ISIS burns 45 more to death in Iraq
Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 3:40 pm
Getting harder and harder for the moral equivocators to keep defending bad behavior with previous bad behavior by the US or Christians.
Permanent Portfolio Forum
https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/
https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6891
clacy wrote: Getting harder and harder for the moral equivocators to keep defending bad behavior with previous bad behavior by the US or Christians.
Oh, please. This is not all Bush's fault. He definitely played a role, but Obama has say and watched a total power vacuum take place due to the US pulling out, as well as the Arab Spring, which was totally botched by Obama.I Shrugged wrote: They are playing you like a fiddle. That ought to give you pause.
The Pointedstick Doctrine: death from the skies!clacy wrote: I'm pretty sure we can't defeat ISIS by refusing to talk about Radical Islam, which seems to be the Administration's policy.
I'm pretty sure we can't put boots on the ground in the entire region, ala Bush/Cheney.
So what do we do?
Their prophecy is that they will meet "Rome" in battle in Dabiq, Syria. So they want whoever will play "Rome" to go there and be vanquished by ISIS so their prophecy becomes true. But wait, there's more! After "Rome" is vanquished and the retalliation against ISIS by whoever begins, they know fully well that they're going to all be decimated down to only a few thousand fighters remaining, but that is first necessary before Jesus (yes, THAT Jesus) reincarnates to vanquish their enemy in Jerusalem, so that the ISIS Caliphate can then rule all of the Middle East (or the entire world depending on the interpretation). So that is why ISIS is building up their army with believers from around the world immigrating to Dabiq. They believe the apocalypse is literally coming.moda0306 wrote: I Shrugged,
You really think they want us to fight them? I haven't been watching the news at all... so excuse my ignorance on the matter.
Ya unfortunately I don't have a lot of great answers on this. It looks like death and destruction is the only way these guys will be stopped.Pointedstick wrote:The Pointedstick Doctrine: death from the skies!clacy wrote: I'm pretty sure we can't defeat ISIS by refusing to talk about Radical Islam, which seems to be the Administration's policy.
I'm pretty sure we can't put boots on the ground in the entire region, ala Bush/Cheney.
So what do we do?Time to dust off the napalm.
+1Pointedstick wrote:The Pointedstick Doctrine: death from the skies!clacy wrote: I'm pretty sure we can't defeat ISIS by refusing to talk about Radical Islam, which seems to be the Administration's policy.
I'm pretty sure we can't put boots on the ground in the entire region, ala Bush/Cheney.
So what do we do?Time to dust off the napalm.
+1Ad Orientem wrote:+1Pointedstick wrote:~ napalm.clacy wrote:~
So what do we do?
You better hope your Doctrine doesn't run into this kind of resistance:Pointedstick wrote: The Pointedstick Doctrine: death from the skies!Time to dust off the napalm.
True.clacy wrote:There is plenty of blame to go around.
Nothing. They are killing people in the Sunni-majority regions of a far away land.clacy wrote:The question is... What do we do going forward?
Saudi Arabia beheads people for sorcery and adultery as well. Not our problem - we should condemn them (shame on both Bush and Obama for kowtowing to them) just as we condemn ISIS and do nothing further.clacy wrote:Saying we're playing into their hands by getting fed up with burning/be-heading people, is totally wrong IMO.
Why is the US leadership required? Why do we need to defeat them?clacy wrote:Someone, somewhere has to stand up to these barbarians. The US certainly can't do it alone, but there is NO WAY they can be defeated without the US's leadership (as well as money/weapons/etc).
What precisely do you propose to do once we invade and kill a bunch of them? Institute a democratically elected government that oppresses them until new terrorists form (hint: We tried that, it is called Iraq. Didn't go so well did it?)? What was right about that?Reub wrote:Because its the right thing to do?
Responding to or even preventing attacks on the USA is a reasonable thing to do. For it to be successful, we should find a good way to do it. Given our adventures in Iraq made the area worse, and that Afghanistan is sliding back into the gutter as well, it is pretty clear the strategy of "hey, let's invade - it will all turn out great!" isn't such a good one.Reub wrote:For us before they come to New York and Washington again and also for the civilized world?
Killing people "because we can" is generally considered psychopathic.Because we can?
It's not that they necessarily want us to fight them but according to the article in Atlantic they do have an expectation according to a prophecy that they will be attacked by "The Armies of Rome" and left only 5000 in number at which point Jesus is going to come to their rescue (that last part really blew my mind but that's what it said).moda0306 wrote: I Shrugged,
You really think they want us to fight them? I haven't been watching the news at all... so excuse my ignorance on the matter.
It does seem, though, that their agenda is to make the prophecy happen, and soon. Everything I've read said that Al Qaeda wanted to draw our soldiers into a fight and that the point of 9/11 was to make that happen, not merely to hurt our economy and spread terror.madbean wrote:It's not that they necessarily want us to fight them but according to the article in Atlantic they do have an expectation according to a prophecy that they will be attacked by "The Armies of Rome"~moda0306 wrote: I Shrugged,
You really think they want us to fight them? I haven't been watching the news at all... so excuse my ignorance on the matter.
It really is amazing how many susceptible people are to end-times beliefs. This sort of thing has been going on all throughout history. One would think people would learn, but they don't. There must be some weird part of the human brain hardwired to fall for such nonsense. I look forward to the day when they find the gene that encodes, "Look for <insert any mystical nonsense here> as it is a sure sign the world will end soon."madbean wrote:If that all sounds silly there are many Christians who have similar views about the Middle East - just different battles fought by different people in different places before Jesus returns. I don't listen to such things any more but I suspect there is a lot of end time talk in churches right now about prophecies being fulfilled in the Middle East.
It's not just mystical religious people who are susceptible. Right-leaning survivalist types essentially believe the same thing with a government collapse Mad Max flavor in which naturally they will be the survivors.fnord123 wrote: It really is amazing how many susceptible people are to end-times beliefs. This sort of thing has been going on all throughout history. One would think people would learn, but they don't. There must be some weird part of the human brain hardwired to fall for such nonsense. I look forward to the day when they find the gene that encodes, "Look for <insert any mystical nonsense here> as it is a sure sign the world will end soon."
Wasn't it Nathan Hale who said My one regret is that I have but one plus to give fnord.TennPaGa wrote: Also, +100 to fnord123.
I think the majority of the blame belongs to Britain in particular, with France deserving a lesser share. After WWI they carved up the middle east along artificial lines to maximize the stability of their colonies and protectorates. The general strategy was:dualstow wrote:I suppose it could even be argued that ISIS wouldn't exist without the West.
You know, you are absolutely right, both about Right and Left. I was unfair to pin it only on religion/mystical stuff.Pointedstick wrote:It's not just mystical religious people who are susceptible. Right-leaning survivalist types essentially believe the same thing with a government collapse Mad Max flavor in which naturally they will be the survivors.Secular leftists believe the same "end times"-type happening, but to them, it's an environmental catastrophe that wipes away humanity. Same impulse, different story.
This is so, so, so true.fnord123 wrote: I think the majority of the blame belongs to Britain in particular, with France deserving a lesser share. After WWI they carved up the middle east along artificial lines to maximize the stability of their colonies and protectorates. The general strategy was:This works great as long as one is running a colony like Syria or Iraq as a colony, with a military force that is far superior to the natives' capabilities and one is willing to knock heads (kill folks who get out of line) now and then. It even works passably when the colony is replaced with an iron-fisted dictator (typically of the minority ethnic group), but only as long as the populace feels the dictator has similar (asymmetric) levels of power as the colonial power's army did.
- Carve up a geographic area such that it contains 2-3 significant ethnic groups - ideally with one being somewhat smaller than the other two.
- Put the smaller ethnic group in charge, and support them with the (British, French) army. This makes them dependent on (Britain, France) because they know without military support the larger groups will not leave them in charge.
- Encourage the other two ethnic groups to dislike each other. This keeps the two big groups at each other's throats, making it easier for the small group +army to control them.
This works really badly when the people realize the dictator doesn't have as much power as before and depose the dictator, or an external force does the same thing. Trying to install democracy actually makes the problem worse, because it means the majority group(s) will now use their majority to get payback. The only solution is to let them fight it out and form new countries along ethnic lines - this is what Kurdistan is (although most people won't admit it) and it is reasonably stable.