Who is the real enemy?

[Sugarbeary]

The Islamic State is a terrorist organization operating under the ideology of Islam. It has gained mass appeal in the muslim community, with many operatives in many states now. Some people, especially from countries like France, have left their homes to join this organization.

This organization yesterday released a video of a hostage Jordanian pilot, being locked in a cage, doused with gasoline, and burned. Also yesterday, an article released of Iraqi children being beheaded, crucified, or buried alive. source. Literally, the death of Jesus for children, nailed to a cross and stood up until you bleed to death.

Iran pushes a radical Islamic agenda, promising 74 lashes for anyone who keeps a dog in their home or walks a dog outside. Obviously, as anyone who knows anything of zoo's, domesticated animals don't do well in transitions to the wild, and is a death sentence or cause of serious undernourishment for these dogs.

As a map will show you, the Islamic state has control of parts of Syria and Iraq. The country of Jordan is sandwiched between the Islamic state stronghold and Israel, an obvious path to travel to get to the real bloodshed. This is why the video of the Jordanian pilot was key as a propaganda tool, to demoralize Jordan. All signals indicate that this anger will not last very long, and IS will be granted passage, and possibly an alliance.

There is a great distinction to be made here between Hitler and the Nazi's and the Islamic State. Hitler knew the great backlash he would receive if he was found committing the crimes he did against the Jewish people. He lacked a unifying worldview. Hitler operated his concentration camps quietly. Efforts were made through burning large groups of people to hide the evidences of a concentration camp. The Islamic State, however, has been thriving on propaganda and broadcasting their evil deeds as a form of terror.

Their efforts have been the harvest of an appealing extremist worldview, and an international use of appeasement instead of action against them. In fact, the president of the United States failed to present a high ranking representative to France when radical Islamists attacked a Jewish market, and made sure he was present in Saudi Arabia to show condolences to the muslim dictator that died, and releasing Guantanamo prisoners to give them back and allow them to get back on the battlefield. Also, the Diane Feinstein report declared that the U.S. Should cease any torture, taking away any threats the American soldiers can use to get information (information that got Bin Laden killed).

And what is the news right now? John Boehner invited Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, to speak to congress without asking permission from Obama.

If you support every child having a right to life, if you were moved at all by the Nationwide commercial during the superbowl, you should be against the Islamic State.

If you believe people should not be video taped dying a gruesome death for the sake of terrorizing this world, you should be against the Islamic State.

If your car has a coexist bumper sticker, if you believe that you or anyone else on this planet should not be killed for their lack of faith in the prophet Muhammed, you should be against the Islamic State.

If you support LGBT rights, and do not believe that humans should be killed because of who they wish to love, you should be against the Islamic State.

If you support PETA, and/or wish to treat all animals with an ethical standard, and wish that humans not be given 74 lashes for taking care of a dog, you should be against the Islamic State.

The nation that will soon have the wrath of the Islamic State against them is Israel, and the president has completely lost it complaining that the prime minister came to speak to congress about it (and against a nuclear powered Iran). This president is so weak in standing against this organization that it is questionable if he wishes to. He refuses to promote the idea that ISIS is Islamic, and that they should be degraded to be defeated. Well, ISIS is not being degraded. In fact, any look at any Islamic attack, especially publicly displayed by the Sydney, Australia #Illridewithyou, the first concern from any radical Islamic attack is 'we have to make sure we don't blame the muslims!'

Discuss why you support or do not support the Islamic State, and if you are not against IS, explain how you can be supporting them and support LGBT, animal rights, child rights and diversity.

[N3bu]

LoveLoud837

Well, ISIS is not being degraded. In fact, any look at any Islamic attack, especially publicly displayed by the Sydney, Australia #Illridewithyou, the first concern from any radical Islamic attack is 'we have to make sure we don't blame the muslims!'

That could be because Australia has a history of violence and hatred against minorities that still exists within circles that the larger public is both aware of and generally trying to combat.

We all oppose IS, we just don't feel the need to have to constantly remind you to make you feel better.

[Trashy Cinnabon]

Who is "the real enemy"? Human zealotry, especially, of two certain Abrahamic religions.

Of course, I think "the real enemy" is humanity itself.

Not that any of it matters. It won't be long now, soon the planet Glamtron will send it's finest Glamazons to invade this world:

[Sugarbeary]

N3bu

LoveLoud837

Well, ISIS is not being degraded. In fact, any look at any Islamic attack, especially publicly displayed by the Sydney, Australia #Illridewithyou, the first concern from any radical Islamic attack is 'we have to make sure we don't blame the muslims!'

That could be because Australia has a history of violence and hatred against minorities that still exists within circles that the larger public is both aware of and generally trying to combat.

We all oppose IS, we just don't feel the need to have to constantly remind you to make you feel better.

Solidarity against ISIS is needed to get Obama to do something about it. If you oppose ISIS you should make your voice be heard. Every day our country lacks the willpower to say anything to oppose this threat, children are dying, people are buried alive, and more hostages are taken and beheaded.

[Valiant Corvus]

I don't consider someone an enemy if they don't pose a legitimate threat (Or if we're partially to blame for them existing in the first place.)

[N3bu]

LoveLoud837

N3bu

LoveLoud837

Well, ISIS is not being degraded. In fact, any look at any Islamic attack, especially publicly displayed by the Sydney, Australia #Illridewithyou, the first concern from any radical Islamic attack is 'we have to make sure we don't blame the muslims!'

That could be because Australia has a history of violence and hatred against minorities that still exists within circles that the larger public is both aware of and generally trying to combat.

We all oppose IS, we just don't feel the need to have to constantly remind you to make you feel better.

Solidarity against ISIS is needed to get Obama to do something about it. If you oppose ISIS you should make your voice be heard. Every day our country lacks the willpower to say anything to oppose this threat, children are dying, people are buried alive, and more hostages are taken and beheaded.

Don't be naive. My country has no reservation about opposing ISIS and I'm not asked to prove my loyalty to satisfy naysayers.

Your country lacks the willpower to take concrete actions because you expended all that political capital putting ISIS into power by creating the conditions that allowed them to thrive. While I am confident 99% of US citizens openly oppose ISIS despite not seeing the point of making lame public declarations, there exists no will in the West to take meaningful action because people are resentful and largely don't want to waste American lives saving what they view as terrorists and terrorist sympathizers.

If you had much sense you would realize that the lack of action has very little to do with sympathy for Muslims or ISIS, and everything to do with the pervasive isolationism as well as apathy and cynicism within the US public.

Congress won't take action because it won't win votes from the anti-war lobby, nor from the isolationists which grow bigger People won't vote for candidates who support action because they're more interested in their own domestic affairs. Meanwhile the media is more then content to continue throwing rhetoric at the nebulous group of "Muslims" who are the cause of everything from European unrest to Ebola.

[Texadar]

Quote:

All signals indicate that this anger will not last very long, and IS will be granted passage, and possibly an alliance.

What the ******** are you talking about?

Pilot gets burned alive

President Obama posed for photos says "Dem ISIS is bad and they did a bad thing"

King Abdullah leavers immediately to return home has 2 terrorists executed with more to come. then, mobilize and start MAJOR air-strikes what have already killed 55 IS militants plus a Major Commander.

Jordan is out for ******** blood

[Lord of the Vine]

Texadar

Quote:

All signals indicate that this anger will not last very long, and IS will be granted passage, and possibly an alliance.

What the ******** are you talking about?

I just tend to let him ramble on.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

N3bu

LoveLoud837

N3bu

LoveLoud837

Well, ISIS is not being degraded. In fact, any look at any Islamic attack, especially publicly displayed by the Sydney, Australia #Illridewithyou, the first concern from any radical Islamic attack is 'we have to make sure we don't blame the muslims!'

That could be because Australia has a history of violence and hatred against minorities that still exists within circles that the larger public is both aware of and generally trying to combat.

We all oppose IS, we just don't feel the need to have to constantly remind you to make you feel better.

Solidarity against ISIS is needed to get Obama to do something about it. If you oppose ISIS you should make your voice be heard. Every day our country lacks the willpower to say anything to oppose this threat, children are dying, people are buried alive, and more hostages are taken and beheaded.

Don't be naive. My country has no reservation about opposing ISIS and I'm not asked to prove my loyalty to satisfy naysayers.

Your country lacks the willpower to take concrete actions because you expended all that political capital putting ISIS into power by creating the conditions that allowed them to thrive. While I am confident 99% of US citizens openly oppose ISIS despite not seeing the point of making lame public declarations, there exists no will in the West to take meaningful action because people are resentful and largely don't want to waste American lives saving what they view as terrorists and terrorist sympathizers.

If you had much sense you would realize that the lack of action has very little to do with sympathy for Muslims or ISIS, and everything to do with the pervasive isolationism as well as apathy and cynicism within the US public.

Congress won't take action because it won't win votes from the anti-war lobby, nor from the isolationists which grow bigger People won't vote for candidates who support action because they're more interested in their own domestic affairs. Meanwhile the media is more then content to continue throwing rhetoric at the nebulous group of "Muslims" who are the cause of everything from European unrest to Ebola.

So previously it's "You're too war hungry!" now it's "You're too apathetic!".

Seems legit.

[Kaltros]

N3bu

If you had much sense you would realize that the lack of action has very little to do with sympathy for Muslims or ISIS, and everything to do with the pervasive isolationism as well as apathy and cynicism within the US public.

The box office sales of a movie like American Sniper seem to contradict this supposed 'isolationism'. Not to mention the continued popularity of politicians who'd like to invade another country, almost any country, whether it be Syria or Iran or wherever.

Quote:

Congress won't take action because it won't win votes from the anti-war lobby, nor from the isolationists which grow bigger People won't vote for candidates who support action because they're more interested in their own domestic affairs.

That's not true. People show an odd support for politicans, like Lindsey Graham and John McCain, who never found a war they didn't want to fight. If it was left up to the politicians Syria and Iran would be smoking ruins already.

The 'people' might not be eager for war, but they keep voting in politicians who are.

In the U.S. there's actually a shameful disregard for domestic affairs, and a noxious Invade The World/ Invite The World philosophy at the top. The Israel lobby keeps egging on the USA to fight her wars for her, too.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

We do oppose ISIS, as do most Muslims. [1][2][3]

The problem stems from a number of issues. The first being:


1. People are tired of war in general. What with the relentless propaganda opposing it on all the most ridiculous arguments (America is there to steal oil, of course, except for the fact it goes to France and China, and it would be easier to get the oil from Canada if we needed it that badly), to the quadrillions of dollars we'll be spending, to the idea that we're actually making it worse (Saddam killed hundreds of thousands, ISIS has killed thousands). People don't want another war, if it nipping it in the bud now saves us greater pain later (same problem in WWII, Afghanistan-soviet war, so on and so forth).

2. Obama promised the war would be over. Of course, making such a promise is a dumb thing to do; you can't control the world conflict, and the conflicts aren't over just because the fighting ends. A new war begins in reconstruction, which is why the U.S. still has 50,000 soldiers in Japan and 40,000 in Germany. The idea that pulling out the U.S. soldiers somehow ends the war is a bit ludicrous, but that's been the idea for quite a long time. Sending soldiers back would signify that the war is not over, and thus politically mean he was wrong. That can't be right, so people aren't going to do it.


3. Russia sent warships to Syria to stop us from helping the Syrians. [1][2][3] Yeah. 7.6 million internally displaced, over 2 million refugees (competing with the 1st spot for most refugees in any global crisis recorded by the U.N., ever) [1] and well over 200,000 innocent people killed [2], to fight a brutal regime that had both nuclear weapons and nerve gas [3]. Russia then invaded Ukraine, and has been giving S-300 missiles [1], that are missiles that can actually shoot down American and European planes, to Syria, Iran, and so on. Missiles are much cheaper than planes (1-3 million a pop), and don't require the same kind of training aircraft do, it's got a mobile firing system (meaning it can go pretty much anywhere, since it's on the back of a cargo vehicle), with dozens of decoys and spetsnaz training to your operators to boot. Russia has denied a lot of this, but given how they still say their soldiers are on vacation and have denied being in Ukraine several times only to eventually and openly admit it [2], it's probably pretty much along the same lines; once they achieve their objective, and "win", "we had been there the whole time!" And with the propaganda control in Russia, they can basically say and get away with anything they want. [1][2][3][4][5]

Anything we do with ISIS, in the middle east in Syria and Iraq, threatens war with Russia, and even the proxy states are armed with equipment that make our air superiority, that is taking out the enemies without losing many of our own forces, questionable. We would have considerable losses in any such war. If we keep pushing off Russia forever, they will eventually just attack us outright, instead of doing what is close to home (look how close Ukraine, Georgia, Syria all are etc.), meaning it's more or less an inevitability. War with Russia risks escalation of WMD's, such as nerve gas, EMP's, and even nukes, and has the potential to decimate the entire planet and get millions of civilians killed, whether they're American or not.

IMO, the solution is in 1 of 3 unlikely things (and a possible 4th), and perhaps a combination. The 4th, and most idealistic, is that the Russian people lose faith in Putin, and he steps down; maybe he's assassinated by his own people, maybe his cronies stop supporting him, maybe he get sick or something; at the very least, realizes the error of his ways, and that nothing good can come from this. "Accomplishments" at home, like taking away cars from trans and homosexuals and basically trouncing on freedom of speech rights, will have their high wear off eventually, and putin will settle down, realizing he is not master of the universe, even if he is of Russia. For obvious reasons, relying on this to happen may be impractical, if not simply impossible. The first thing is the assassination of Putin; the U.S. doesn't do this, but I think it's high time we set aside that rule for crazy people. All of Russia doesn't deserve to burn in nuclear war, one way or another, because of the acts of a few. Sending in say, Navy Seals and Delta force to take over these individuals may piss off Russia for a little while, but with new leaders, could easily come more moderate rulers, who could lead us away from the pointless wars Russia is waging. In time, we could repair our relationship with Russia and what problems with foreign relations that would be caused could be eliminated. The second option is an orbital kinetic strike; while nukes leave behind all these nasty things like radiation which stick around for a long time and kills lots of innocent civilians, kinetic bombardment offers the solution of precision. You can, theoretically, get something falling to earth, so fast, like a meteorite, with so much mass, that it's impact is similar to that of a large explosion, or, even close to a nuclear bomb. A large enough meteorite wiped out the dinosaurs, why not the Russians? The benefit of this system is that it wouldn't leave behind all the crap bombs do, wouldn't technically be a nuke and thus retaliation might be less, and could be used with surgical precision; the overall design, basically a large pointy telephone poll, could penetrate several hundreds of feet, if not several thousand, of concrete, rock, granite and so on, meaning it could get through everything from mountain defenses to underground bunkers, and would go so far into the ground as to localize the damage, rather than to spread it out, meaning you wouldn't need to destroy everything. The space shuttle (the program now ended and handed over to the Russia, thanks Obama) could travel over 5 miles a second straight up, and going down with the orbital advantage could travel at least 2 miles a second extra, which NOT fighting gravity the space shuttle could likely going more than 5 miles per second. Obviously, such a device is unnecessary, you could just repurpose an ICBM, but even so, the rockets could carry, including it's own weight, 240,000 lb (110,000 kg). This would be E=1/2(mass)*(velocity^2) joules of energy, with mass being kilograms and velocity being m/s, or 1/2(110,000) x (11,200^2), or 6,899,200,000,000 joules; for the sake of brevity, I'll just divide this by a billion. That's about 6900, billions, or 6.9 trillion joules of energy. The hiroshima and nagasaki bombs were around 50-100 terrajoules, while this would be around 7, or around 1/5th to 1/10th as powerful. So, the destructive power would be basically on par with nukes, and we could adjust it quite easily by adjusting it's velocity. It's high speed would make it difficult to shoot down in a reasonable amount of time, and the accuracy means we could shoot like 100 on the same spot. The main advantage, it's localized nature, means we could basically take out all of the enemy's headquarters, without causing too much collateral damage, especially since it would be a lot like a kinetic penetrator, and basically bomb their secret headquarters, like levelling a mountain, without killing everyone in the city.

The third option is a conventional invasion. This basically just means, ignore Russia, wait for them to escalate, and respond back. While this is the most dangerous option, as it puts us at risk to the first attack, which could be devastating, if it was a WMD, it basically means carrying on as business as usual, making Russia look like they're all talk if they don't retaliate, and being the second to attack, which usually puts us in good moral standings in the eyes of the rest of the world. Further complicating this is our somewhat uncompleted missile defense program, and the fact that our enemies possess anti-air weapons that are literally state of the art, instead of Russian surplus, in addition to aircraft comparable to our own. Any move into these territories would likely trigger an Iranian, Russian, Syrian, and possibly Pakistan and other response, which wouldn't just be the quick bombing victory we like to imagine. On the contrary however, the F-35 and F-22 are both stealth planes, meant to be produced in the thousands, and the S-300 series of missiles are radar guided, so, being stealthy to that, we could be considerably harder to hit. Things like the Zumwalt destroyer and the Aegies missile defense system could mean we could just park warships outside of Russia, also predominately stealth, and shoot down missiles wherever needed, even if that's right outside of Russia before they can get in to other countries, and that would strengthen our defenses against these attacks remarkably. If we chose to do that, of course.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Valiant Corvus

I don't consider someone an enemy if they don't pose a legitimate threat (Or if we're partially to blame for them existing in the first place.)

Let's even assume we are in some small part responsible for their existence. How does that make them less of a threat? You know these guys over here, that we armed with our own weapons and gave hundreds of billions of dollars, attacking us and others at random? Nah, they're not a threat because they're using our money and resources, the machine guns, bombs stop working if pointed at us, it's magic! I mean, we helped the Russians in WWII, that didn't make them go away as a threat.

Furthermore, doesn't it make us have more of an obligation to help, if we are partially responsible for it, since we're the ones who helped cause the problem, inadvertently or not? O.o

[Sugarbeary]

Suicidesoldier#1

Valiant Corvus

I don't consider someone an enemy if they don't pose a legitimate threat (Or if we're partially to blame for them existing in the first place.)

Let's even assume we are in some small part responsible for their existence. How does that make them less of a threat? You know these guys over here, that we armed with our own weapons and gave hundreds of billions of dollars, attacking us and others at random? Nah, they're not a threat because they're using our money and resources, the machine guns, bombs stop working if pointed at us, it's magic! I mean, we helped the Russians in WWII, that didn't make them go away as a threat.

Furthermore, doesn't it make us have more of an obligation to help, if we are partially responsible for it, since we're the ones who helped cause the problem, inadvertently or not? O.o

To Valiant, ignorance is not an excuse.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

LoveLoud837

Suicidesoldier#1

Valiant Corvus

I don't consider someone an enemy if they don't pose a legitimate threat (Or if we're partially to blame for them existing in the first place.)

Let's even assume we are in some small part responsible for their existence. How does that make them less of a threat? You know these guys over here, that we armed with our own weapons and gave hundreds of billions of dollars, attacking us and others at random? Nah, they're not a threat because they're using our money and resources, the machine guns, bombs stop working if pointed at us, it's magic! I mean, we helped the Russians in WWII, that didn't make them go away as a threat.

Furthermore, doesn't it make us have more of an obligation to help, if we are partially responsible for it, since we're the ones who helped cause the problem, inadvertently or not? O.o

To Valiant, ignorance is not an excuse.

Or is it...? ninja

[Valiant Corvus]

Suicidesoldier#1

Valiant Corvus

I don't consider someone an enemy if they don't pose a legitimate threat (Or if we're partially to blame for them existing in the first place.)

Let's even assume we are in some small part responsible for their existence. How does that make them less of a threat? You know these guys over here, that we armed with our own weapons and gave hundreds of billions of dollars, attacking us and others at random? Nah, they're not a threat because they're using our money and resources, the machine guns, bombs stop working if pointed at us, it's magic! I mean, we helped the Russians in WWII, that didn't make them go away as a threat.

Furthermore, doesn't it make us have more of an obligation to help, if we are partially responsible for it, since we're the ones who helped cause the problem, inadvertently or not? O.o

Seeing as they have attacked US bases and were nothing more than a nuisance....... No, they're not a threat.

We've been after Al Qaeda/Taliban/Whatever for how long now? We're not helping anyone by throwing more money, soldiers, and resources at it.