Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 8/13/2014 5:34:22 AM EDT
Whenever we have discussions of ISIS-ISIL-IL, or what ever name they operate under today, I always see people using words such as "stupid", "ignorant", "dumb", and so on. My question is, are we underestimating them? Sure the rank and file may be uneducated goat fuckers, but when looking at the leadership and the upper echelons of the chain of command, it would appear to me that these guys, while not rocket scientists, are a little sharper than at least the average sand herder. This is especially the case with the upper level leadership. I will be the first to admit that their tactics are barbaric, cruel, and harken back to the middle ages, but there appears to be a method to their madness , and it seems to be working well. They have a grasp of what it takes to control the local population, exploit the infrastructure and material they accumulate as they expand, and continue to attract scores of new recruits from around the globe. I'm not singing their praises, I'm just trying to take an objective look at the situation.

History proves that it is dangerous to underestimate one's enemies, just ask Hitler as his armies retreated from the steppes of Russia in '44. My fear is that we are doing the same with the IS, and as FBHO continues refuse to take off the gloves and deal with these people harshly, they will continue to expand and solidify their position of power in the region.

What say the hive?
Link Posted: 8/13/2014 5:36:14 AM EDT
ISIS was originally funded by our government to overthrow Assad. I think our government created a monster that has escaped its cage.

Drive them back into Syria and let Assad kill them all.
Link Posted: 8/13/2014 5:36:32 AM EDT
America wants to go isolationist, and Americans are going to underestimate whoever they need to in order to do so.
Link Posted: 8/13/2014 5:40:49 AM EDT
Our foreign policy is a funny thing. Trade one monster for one million monsters.
Link Posted: 8/13/2014 5:45:15 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 4v50:
ISIS was originally funded by our government to overthrow Assad. I think our government created a monster that has escaped its cage.

Drive them back into Syria and let Assad kill them all.
View Quote


You keep making this statement. Do you have any data for it?
Link Posted: 8/13/2014 5:46:57 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Screechjet1:


You keep making this statement. Do you have any data for it?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Screechjet1:
Originally Posted By 4v50:
ISIS was originally funded by our government to overthrow Assad. I think our government created a monster that has escaped its cage.

Drive them back into Syria and let Assad kill them all.


You keep making this statement. Do you have any data for it?


+1
Link Posted: 8/13/2014 5:47:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/13/2014 5:47:50 AM EDT by TxLewis]
Let a group of educated, rational people, with good, accurate intelligence on a situation decide what is the best course of action for America.

And you will find that Zero does the exact opposite.

All part of his plan.

TXL
Link Posted: 8/13/2014 5:52:05 AM EDT
It might benefit the United States more, short term, to allow ISIS/ISIL to remain unchecked. Their logical progression has them dismantling Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, UAE, et al.

Culturally that region is in the Stone Age.

With a fundamentalist overtaking we should observe Afghanistan v 2.0 a-la the Taliban. Drag the infrastructure and technology down to Stone Age levels and erase the years of work that Iran has put in towards their nuclear program as well as prevent the other states in the region (that declared nuclear intentions) from achieving their goals.

Long term, it's going to probably be the same shit we would have to deal with anyways. The goal of Islam, even moderate Islam, is to dominate all other religions and cultures. Islamists are incapable of creating anything beyond what their religion dictates. That's why they had to have outside assistance in their nuclear programs (North Korea, Russia, etc).

If you allow the region to polarize so deeply that they can't have outside sources for information or technology... Hell, you might even suck Russia back into a long, protracted war with their Islamist neighbors that might even bring along China to fight our fight for us, weakening both of our long term, legitimate threats, while taking care of our short term garbage, too.
Link Posted: 8/13/2014 5:52:46 AM EDT
America always makes the mistakes of underestimating it's enemies.
Link Posted: 8/13/2014 5:53:37 AM EDT

No they are not stupid. They are actually well led, trained and funded. That's what makes them such a threat.


Link Posted: 8/13/2014 5:54:29 AM EDT
We? No we aren't. Some are and some know fully well what they are dealing with.
Link Posted: 8/13/2014 6:06:58 AM EDT
Billy-Jeff Clinton ignored AQ and we got 9/11 on Bush's watch.

Zero will ignore ISIS and we'll get something possibly far worse, on whatever Republican unfortunate enough to be elected's watch.
Link Posted: 8/13/2014 6:10:03 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By quick2k3:
Our foreign policy is a funny thing. Trade one monster for one million monsters.
View Quote

And most here still don't understand why Limited Foreign Involvement makes sense.
Link Posted: 8/13/2014 6:19:16 AM EDT
ISIS is attacking Iranian strategic assets like natural gas. It's throwing chaos into competitor groups, and forcing radicalized Muslims to pick sides against it, a Long War strategy plagiarized straight out of a Rand white paper.

Apart from Iraq, it's an asset to American foreign policy.
Link Posted: 8/13/2014 6:21:08 AM EDT
Who is the we?

I believe all the agencies that care about such things have the proper level of concern.

The only people in denial are in the White House.
Link Posted: 8/13/2014 6:21:09 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By GreyHat:
ISIS is attacking Iranian strategic assets like natural gas. It's throwing chaos into competitor groups, and forcing radicalized Muslims to pick sides against it, a Long War strategy plagiarized straight out of a Rand white paper.

Apart from Iraq, it's an asset to American foreign policy.
View Quote


That's an interesting way of looking at it.

But as the others have said: yes. We are making a huge 90's era Afghanistan scale mistake.
Link Posted: 8/13/2014 6:37:13 AM EDT
Obama arms rebels in Syria. Link


Conservatives with that pesky logic again.

At a congressional hearing on Tuesday on next year's defense budget, GOP Rep. Rich Nugent of Florida said he worried that arming Syria rebels today could mean his sons in the military might face those weapons in the future, if they fall into the wrong hands.

"We want to make sure that we don't put our sons or daughters in any jeopardy particularly as it relates to arming those that we have no idea who they are," Nugent said.
View Quote
Link Posted: 8/13/2014 6:38:54 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By GreyHat:
ISIS is attacking Iranian strategic assets like natural gas. It's throwing chaos into competitor groups, and forcing radicalized Muslims to pick sides against it, a Long War strategy plagiarized straight out of a Rand white paper.

Apart from Iraq, it's an asset to American foreign policy.
View Quote


They are a transnational entity that, should they get the power of a state infrastructure, represents a massive potential proliferation risk.
Link Posted: 8/13/2014 6:40:10 AM EDT
How about some other countries get off their asses and deal with this one? Why does it always come back to America having to take care of it? Europe is going to feel the effects of ISIS before we do.
Link Posted: 8/13/2014 6:40:45 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Number0neGun:

But as the others have said: yes. We are making a huge 90's era Afghanistan scale mistake.
View Quote


What was the mistake in the 1990s? We weren't going to invade Afghanistan on humanitarian grounds. The Pakistanis weren't going to let us.

The mistake was not killing Bin Laden in Sudan. Or, more broadly, pretending a counterterrorism strategy based in law enforcement would diminish the legitimacy of the terrorists.
Link Posted: 8/13/2014 6:41:56 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By aeroworksxp:
Obama arms rebels in Syria. Link


Conservatives with that pesky logic again.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By aeroworksxp:
Obama arms rebels in Syria. Link


Conservatives with that pesky logic again.

At a congressional hearing on Tuesday on next year's defense budget, GOP Rep. Rich Nugent of Florida said he worried that arming Syria rebels today could mean his sons in the military might face those weapons in the future, if they fall into the wrong hands.

"We want to make sure that we don't put our sons or daughters in any jeopardy particularly as it relates to arming those that we have no idea who they are," Nugent said.


So, you're one of those "The US created Bin Laden" geniuses?

Noted.
Link Posted: 8/13/2014 6:46:42 AM EDT
The WH got the memo and could've niped it early on but did nothing.
Link Posted: 8/13/2014 6:51:39 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Screechjet1:


What was the mistake in the 1990s? We weren't going to invade Afghanistan on humanitarian grounds. The Pakistanis weren't going to let us.

The mistake was not killing Bin Laden in Sudan. Or, more broadly, pretending a counterterrorism strategy based in law enforcement would diminish the legitimacy of the terrorists.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Screechjet1:
Originally Posted By Number0neGun:

But as the others have said: yes. We are making a huge 90's era Afghanistan scale mistake.


What was the mistake in the 1990s? We weren't going to invade Afghanistan on humanitarian grounds. The Pakistanis weren't going to let us.

The mistake was not killing Bin Laden in Sudan. Or, more broadly, pretending a counterterrorism strategy based in law enforcement would diminish the legitimacy of the terrorists.


The mistake was ignoring the problem, and pretending that it wasn't there, despite intelligence stating otherwise. Which ultimately culminated in 9/11, and the attack on the USS Cole, and the embassy bombings prior to that.

The CIA had us local assets in place that could've done a commando raid, and capture/killed OBL. They'd been in place for a long time, and were just waiting for the call.

I recommend Ghost Wars by Steve Coll. It's talked about in detail, and how the CIA wanted to do it, but the WH wouldn't let them, for fear of casualties, and other bullshit.

Your comment about pretending that counterterrorism was a law enforcement problem rather than a military one is also a valid complaint. The government was collecting evidence, rather than intelligence.
Link Posted: 8/13/2014 6:53:52 AM EDT
They will burn out when Iran and Saudi Arabia feel the threat. Literally burn out.
Link Posted: 8/13/2014 6:56:20 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By gunham:
America always makes the mistakes of underestimating trusting it's enemies.
View Quote


FIFY

Link Posted: 8/13/2014 6:58:19 AM EDT
It's hard for me to say they are "underestimated". I simply don't know enough about their operations. Regardless of their intelligence or technology though, any large coordinated group acting without regard for the individual can be dangerous. In ways, I might liken IS to the Bald Faced Hornets of humanity.




Link Posted: 8/13/2014 7:04:26 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Screechjet1:


They are a transnational entity that, should they get the power of a state infrastructure, represents a massive potential proliferation risk.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Screechjet1:
Originally Posted By GreyHat:
ISIS is attacking Iranian strategic assets like natural gas. It's throwing chaos into competitor groups, and forcing radicalized Muslims to pick sides against it, a Long War strategy plagiarized straight out of a Rand white paper.

Apart from Iraq, it's an asset to American foreign policy.


They are a transnational entity that, should they get the power of a state infrastructure, represents a massive potential proliferation risk.


This is the concern we are facing.
Tens of millions of young people living in impoverished countries where there is little hope in life and they are looking for something to belong to that may bring about a change in their life or allow them to vent their anger.
Its like the gang problems we face here but on an international scale.


Link Posted: 8/13/2014 7:07:54 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TheDesertSloth:
It might benefit the United States more, short term, to allow ISIS/ISIL to remain unchecked. Their logical progression has them dismantling Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, UAE, et al.

Culturally that region is in the Stone Age.

With a fundamentalist overtaking we should observe Afghanistan v 2.0 a-la the Taliban. Drag the infrastructure and technology down to Stone Age levels and erase the years of work that Iran has put in towards their nuclear program as well as prevent the other states in the region (that declared nuclear intentions) from achieving their goals.

Long term, it's going to probably be the same shit we would have to deal with anyways. The goal of Islam, even moderate Islam, is to dominate all other religions and cultures. Islamists are incapable of creating anything beyond what their religion dictates. That's why they had to have outside assistance in their nuclear programs (North Korea, Russia, etc).

If you allow the region to polarize so deeply that they can't have outside sources for information or technology... Hell, you might even suck Russia back into a long, protracted war with their Islamist neighbors that might even bring along China to fight our fight for us, weakening both of our long term, legitimate threats, while taking care of our short term garbage, too.
View Quote


This. It's chess, not checkers.

Also...best post I've ever read from a 13'er.
Link Posted: 8/13/2014 7:09:37 AM EDT
I think we should keep with the US Foreign Policy tradition and give weapons to Iran and Hezbollah to fight ISIS.
Link Posted: 8/13/2014 7:09:42 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AmericanSoldier1989:


+1
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AmericanSoldier1989:
Originally Posted By Screechjet1:
Originally Posted By 4v50:
ISIS was originally funded by our government to overthrow Assad. I think our government created a monster that has escaped its cage.

Drive them back into Syria and let Assad kill them all.


You keep making this statement. Do you have any data for it?


+1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War#United_States
Link Posted: 8/13/2014 7:10:26 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TheDesertSloth:
It might benefit the United States more, short term, to allow ISIS/ISIL to remain unchecked. Their logical progression has them dismantling Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, UAE, et al.

Culturally that region is in the Stone Age.

With a fundamentalist overtaking we should observe Afghanistan v 2.0 a-la the Taliban. Drag the infrastructure and technology down to Stone Age levels and erase the years of work that Iran has put in towards their nuclear program as well as prevent the other states in the region (that declared nuclear intentions) from achieving their goals.

Long term, it's going to probably be the same shit we would have to deal with anyways. The goal of Islam, even moderate Islam, is to dominate all other religions and cultures. Islamists are incapable of creating anything beyond what their religion dictates. That's why they had to have outside assistance in their nuclear programs (North Korea, Russia, etc).

If you allow the region to polarize so deeply that they can't have outside sources for information or technology... Hell, you might even suck Russia back into a long, protracted war with their Islamist neighbors that might even bring along China to fight our fight for us, weakening both of our long term, legitimate threats, while taking care of our short term garbage, too.
View Quote


Nope Unlike the USA i'm 100% sure Russia or China will nuke the shit out of the fuckers if given a reason and half the chance.
Link Posted: 8/13/2014 7:16:31 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BB:
Originally Posted By AmericanSoldier1989:
Originally Posted By Screechjet1:
Originally Posted By 4v50:
ISIS was originally funded by our government to overthrow Assad. I think our government created a monster that has escaped its cage.

Drive them back into Syria and let Assad kill them all.


You keep making this statement. Do you have any data for it?


+1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War#United_States


Hillary just mentioned she supported this, to differ her from Obama. Stupid tards, they just don't know who and when to support groups
Link Posted: 8/13/2014 7:27:04 AM EDT
I can't seem to find any kind of consensus estimate on how many of these ISIL bastards there are.

Is it 3k? 13k? 30k? more? Less?

The map of their "controlled" areas is a series of what I would guess are road networks in much of central Iraq and not much else.

Their leadership seems to have a central structure that has yet to be seriously challenged by something innocuous like a Hellfire missile coming in through their bedroom windows. How brittle are they?

Link Posted: 8/13/2014 7:29:01 AM EDT
A Sunni/Shia war would be great news for Isreal. It would hurt Russia. ISIS grew out of the Sunni rebels in Syria, groups who received a lot of funding and gear from the neocon bloc of the administration. Their leader was deliberately released by the same admin.

The Iranians, in their inimitable middle eastern way, started calling Baghdadi a Mossad trained Jew in propaganda, because he does fit the trend.

If you're into conspiracy theories, you could even tie Benghazi into the deal - the same admin refusing to rescue CIA employees involved in weapons trafficking in order to seal leakers is classic movie cutout stuff with precedent in other foreign policy adventures, and the standard crimestop responses from establishment pawns add that authentic feel.

ISIS naturally arose from natural trends, to naturally serve the American public. But the fact that they've gone about it in exactly the way a starched shirt analyst would plan them to is great conspiracy fodder that gains better and better realism as you get into the details.
Link Posted: 8/13/2014 7:32:57 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Cheesebeast:
I can't seem to find any kind of consensus estimate on how many of these ISIL bastards there are.

Is it 3k? 13k? 30k? more? Less?

The map of their "controlled" areas is a series of what I would guess are road networks in much of central Iraq and not much else.

Their leadership seems to have a central structure that has yet to be seriously challenged by something innocuous like a Hellfire missile coming in through their bedroom windows. How brittle are they?

View Quote


I heard an estimate of 18,000 yesterday on either Fox or CNN by 1 of their panel experts.
If I remember correctly it was around 10,000 or so 2 months ago so apparently they are growing their ranks quite well.
Link Posted: 8/13/2014 7:59:19 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By macman37:
Billy-Jeff Clinton ignored AQ and we got 9/11 on Bush's watch.

Zero will ignore ISIS and we'll get something possibly far worse, on whatever Republican unfortunate enough to be elected's watch.
View Quote

Very good point, something will be biting us in the ass
Top Top