Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 43

Thread: How should ISIS/Islamic State be handled?

  1. #1

    Default How should ISIS/Islamic State be handled?

    For those not in the know, ISIS/ISIL/Islamic State is a jihadist group in Iraq and Syria that is trying to start their own government.

    How should the world respond, and are the right things being done?
    Last edited by BandNerd; 21-Sep-2014 at 07:53.

  2. #2

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by BandNerd View Post
    How should America respond, and is America doing the right things?

    I find it telling that its not how should the world, the UN the EU should respond its how america should respond

  3. #3

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by SchrodingersSpy View Post
    I find it telling that its not how should the world, the UN the EU should respond its how america should respond
    I should probably rephrase it. It does kind of sound biased.

  4. #4

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by BandNerd View Post
    For those not in the know, ISIS/ISIL/Islamic State is a jihadist group in Iraq and Syria that is trying to start their own government.

    How should the world respond, and are the right things being done?
    From what I understand they want to basically rule the world under Islam. I took an anti-terrorist course for the Air Force and we covered ISIS a lot. I would rather a newly discovered tribe of ancient Africans (just an example don't freak out) start a new government and rule the world than let ISIS take control. I've seen some sh*t.

  5. #5

    Default

    They should be quite simply wiped from the face of the Earth. They are violent savages who cannot be negotiated with. They have killed hoards of men, women, and children, have threatened Yazidis with elimination unless they convert to Islam, they have threatened the west with attacks as well. So the west and its allies should respond by either erasing them completely, or damaging them so badly that they are unable to conduct any kind of effective operation.

  6. #6

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by SterlingArcher View Post
    They should be quite simply wiped from the face of the Earth.
    There is nothing simple nor easy about wiping out a group of people. Ever.

    Anyway, let's look at the situation that ISIL is in.

    Politically
    Most of the world views ISIL as an illegitimate state. They gained their territory by conquest from a war-torn region. They have no participation in the international political community, and at present, it appears that nobody has any interest in publicly acknowledging ISIL as a nation. ISIL's goals as a group also run counter to international political desires, as well as regional desires. They're opposed by both Iraq and Iran, as well as Israel, which effectively aligns them against every major regional power or coalition in the area. It isn't possible for ISIL to enter into negotiations publicly with any other nation, to send out ambassadors, or to open their borders for trade and travel. As such, the nation is politically isolated.

    However, the region itself is also unstable. ISIL sits in the middle of Syria and Iraq as a major power in a region that lacks major powers. Iran is unwilling to commit militarily, and the US is planning to support local ground forces but so far is against putting American boots on the ground. So even though ISIL is itself isolated, it also creates a major destabilizing force for the region. Nobody else can effectively go in there or try to rebuild nations to be part of the world system because ISIL is taking up the space.

    Ideologically
    I'm actually much less clear on this than I'd like to be. I understand that they believe in a vision of Islam that supports their own violent conquest but I do not know how their interpretation of Jihad compares with Iran, Hamas, or historical Islam. I also understand that they support a worldwide Caliphate, but not how that translates to immediate policy or use of terror tactics around the world. They do not support the existence of the state of Israel, but that's not especially surprising in that region. The world has responded to them by calling them "evil" and labeling them as violent extremists. I cannot, however, tell you factually where they stand. I don't know if their leadership is motivated by power and material gain or believes truly in the ideas they espouse. Nor could I tell you what actions and policies they support or what they intend to do beyond vague ideals.

    Economically
    They've got access to oil fields and they're flush with captured weapons and resources. Their population is relatively small, however. About 30,000 people was the last statistic I've heard, but I'm not confident about that number. That's very small for a country (it's small for a city for that matter). There doesn't appear to be much production or infrastructure, however, and they're reliant mostly on seized assets from their conquests. Even their oil income is relatively small compared to the how much money is made from oil in the Middle East. My opinion is that ISIL isn't long-term sustainable as a state, and barely as an army.

    However, it's not clear what access they have to private traders. The entire Middle East has a lot of people there for a profit, and even though ISIL can't publicly open relations with other nations, that doesn't stop arms suppliers and the black market from providing them with resources illicitly. It's still not clear to me how ISIL can sustain itself long term due to its lack of infrastructure, but many a nation of existed in relatively poverty without being overthrown, so I won't predict that they'll collapse on their own. It's just too big of an unknown.

    Militarily
    ISIL is basically an army with some territory. They're fairly well-armed due to seizing Iraqi weapons depots during their initial conquest, but they're not packing equipment outside of ground power. US bombing efforts are not likely to encounter resistance and the state is not set up to have air or sea power. You've basically got a wide space with a bunch of secure buildings and caves and a land army that's hard to dig out. Defensively troublesome, offensively weak. If there's any reason to suspect terror tactics, it's this. However, I think they're in one of the worst positions to attempt to move people abroad for bombings or other attacks because ISIL itself is isolated. They would need to move people through war-torn areas with forged credentials, or they'd need to recruit abroad, both of which are a challenge.


    Conclusions
    Realistically, ISIL does not present a heavy international threat. Their ideology is viewed as poisonous, but it's also unpopular. What they do present is a regional stumbling block to peace. They have enough of an army now that they threaten to destroy more of their region without outside intervention, and there is a fear that if ISIL eventually gets powerful enough, their ideology would push them to strike elsewhere in the world.

    Recommendations
    Unfortunately, although I started this post with the commentary that it's never easy to suggest wiping out a group of people, I do think that ISIL's existence demands military action. It's not clear to me that the entire population of the region supports ISIL. But the leadership should be captured or killed if possible, and, in a rare example for the modern world, other powers in the region need to take over the territory currently held by ISIL. I think here that it's actually less important that ISIL members outside of the leadership are eliminated and more important that other people are moved into the region. Iraqi and Syrian military forces need to conquer the area and reclaim it for their respective nations. Syria itself is unclear as to what military the world will support (different nations line up differently there), but I think that eliminating the ISIL territory is a prerequisite to answering the question of who's going to run Syria.

  7. #7

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by SchrodingersSpy View Post
    I find it telling that its not how should the world, the UN the EU should respond its how america should respond
    Probably because he is from America. How should Australia respond? Telling that you don't use that one. And what about China and Russia? The BRICS? What happened to these "economic wonders", to tired to help a hand?

    In any case, it always ends up in the same result. Whatever we do it solves nothing. And at the end of the day Europe can take care of the problems and suffer the consequences.

    Just build a large fence around the middle east 30ft high with mind fields, don't let anyone come in or out, don't send weapons and good luck with it.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Quote Originally Posted by PokeBro92 View Post
    From what I understand they want to basically rule the world under Islam. I took an anti-terrorist course for the Air Force and we covered ISIS a lot. I would rather a newly discovered tribe of ancient Africans (just an example don't freak out) start a new government and rule the world than let ISIS take control. I've seen some sh*t.
    Yea. We just got another islamic caliphate by IS supporters in our governing capital of The Hague. I have seen them ravage through their new Caliphate, lot of fun those people. Luckily they mostly destroyed their own homes and cars.

  8. #8

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by ArchieRoni View Post
    There is nothing simple nor easy about wiping out a group of people. Ever.

    Anyway, let's look at the situation that ISIL is in.

    Politically
    Most of the world views ISIL as an illegitimate state. They gained their territory by conquest from a war-torn region. They have no participation in the international political community, and at present, it appears that nobody has any interest in publicly acknowledging ISIL as a nation. ISIL's goals as a group also run counter to international political desires, as well as regional desires. They're opposed by both Iraq and Iran, as well as Israel, which effectively aligns them against every major regional power or coalition in the area. It isn't possible for ISIL to enter into negotiations publicly with any other nation, to send out ambassadors, or to open their borders for trade and travel. As such, the nation is politically isolated.

    However, the region itself is also unstable. ISIL sits in the middle of Syria and Iraq as a major power in a region that lacks major powers. Iran is unwilling to commit militarily, and the US is planning to support local ground forces but so far is against putting American boots on the ground. So even though ISIL is itself isolated, it also creates a major destabilizing force for the region. Nobody else can effectively go in there or try to rebuild nations to be part of the world system because ISIL is taking up the space.

    Ideologically
    I'm actually much less clear on this than I'd like to be. I understand that they believe in a vision of Islam that supports their own violent conquest but I do not know how their interpretation of Jihad compares with Iran, Hamas, or historical Islam. I also understand that they support a worldwide Caliphate, but not how that translates to immediate policy or use of terror tactics around the world. They do not support the existence of the state of Israel, but that's not especially surprising in that region. The world has responded to them by calling them "evil" and labeling them as violent extremists. I cannot, however, tell you factually where they stand. I don't know if their leadership is motivated by power and material gain or believes truly in the ideas they espouse. Nor could I tell you what actions and policies they support or what they intend to do beyond vague ideals.

    Economically
    They've got access to oil fields and they're flush with captured weapons and resources. Their population is relatively small, however. About 30,000 people was the last statistic I've heard, but I'm not confident about that number. That's very small for a country (it's small for a city for that matter). There doesn't appear to be much production or infrastructure, however, and they're reliant mostly on seized assets from their conquests. Even their oil income is relatively small compared to the how much money is made from oil in the Middle East. My opinion is that ISIL isn't long-term sustainable as a state, and barely as an army.

    However, it's not clear what access they have to private traders. The entire Middle East has a lot of people there for a profit, and even though ISIL can't publicly open relations with other nations, that doesn't stop arms suppliers and the black market from providing them with resources illicitly. It's still not clear to me how ISIL can sustain itself long term due to its lack of infrastructure, but many a nation of existed in relatively poverty without being overthrown, so I won't predict that they'll collapse on their own. It's just too big of an unknown.

    Militarily
    ISIL is basically an army with some territory. They're fairly well-armed due to seizing Iraqi weapons depots during their initial conquest, but they're not packing equipment outside of ground power. US bombing efforts are not likely to encounter resistance and the state is not set up to have air or sea power. You've basically got a wide space with a bunch of secure buildings and caves and a land army that's hard to dig out. Defensively troublesome, offensively weak. If there's any reason to suspect terror tactics, it's this. However, I think they're in one of the worst positions to attempt to move people abroad for bombings or other attacks because ISIL itself is isolated. They would need to move people through war-torn areas with forged credentials, or they'd need to recruit abroad, both of which are a challenge.


    Conclusions
    Realistically, ISIL does not present a heavy international threat. Their ideology is viewed as poisonous, but it's also unpopular. What they do present is a regional stumbling block to peace. They have enough of an army now that they threaten to destroy more of their region without outside intervention, and there is a fear that if ISIL eventually gets powerful enough, their ideology would push them to strike elsewhere in the world.

    Recommendations
    Unfortunately, although I started this post with the commentary that it's never easy to suggest wiping out a group of people, I do think that ISIL's existence demands military action. It's not clear to me that the entire population of the region supports ISIL. But the leadership should be captured or killed if possible, and, in a rare example for the modern world, other powers in the region need to take over the territory currently held by ISIL. I think here that it's actually less important that ISIL members outside of the leadership are eliminated and more important that other people are moved into the region. Iraqi and Syrian military forces need to conquer the area and reclaim it for their respective nations. Syria itself is unclear as to what military the world will support (different nations line up differently there), but I think that eliminating the ISIL territory is a prerequisite to answering the question of who's going to run Syria.
    Thank you for this informative response.

    I think this is the same double edged sword the USA/un has wheeled before.

    The middle east is never going to be without "who is right" fighting. It is been going on for ever.
    I am afraid that we (USA) are going just cause the same problems as before. We wanted Iran stifled in the late '70s and supported Iraq. Then in the '90s we had to go back and slap down the monster we created. Then we got nailed on 9-11 from the spin off from all of the "where did the money go" groups.

    The USA is again "arming Rebels" to fight the "bad guy". But what is the out come going to be?

    I have said this before and called a "Crazy" but I had a vision of a news cast in 2022 and it was the start of WWIII and it will be the extremist attacking multiple targets.

    So as I see this all that is happening is "WE" are lighting the wet fuse on a big powder keg and it is just going to sit and sputter until???????

  9. #9

    Default

    any religion, government or organization that whats to control someone elses right to religion government or organization is a threat and should be dealt with!!!

  10. #10

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by egor View Post
    Thank you for this informative response.

    I think this is the same double edged sword the USA/un has wheeled before.

    The middle east is never going to be without "who is right" fighting. It is been going on for ever.
    I am afraid that we (USA) are going just cause the same problems as before. We wanted Iran stifled in the late '70s and supported Iraq. Then in the '90s we had to go back and slap down the monster we created. Then we got nailed on 9-11 from the spin off from all of the "where did the money go" groups.

    The USA is again "arming Rebels" to fight the "bad guy". But what is the out come going to be?

    I have said this before and called a "Crazy" but I had a vision of a news cast in 2022 and it was the start of WWIII and it will be the extremist attacking multiple targets.

    So as I see this all that is happening is "WE" are lighting the wet fuse on a big powder keg and it is just going to sit and sputter until???????
    Back in 1983 one of my professors at Wentworth Institute told us students in his Authoritarian/Totalitarian State course, that the US government was lighting a powderkeg in the middle east, by supplying weapons, ect. to jihadis in Afghanistan and trading weapons for hostages. He personally named G.H.W. Bush, and his son, G.W. Bush as middlemen making "deals" with the "born again Muslim", Osama Bin Laden and others to "kill the commies" (Russia). He used to be a lower-level diplomat before becoming a college professor.

    My late professor back in 1983 also named the "Koch Brothers" who are into right-wing politics as also providing support for jihadi groups in Afghanistan.

    The Koch brother's late Dad, "Fred Koch Sr." was one of the co-founders of the "John Birch Society", which is the ancestor of the "Tea Party" today.

    Like it or not, the Bush and Koch families had their greedy hands in the pie with respect to "Oil Money" to "douse more gasoline" onto the funeral pyre of the Middle East for decades.

    Anyone for shitloads more American Soldiers to "Die for the Bush and Koch Families"?

Similar Threads

  1. How would you have handled this?
    By Crinks in forum Adult Babies & Littles
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 30-Oct-2012, 13:59
  2. state-by-state
    By Kyler in forum Greetings / Introductions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 30-Jun-2010, 05:49
  3. What State are you from? / Wish
    By Bambusa in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 16-Dec-2008, 18:39

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.