Red Mosquito

BurtReynolds wrote:

stip wrote:Burt, France and England hadn't fought in a hundred years prior to WW2. I think they somehow managed to find a way to move on from the Hundred Years' War...

You don't fight that long and still pretend its "strictly business". Real hatreds are formed. The fact that they got over it is proof that The West's relationship with many groups in the Middle East can similarly be improved. Obviously it's not a perfect analogy, but surely you must see similarities?

Strat wrote:welp

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... z3rV9ePyaF

Leading Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said Saturday that the recent terrorist attacks in Paris would've been "a much, much different situation" if the victims of the violence had been armed with guns.

I hope paris tells these asshats to go fuck themselves.

stip wrote:They might be bad enough you just roll the dice and say fuck it. But the rest of your post is kind of my point. Right now they have essentially no credibility. Given time, and empowering the other stable actors in the region, and Isis might very well implode. It'll take time, and there is little revenge killing unit,so it won't be satisfying. But it could work. But if we attack we give them a wonderful opportunity to change the narrative about themselves, and help grant them the legitimacy they could never get on their own.

There is an understandable degree of narcissism after tragedies like this (or 911), where we imagine that we are the primary target and audience. This has likely always been (at least at the strategic level) about bolstering their position for their local audience. We just have to play our part

BurtReynolds wrote:

stip wrote:They might be bad enough you just roll the dice and say fuck it. But the rest of your post is kind of my point. Right now they have essentially no credibility. Given time, and empowering the other stable actors in the region, and Isis might very well implode. It'll take time, and there is little revenge killing unit,so it won't be satisfying. But it could work. But if we attack we give them a wonderful opportunity to change the narrative about themselves, and help grant them the legitimacy they could never get on their own.

There is an understandable degree of narcissism after tragedies like this (or 911), where we imagine that we are the primary target and audience. This has likely always been (at least at the strategic level) about bolstering their position for their local audience. We just have to play our part

I don't disagree. Personally, I don't think its the best option at the moment, but it may be possible that military action becomes the best option soon, and it shouldn't be ignored because it was the wrong choice in the past.

stip wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

stip wrote:They might be bad enough you just roll the dice and say fuck it. But the rest of your post is kind of my point. Right now they have essentially no credibility. Given time, and empowering the other stable actors in the region, and Isis might very well implode. It'll take time, and there is little revenge killing unit,so it won't be satisfying. But it could work. But if we attack we give them a wonderful opportunity to change the narrative about themselves, and help grant them the legitimacy they could never get on their own.

There is an understandable degree of narcissism after tragedies like this (or 911), where we imagine that we are the primary target and audience. This has likely always been (at least at the strategic level) about bolstering their position for their local audience. We just have to play our part

I don't disagree. Personally, I don't think its the best option at the moment, but it may be possible that military action becomes the best option soon, and it shouldn't be ignored because it was the wrong choice in the past.

I can get behind that. But it's so easy and so seductive and the odds of it backfiring are so high (given recent history) that we need to be very very careful.

Strat wrote:Who and where do you even attack though? Where is ISIS and what is ISIS exactly? Its like this organic operation that is becoming worldwide. it doesnt need a home base, or at least it wont at some point. how do you destroy an ideology? Its built on extreme martyrdom, anything attack made, or successful kill of a target just proves what they stand on and will only lead to greater recruitment.

We're fucked. Life is over. Trump will be president. Obama is like palpatine and will soon initiate order 66 and we'll all be covering our faces with black masks.

Strat wrote:

stip wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

stip wrote:They might be bad enough you just roll the dice and say fuck it. But the rest of your post is kind of my point. Right now they have essentially no credibility. Given time, and empowering the other stable actors in the region, and Isis might very well implode. It'll take time, and there is little revenge killing unit,so it won't be satisfying. But it could work. But if we attack we give them a wonderful opportunity to change the narrative about themselves, and help grant them the legitimacy they could never get on their own.

There is an understandable degree of narcissism after tragedies like this (or 911), where we imagine that we are the primary target and audience. This has likely always been (at least at the strategic level) about bolstering their position for their local audience. We just have to play our part

I don't disagree. Personally, I don't think its the best option at the moment, but it may be possible that military action becomes the best option soon, and it shouldn't be ignored because it was the wrong choice in the past.

I can get behind that. But it's so easy and so seductive and the odds of it backfiring are so high (given recent history) that we need to be very very careful.

I think im most annoyed that this will only help the war hawks get elected to office :\

BurtReynolds wrote:

Strat wrote:Who and where do you even attack though? Where is ISIS and what is ISIS exactly? Its like this organic operation that is becoming worldwide. it doesnt need a home base, or at least it wont at some point. how do you destroy an ideology? Its built on extreme martyrdom, anything attack made, or successful kill of a target just proves what they stand on and will only lead to greater recruitment.

We're fucked. Life is over. Trump will be president. Obama is like palpatine and will soon initiate order 66 and we'll all be covering our faces with black masks.

Thing is though, ISIS does at least control part of the map, and has a recognizable army, so they aren't completely like an al qaeda. The fact that they are just sitting there in Syria and Iraq in defiance of most of the world might be why they are recruiting so well. Would they be so successful if that were smashed?

And Obama is a foreign born secret muslim terrorist!

turned2black wrote:Hillary said like a week ago that she was against declaring war on ISIS. But in general I get the feeling that she would be "tougher" on ISIS and the Syria situation than Obama has been.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

turned2black wrote:Hillary said like a week ago that she was against declaring war on ISIS. But in general I get the feeling that she would be "tougher" on ISIS and the Syria situation than Obama has been.

of course she will

@SkitchP wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

turned2black wrote:Hillary said like a week ago that she was against declaring war on ISIS. But in general I get the feeling that she would be "tougher" on ISIS and the Syria situation than Obama has been.

of course she will

depending on the time of the month, amirite?