people will grow emboldened and spread like a disease across the entire region. We also face the possibility that they will become a threat to the world outside their little "caliphate" and carry out, or sponsor, acts of terrorism anywhere in the world (already seen in Australia). And finally, by doing nothing, we condemn millions of people (who do not voluntarily subscribe to the disgusting policies of this group) to live lives of misery and oppression under the boot heel of these thugs.

So no, military action is unlikely to ever be "effective" against a lot of cowards who fight like Muslim fundamentalists tend to fight. But doing nothing in the face of the kinds of actions this group has already carried out, would be far worse. The best and smartest course of action would be a merciless bombing campaign the likes of which hasn't been seen since WW2. Troops on the ground is not a smart strategy imo. Just keep hitting them harder and harder with the drones.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

If Japan join, Japan may become target for terroist. Japanese don't want join this war.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

@ JoeBigs "There is only one way to deal with fanatics and radicals, but the PC crowd would rather hug them."

This is why I suggested that the way to go about it is to protect human rights and freedoms, rather than get caught up in whatever specific non-sense dogma they happen to believe, christian, muslim and bizarrely even buddhists are all responsible for outrageous extremist behaviour though out history and currently.

Please once again don't misunderstand what Im saying, I personally don't like Islam, or any religion for that matter, I think currently the extreme Islam is probably the most dangerous dogma based "movement" on the planet, probably followed by the Russian push into other territories and then North Korea ( they have been quiet lately haven't they ) but.. as soon as anyone tries to make it about religion specifically its going to be very hard to get anywhere.

Instead, with reason and equality, allowing and promoting rights to education, freedom of movement, freedom of clothing, etc,etc,etc and policy based on substantive reality rather than the unsubstantiated beliefs of whomever happens to be in power EVERYWHERE.. we might just make it as a species.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

It might deteriorate the whole situation. Alternative option, thus, should come forth- political dialogue with the affected country with all stakeholders. It requires unearthing the reason behinds of such crucial birth of IS. Then, find solution to the problem.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Noor FarukSep. 26, 2014 - 09:42PM JST It might deteriorate the whole situation. Alternative option, thus, should come forth- political dialogue with the affected country with all stakeholders. It requires unearthing the reason behinds of such crucial birth of IS. Then, find solution to the problem.

The reason for the birth of the IS? That's easy. Try 70 years of the US systematically funding terrorism and radicals in the region, followed by a decade of US-led war in the region that created both a massive power vacuum and an anti-Muslim US agenda that created a logical and entirely predictable Muslim backlash at their perceived persecution.

The answer in short? The US messed up the region good'o.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

The question's phrasing "to eradicate the threat" when it should be "to contain the threat" is worrisome.

Three things which give life to ISIL and similar groups: - fundamentalist ideology - conflict - money.

The fundamentalist ideologies' strong point is it's simplicity, and pushing all the easy buttons: self as victim, glorious war, life fulfillment through dedication to a exciting cause larger than oneself, simultaneously with enjoying the base pleasures of violence and cruelty towards outsiders. No need to study difficult tedious engineering or scientific subject matter, let alone free thought, no need to feel inferior about not doing it even while using the imported fruits of those subject matters for violent objectives. While it is easy to try and draw a parallel between ISIL and Hitler or the Japanese expansion in Asia, it misses the lack of a technological base in ISIL. No factories or home weapons production other than hobby level IED's and low tech terrorism. It means they can never be more than a thorn in the side (at times an extremely painful thorn - as in WTC), while at the same time means they have few resources to lose through attack with conventional weapons. Hence, containment is the optimal strategy.

Conflict leaves a population insecure, prone to violence and violent ideology. War is the best incubator for the ideology: Afghanistan since the Russian invasion, Iraq since the fall of Hussien, tribal and ethnic rivalries in collapsing Syria. To a lesser extent any social tensions or inequity offers a foothold.

Not all force will expand conflict. To save the Kurds (yet again) from annihilation, this time from ISIL, by giving them just enough support to do the job themselves on the ground is arguably a way to contain the threat and lessen conflict.

But ISIL is going to be impervious to bombings without local support to follow up. Invasion by US troops will just be a painful repeat of earlier failed policies - increasing conflict. In Iraq, the Sunni Iraqis have so far given haven to ISIL as the less painful of two evils, the other evil being the weaker side in a civil war with Iraqi Shias. So perhaps a partitioning of Iraq is order to give Sunni Iraqi's the confidence to kick out ISIL (as they once kicked out Al Queda) is a solution. India / Pakistan, Pakistan / Bangladesh, the legitimization of an atomized Yugoslavia, North/South Sudan: these are all examples where national fission has been internationally recognized and has helped to contain or even eradicate conflict. Could it be useful here? Need to keep an open mind.

Finally money - mostly oil money - is essential for funding the conflict component. Although, cost per unit of violence is probably 1% (guess) of what it costs the US to fight it, they pay their soldiers well by local standards. Apparently, Taliban soldiers were earning more than Afghan government soldiers during the US occupation of Afghanistan - and I would venture the Al Queda reps in Afghanistan were earning as much as their contractor / Blackwater mercenary counterparts from the US.

Reducing dependence on middle east oil is the only solution to the money issue. (Controlling cash flow through banks will help only a little bit due to the Etherial nature of money). Since this requires no cooperation from ISIL or foreign national, it seems like a very effective approach. However because it requires self reflection rather than projecting the source of the problem onto others, it is the most difficult strategy of all.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Left alone, the militants would kill and kill until either there was no one else left to kill, or they simply got tired of it. An equilibrium would be reached, and a unpleasant peace would ensue. The militants themselves know little or nothing about anything, neither the world around them, or the religion the claim to believe in. Moses is a prophet in islam just as he is in judaism, and the islamic version of the ten commandments is remarkably similar. As is usual with many fervently religions people, they rely on "scholars" to provide them with the words, and never bother to read the fine print themselves. An old saying is that "god is in the details". If you don't care to read the details, you are not going be able to find or understand any god.

By attacking the militants, the US and allies are committing what is known as an "injustice", which is really the only justification in islam for killing. By being provided an enemy greater than themselves, the militants have an easy target to direct their followers at. That the militants themselves have committed numerous injustices, and by divine right may deserve the punishment they receive, is never mentioned by their leaders. Even in islam, a just cause is required to fight and kill, but the people are too ignorant to judge what is just, and what is not, and therefore simply do what they are told.

Were the middle east not a major supplier of oil, it would be ignored. The people would eventually sort things out for themselves, and more-or-less get along. But the middle east is a large source of oil, and this is the reason that the militants are taking the oil fields, setting up portable refineries, and the like. The west values it's comforts and quality of life, which are mainly fueled with oil. The leaders of the militants are not religious as the claim to be, they are greedy men who want the things which this oil can buy them.

The west has been playing it's own games of "divide and conquer" domestically since the 1960's (and earlier). You can see Obama, Abe, Merkel, and the like playing this game every day by simply reading the papers. This has resulted in massive national debts, and slow or non-existent economic growth. The west has placed itself in a vulnerable economic situation. The islamic state could easily through a stone through the window, and destroy the last 5 years of so-called "recovery", putting to waste the trillions of dollars (which were more or less wasted anyway), and turning back the world's economic clock back to the end of 1945.

The leaders of the militants are not as stupid as their followers, they are men of the world. They want the same things all ambitious and greedy men have always wanted, which is simply "more". A little ambition or greed is not a bad thing, otherwise people would not bother to study or work hard. But all good things must be taken in moderation. For some, the term "moderation" is a dirty word. They want it all, and they want it as soon as possible, at any cost (except their own).

The US and it's allies will fight, and likely invade. They have put themselves in this position, and will have to pay the consequences. Thousands, or tens of thousands of militants will die, which is just, as they also put themselves in such a position, and must also pay the consequences. But many innocent people will also die, and for who's blood both sides will be responsible.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I honestly don't know what will defeat radical Islam?

How do you fight IEDs and suicide bombers with a conventional army?

How do you destroy an idea or a belief system?
0 ( +0 / -0 )

jeff198527Sep. 28, 2014 - 07:05AM JST I honestly don't know what will defeat radical Islam? How do you fight IEDs and suicide bombers with a conventional army? How do you destroy an idea or a belief system?

You can't.

And here's the kicker, I think that the US Army generals know this very well, after all this is their area of expertise. Therefore the question becomes, "Why are they doing this if they know it'll do nothing except create more bloodshed and suffering at the cost of their own citizen's lives?".

I think we all know the answer.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

@frungy

The reason for the birth of the IS? That's easy. Try 70 years of the US systematically funding terrorism and radicals in the region, followed by a decade of US-led war in the region that created both a massive power vacuum and an anti-Muslim US agenda that created a logical and entirely predictable Muslim backlash at their perceived persecution.

So why don't you go back further and blame the Brits and the French for the Sykes Picot treaty, that's where really this entire debacle started. There was never an anti-Muslim agenda, until the Muslims started a war with the west. To make the argument that the US is somehow prejudiced towards Muslims because they are Muslims is seriously laughable. Once again, I always love how you like to cherry pick your arguments when it comes to the US, but I never hear you say anything about the millions of Muslims being slaughtered and butchered by other fellow Muslims for some reason that part just eludes the entire conversation.

The answer in short? The US messed up the region good'o.

Actually, it was the sectarian violence that messed up the entire region. When I was there, the US was more in the middle and a side issue.

Yes, because the Generals love bloodshed, it's the only thing they think about when they wake up in the morning. Seriously? Of course they don't and if you understood realistically how the generals think, then you know that people like Petraeus and some of the other top Generals, DO advocate and overcoming the enemy with precision military strikes with superior number of forces. The same way the successful surge was carried out in 2007.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Bush turned on the faucets of big money that can be earned from a World in constant turmoil and fear. The wars that administration started have proven to be money in the bank ever since. Don't look to the death of this cash cow anytime soon.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The question is misleading. Yes, military force would deal with ISIS, but it would have to be the military force of Assad, the Kurds, and the Shiites.

And not that that ridiculous "coalition" of unwilling Sunni Arabs that Obama is trying to put together to fight ISIS while at the same time supporting ISIS Light, aka these ludicrious "vetted rebels".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites