How ISIS recruits

[KevinNYC]

Author who has been studying ISIS and has an upcoming book describes how ISIS recruits people and how it gets them to buy into the ideology of violence (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/25/inside-isis-training-camps?CMP=twt_gu)
[QUOTE]Indeed, one of the fascinating insights we found is that Isis presents the

[JohnFreeman]

I feel ISIS would get fvcked up if USA ever landed troops

[I<3NBA]

I feel ISIS would get fvcked up if USA ever landed troops
like the US wants another repeat of Vietnam :facepalm
the US neither have the money nor the troops to start a massive ground operation

[andgar923]

Does the article say anything about them being funded and trained by the US and its allies?

ISIS= yet another American boogie man puppet.

[fiddy]

like the US wants another repeat of Vietnam :facepalm
the US neither have the money nor the troops to start a massive ground operation
ye, still spends 600+ billions for "security", certified dumbest poster on ISH

[fiddy]

wtf is this shit in OP, Nusra and IS fight each other.

[Dresta]

Does the article say anything about them being funded and trained by the US and its allies?

ISIS= yet another American boogie man puppet.
Jesus, the number of ****ing imbeciles on this site :facepalm

Go the **** back to your man-cave and keep your opinions to topics like *********ion, or videogames, where you at least have some expertise.

[MadeFromDust]

I wanna know when old Vlad becomes a free agent. There are a couple places in the free world that would vote him Pres.

[Nanners]

ISIS and groups like ISIS are going to continue to grow and flourish as long as the US/NATO continue their bombing and empire building campaigns in the middle east.

What exactly did we expect would happen after we killed 100k+ Iraqi civilians during our "shock and awe" bombing campaign? What did we expect would happen if we took out the Iraqi government, turning the countryside into a modern wild west? What did we expect would happen if blew up their roads and bridges, their electricity and water plants, their schools, their hospitals, their police and fire stations?

For these people left picking up the pieces of their lives in these piles of rubble like Iraq and Syria, they have no job prospects, their home and village have been destroyed, several of their family and friends were recently killed... the only thing these people have left is anger toward the west, and their religion.

So no, the growth of ISIS has nothing to do with some new version of Islam, it has everything to do with the actions of western nations.

It is impossible to win the war on terror with bombs. Terrorists are created by bombs.

[LJJ]

For these people left picking up the pieces of their lives in these piles of rubble like Iraq and Syria, they have no job prospects, their home and village have been destroyed, several of their family and friends were recently killed... the only thing these people have left is anger toward the west, and their religion.

So no, the growth of ISIS has nothing to do with some new version of Islam, it has everything to do with the actions of western nations.

It is impossible to win the war on terror with bombs. Terrorists are created by bombs.

:roll:

Which is why ISIS is for a huge amount compromised of non Syrians. Just keep looking away, keep ignoring the facts. Terrorism is a hobby of wealthy Islamists and coddled Muslims, not a hobby of the poor and bullied. They are the bullies. The poor people in Syria and Iraq are getting killed and raped by IS.

[Nanners]

:roll:

Which is why ISIS is for a huge amount compromised of non Syrians. Just keep looking away, keep ignoring the facts. Terrorism is a hobby of wealthy Islamists and coddled Muslims, not a hobby of the poor and bullied. They are the bullies. The richer they become, the more terrorism exists.

not really

sure there are wealty saudis and qataris who provide funding and equipment to terror groups, but these groups would have a much harder time finding new foot soldiers if we werent making hundreds of thousands of mortal enemies.

[LJJ]

sure there are wealthy saudis who provide funding to terror groups, but these groups would have a much harder time finding new foot soldiers if we werent making hundreds of thousands of enemies.

They find their foot soldiers exactly among the people who have been coddled, who have been given everything their heart desires and who have the rich lifestyle to make religion their main hobby. A poor person doesn't have time to worry about Islam. Jihadi John wasn't poor.

[Nanners]

They find their foot soldiers exactly among the people who have been coddled, who have been given everything their heart desires and who have the rich lifestyle to make religion their main hobby. A poor person doesn't have time to worry about Islam. Jihadi John wasn't poor.

:oldlol:

you are straight up fvcking retarded if you think these groups like ISIS are composed of rich foreigners

[LJJ]

:oldlol:

you are straight up fvcking retarded if you think these groups like ISIS are composed of rich foreigners

They are. IS isn't of Syrian origin, although along the way the local Islamists did join up. I can see you haven't been following the conflict at all.

[Nanners]

They are. IS isn't of Syrian origin, although along the way the local Islamists did join up. I can see you haven't been following the conflict at all.

I didnt say it was of syrian origin, i said it flourishes in places like syria.

[LJJ]

I didnt say it was of syrian origin, i said it flourishes in places like syria.

You say IS isn't composed of rich foreigners. That's exactly the group IS is in this conflict. They are the rich foreign jihadis who come to Syria just to **** shit up and rape and pillage. The Syrian rebel Islamists groups are the ones fighting at the front. The straight up terrorists like IS come from outside.

[Nanners]

They are the rich foreign jihadis who come to Syria just to **** shit up and rape and pillage.

and if the western backed syrian rebels had not turned that country into a wasteland, these groups would not be able to come to syria and fvck shit up because the syrian govt would shit on them.

if you cant see how all of these problems are rooted in actions taken by the west, you are one delusional motherfvcker.

[LJJ]

and if the western backed syrian rebels had not turned that country into a wasteland, these groups would not be able to come to syria and fvck shit up because the syrian govt would shit on them.

True. I agree with you completely that Obama and other western leaders ****ed up when they backed the Islamists trying to overthrow the modern, secular and benign Assad.

[Take Your Lumps]

1989 Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Jordanian founding father of Islamic State, arrives in Pakistan to join the mujahideen, just as the Soviet army quits Afghanistan.

I bet whoever funded and armed them feels really stupid right now.

[KevinNYC]

wtf is this shit in OP, Nusra and IS fight each other.
That shit in the OP is correct. The way they worded the bulleted list here doesn't capture the conflict between Nusra and ISIS
April 2013 Baghdadi unilaterally declares a merger between Jabhat al-Nusra and ISI and calls it the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham (Isis).Note the word "unilaterally" He delcared the merger without talking to the other side, so it was actually more a hostile takeover than a merger. This was when the fighting between ISIS and Nusra really started. Think of one gang leader telling another gang, "you work for me now."

The "merger" was the the head of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi declaring himself as the leader of worldwide sunni jihad, putting himself above the leader of Al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri. So basically the merger was the culmination of a the conflict with Nusra/Al Qaeda and it was the breaking point. By delcaring himself leader and caliph, he was forcing jihadists to choose between him and Al Qaeda and many fighters defected to his side. (http://web.stanford.edu/group/mappingmilitants/cgi-bin/groups/view/493) This is when the real fights between Nusra and ISIS started.[QUOTE]In 2013, tensions rose between al-Nusra and its parent organization AQI when Baghdadi unilaterally proclaimed that the two organizations had been merged to create the Islamic State in Iraq and al Sham (ISIS). Julani agreed that AQI had aided al-Nusra from the beginning, but rejected the merger and renewed his pledge of allegiance to Al Qaeda commander Ayman al-Zawahiri. Despite Zawahiri

[KevinNYC]

You can read about the April 2013 "merger" here. It's a one sided announcement from Baghdadi.
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2013/04/the_emir_of_al_qaeda.php

Here's a post I made a year ago (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9798496&postcount=6)after the Jihadi vs Jihadi battles and ISIS's independence began to be understood in the West.
Actually Al Qaeda has been losing power for a while now.

Many analysts now believe that Al Qaeda under Ayman al-Zawahiri is no longer the premiere jihadi network worldwide. Zawahiri was never as popular as Bin Laden and he's having trouble keeping the group together. There's a big fracture happening in the jihadi world.

ISIS which used to be Al Qaeda in Iraq is no longer under Zawahiri's control and group after group is sided with ISIS


While there is much we don't know about the current size and operational status of AQC, there is ample evidence that the top-down command structure -- with Zawahiri's organization on top of the pyramid -- is, at a minimum, under tremendous pressure.
We can debate whether it has completely collapsed, whether it is severely damaged, whether it is still hanging on, and whether it might mount a comeback, but the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that control of al Qaeda's affiliates is slipping out of Zawahiri's hands. This weekend's disavowal of ISIS by AQC is only the most recent and explicit example.
We sometimes talk about al Qaeda and its affiliates as if this structure has a clear precedent, deep roots, and a long history of cohesion. In fact, the "affiliate program" was barely off the ground before cracks began to form. Al Qaeda in Iraq, and its leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, went off the rails almost immediately, and AQC tried -- futilely -- to rein him in through private correspondence, which was captured in Iraq and Afghanistan and later published by the U.S. government. The conflict was only resolved with Zarqawi's death in 2006.
Today, Zawahiri has indisputably lost control of AQI, now known as ISIS. In June, ISIS tried to take control of al Qaeda's official affiliate in Syria, Jabhat al Nusra. When Zawahiri came down in support of the powerful newcomer, ISIS openly defied him, with its emir posting a video online explicitly rejecting the order to confine its activities to Iraq.

This has led fighting among jihadi groups in Syria. And now groups are having to decide who to be loyal to.

[KevinNYC]

Pretty much.. lol at OP propping up ISIS to no end. Cointelpro loving *******.
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

That's correct, I'm "propping up ISIS." They would be nothing without me. I edit all their beheading videos and run their twitter accounts.

Cointelpro
:facepalm

[KevinNYC]

True. I agree with you completely that Obama and other western leaders ****ed up when they backed the Islamists trying to overthrow the modern, secular and benign Assad.
When did that happen?


trying to overthrow the modern, secular and benign Assad.
And when was Assad benign?

Given that Assad prompted this war as Shiite vs Sunni, is it correct to say his a secularists? Given that Assad emptied his jails of Islamists at the beginning of this conflict so that he could claim he alone stood against the barbarians what responsibility does he bear?

[wakencdukest]

[QUOTE=MadeFromDust]I wanna know when old Vlad becomes a free agent. There are a couple places in the free world that would vote him Pres.

[andgar923]

Jesus, the number of ****ing imbeciles on this site :facepalm

Go the **** back to your man-cave and keep your opinions to topics like *********ion, or videogames, where you at least have some expertise.

You wish you got the amount and quality of p*ssy I've refused.

Know your place

[LJJ]

When did that happen?

When they started arming the FSA. The FSA filled with Islamists, who have been selling any westerner they could find to IS and are the main reason IS has all these modern weapons, and most of whom have defected to IS by now.



And when was Assad benign?

Given that Assad prompted this war as Shiite vs Sunni, is it correct to say his a secularists? Given that Assad emptied his jails of Islamists at the beginning of this conflict so that he could claim he alone stood against the barbarians what responsibility does he bear?

Assad was always benign. He hasn't prompted any war between Shia and Sunni. You are just saying that because he is Shia (and not even a real one). What benefit does he have to promote Sunni extremism? To promote tension between different Islamic sects? His sect is a minority. He has absolutely nothing to benefit from promoting tension and starting a civil war.

Think for one second. With your head please. Syria was a relatively nice country in the ME for a long time. One of the few countries were Christians and other minorities were safe and left alone. A big reason for this is because Assad and (mostly) his father before him have always dealt with Islamist extremism pretty well. He also lives a very comfortable, wealthy life thanks to his position and he's quite the white collar crook. Why would he promote a civil war? Him rather than the incredibly wealthy, Sunni power that surround him? Don't drink the koolaid, don't believe the propaganda so easily.

[I<3NBA]

ye, still spends 600+ billions for "security", certified dumbest poster on ISH
and it had to withdraw ground troops in Afghanistan and continues to draw down ground troops.

why is that?

you must know nothing about about basic war tactics if you don't understand the concept of being stretched thin and how many troops are needed for a ground operation.

you know why the US can't afford to get into an extended war with anyone?

it has too many enemies on so many fronts and it doesn't have the troops it needs to fight on all fronts. Middle East, Pacific, Europe.

goddamn, you're the retard if you think the US can afford landing troops on Syria. a ground invasion in one place means less presence in other places.

the reason why Russia and China have grown so emboldened and unafraid of US military backlash is because they know the US has its hands stuck in deep shit in the Middle East.

[Rodmantheman]

When they started arming the FSA. The FSA filled with Islamists, who have been selling any westerner they could find to IS and are the main reason IS has all these modern weapons, and most of whom have defected to IS by now.



Assad was always benign. He hasn't prompted any war between Shia and Sunni. You are just saying that because he is Shia (and not even a real one). What benefit does he have to promote Sunni extremism? To promote tension between different Islamic sects? His sect is a minority. He has absolutely nothing to benefit from promoting tension and starting a civil war.

Think for one second. With your head please. Syria was a relatively nice country in the ME for a long time. One of the few countries were Christians and other minorities were safe and left alone. A big reason for this is because Assad and (mostly) his father before him have always dealt with Islamist extremism pretty well. He also lives a very comfortable, wealthy life thanks to his position and he's quite the white collar crook. Why would he promote a civil war? Him rather than the incredibly wealthy, Sunni power that surround him? Don't drink the koolaid, don't believe the propaganda so easily.

But he gets his info from CNN they never lie:lol

[MadeFromDust]

and it had to withdraw ground troops in Afghanistan and continues to draw down ground troops.

why is that?

you must know nothing about about basic war tactics if you don't understand the concept of being stretched thin and how many troops are needed for a ground operation.

you know why the US can't afford to get into an extended war with anyone?

it has too many enemies on so many fronts and it doesn't have the troops it needs to fight on all fronts. Middle East, Pacific, Europe.

goddamn, you're the retard if you think the US can afford landing troops on Syria. a ground invasion in one place means less presence in other places.

the reason why Russia and China have grown so emboldened and unafraid of US military backlash is because they know the US has its hands stuck in deep shit in the Middle East.
Easy answer. Bcuz Obomma politics. Had to keep one of his "hope and change" promises even though he failed at everything else. With old Vlad in charge, the ground troops would've increased and the bloody moslem terrorists would be decimated

[KevinNYC]

When they started arming the FSA. The FSA filled with Islamists, who have been selling any westerner they could find to IS and are the main reason IS has all these modern weapons, and most of whom have defected to IS by now.
When did they start arming the FSA? What is the date?

When did the Syrian civil war start and why? And when did the USA arm the FSA? Because if you don't understand what these dates are it's a simplistic as saying ISIS could have never made a claim to the allegiance Nusra fighters because they are fighting each other now.

Assad was always benign. You mean except to Syrians, right? Why did millions of Syrians take to the streets against him? When he cracked down and opened fire on these protesters he did so benignly? When Assad starting dropping barrel bombs on civilian populations and encouraged pro-Assad militias to use rape as tool of ethnic cleansing? Was he still being benign?


He hasn't prompted any war between Shia and Sunni. You are just saying that because he is Shia. What benefit does he have to promote Sunni extremism? To promote tension between different Islamic sects? His sect is a minority. He has absolutely nothing to benefit from promoting tension and starting a civil war.Once the civil war started his strategy was to promote himself as the savior of the Alawites, the Shia sect that forms the ruling class in Syria. Since there a legitimate greivances against his dictatorial rule, he uses sectarianism to discredit any opposition to you him. By claiming that the anti-Assad forces will wipe out the Alawites, Assad gains an undividable block of support. He promotes sectarism to then promote him as the only force standing against that.
Vali Nasr, a Middle East scholar at Tufts University, describes what might be called Sectarianism 101. The Syrian regime incites sectarian tensions, then presents itself as the only force that can hold the country together.


Think for one second. With your head please. Syria was a relatively nice country in the ME for a long time. One of the few countries were Christians and other minorities were safe and left alone. A big reason for this is because Assad and (mostly) his father before him have always dealt with Islamist extremism pretty well. He also lives a very comfortable, wealthy life thanks to his position and he's quite the white collar crook. Why would he promote a civil war? Him rather than the incredibly wealthy, Sunni power that surround him? Don't drink the koolaid, don't believe the propaganda so easily.I think you're putting a lot of emphasis on relatively there, aren't you? Also tell Lebanon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_occupation_of_Lebanon)about how well intentioned Syria was. You also seem to be juggling up the timeline. Assad didn't promote sectarianism by promoting a civil war. He found himself in a civil war when after cracking down brutally on civilian protesters many Syrian Army soldiers defected to fight against the government. It was Assad's strategy to survive the civil war to turn it into a sectarian conflict. He had to find ways to discredit the opposition. His most effective defense was essentially to say that if his government was toppled then Jihadis would take over. For most of the civil war Assad and ISIS have been frenemies. Assad was funding them by buying oil from them and for years did not subjugate their headquarters at Raqaa to the barrel bomb attacks he has used on civilians in other cities. ISIS headquarters were clearly marked and unattacked for years. And then there is this (http://www.newsweek.com/how-syrias-assad-helped-forge-isis-255631)
Mohammed Al-Saud is under no illusions. “In 2011, the majority of the current ISIS leadership was released from jail by Bashar Al Assad,” he said. “No one in the regime has ever admitted this, or explained why.” Al-Saud, a Syrian dissident with the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, left Syria under threat of arrest in 2011.
...
His fellow prisoners were members of ISIS. “Abu Muhammad al-Joulani, (founder of the Jihadist group, Jabhat al-Jabhat al-Nusra) was rumored to be there. Mohammed Haydar Zammar, (one of the organisers of the 9/11 attacks) was there. This is where the Syrian part of ISIS was born,” he said.

Alghorani is convinced that members of ISIS were released strategically by Assad. “From the first days of the revolution (in March 2011), Assad denounced the organisation as being the work of radical Salafists, so he released the Salafists he had created in his prisons to justify the claim ... If you do not have an enemy, you create an enemy.”

Fellow Syrians agree. “The regime did not just open the door to the prisons and let these extremists out, it facilitated them in their work, in their creation of armed brigades,” a former member of the Syrian Security Services told the Abu Dhabi newspaper, the National, on condition of anonymity in January this year.

“The regime knew what these people were. It knew what they wanted and the extent of their networks. Then it released them. These are the same people who are now in Iraq,” Al-Saud added.The logic that dictator's work by is not the same logic as most people

[LJJ]

Straight up drinking the koolaid. :facepalm Calling Assad and ISIS allies.

You bolded a big part, and right underneath that it says: " Al-Saud, a Syrian dissident with the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces"

He's gonna bad mouth Assad, no SHIT son. You just showcased perfectly how you drink the koolaid. And Islamist fighting Assad says something bad about Assad, and you go for it hook, line and sinker. His name is Al-Saud straight up. Do you know what Al-Saud means? He's a Saudi extremist Islamist. You dipshit.

[KevinNYC]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10585391/Syrias-Assad-accused-of-boosting-al-Qaeda-with-secret-oil-deals.html

[LJJ]

Islamists have accused Assad of everything including opening the gates of hell. You are a moron if you buy the propaganda against Assad. Assad is a Russian ally with zero media power in the west.

[KevinNYC]

Straight up drinking the koolaid. :facepalm
Um, your argument is not that Assad is better than ISIS. You said Assad was benign. Which propaganda are you swallowing? Because your tongue is purple.

[LJJ]

Um, your argument is not that Assad is better than ISIS. You said Assad was benign. Which propaganda are you swallowing? Because your tongue is purple.

Don't you have more impartial, reliable Syrian* people to quote with genuine Syrian* names like Al-Saud and Al-Baghdadi?

Make sure to quote them with big bold letters! That makes them extra reliable! :j

[MadeFromDust]

Don't you have more impartial, reliable Syrian* people to quote with genuine Syrian* names like Al-Saud and Al-Baghdadi?

Make sure to quote them with big bold letters! That makes them extra reliable! :j
:oldlol: Dayumm KYJelly just cot pwnd lmao

[KevinNYC]

Don't you have more impartial, reliable Syrian* people to quote with genuine Syrian* names like Al-Saud and Al-Baghdadi?

Make sure to quote them with big bold letters! That makes them extra reliable! :jIf you read, the article, Al-Saud was not the only source.
If you did some research, you would find the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces is not Islamist.
If you knew your history, it would being suprising to find the name Al Saud in Syria, since they have been there since the 1700's. That the thing with nomadic tribes, they tend to move.

Would you prefer a Syrian diplomat?
http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/inside-assad-s-playbook-time-and-terror

[MadeFromDust]

If you read, the article, Al-Saud was not the only source.
If you did some research, you would find the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces is not Islamist.
If you knew your history, it would being suprising to find the name Al Saud in Syria, since they have been there since the 1700's. That the thing with nomadic tribes, they tend to move.

Would you prefer a Syrian diplomat?
http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/inside-assad-s-playbook-time-and-terror
:roll: LJJ got KYJelly putting extra commas and bad grammar and run-on sentences and shiite :lol

[KevinNYC]

You also didn't answer my larger point that the US did not start the Syrian civil war. That was started as a domestic response to the Assad dictatorship.

[LJJ]

If you read, the article, Al-Saud was not the only source.
If you did some research, you would find the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces is not Islamist.
If you knew your history, it would being suprising to find the name Al Saud in Syria, since they have been there since the 1700's. That the thing with nomadic tribes, they tend to move.

Would you prefer a Syrian diplomat?
http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/inside-assad-s-playbook-time-and-terror

I know you are Googling furiously and then come here and pretend like you actually KNOW the history of the Al-Saud family tree in Syria. :lol Don't be ridiculous.

So you found one former diplomat who realigned himself with the Islamist rebels who know bad mouths Assad. You don't understand that it doesn't mean anything? Are you really that thick in the head? You can find 400 Syrian diplomats who will sing Assad's praises. Is that reliable to you? Or only the one single former diplomat who switched sides and now bad mouths Assad is reliable? Because it fits your agenda? Right.

I never said the US started the Syrian civil war. A small minority of well funded, well backed and very well armed Islamists did. Because Assad has nothing but enemies in the region. And all Arabic countries are powder kegs anyway. But Assad is no monster for trying to contain Islamists who want to burn 80% of the people in the region to death.

[KevinNYC]

I never said the US started the Syrian civil war. A small minority of well funded, well backed and very well armed Islamists did. Because Assad has nothing but enemies in the region. And all Arabic countries are powder kegs anyway. But Assad is no monster for trying to contain Islamists who want to burn 80% of the people in the region to death.Give evidence for this.

[PleezeBelieve]

U.S. military officials are laughing their asses off behind closed doors about ISIS

No one gives a fukk. Beheading vids and public shootings on foreign lands generate instant ratings on CNN, but overall is a small blip on the countries radar when it comes to real issues domestically and abroad.

Tell those ISIS clowns to stop watching Homeland and get a hobby. :oldlol:

[LJJ]

Give evidence for this.

Al Qaeda has been fighting alongside the so-called independent "Free Syrian Army" since it's inception and you need "evidence" that they are backed by wealthy foreign powers.

The FSA has been bleeding, getting kicked out of every city and population center, losing manpower after an initial burst, losing ground. The majority of their fighters have defected to clearcut jihadi Islamist groups, yet you need "evidence" they don't have the support of the people and they have been hardcore Islamists since the start.

You are a curious fellow. This isn't the Arab Spring anymore, when you had to have half a brain to see minority groups of Islamists were instigating the chaos. It happened, we've seen the outcomes. What do you need my evidence for? Go to wikipedia.

[KevinNYC]

Al Qaeda has been fighting alongside the so-called independent "Free Syrian Army" since it's inception and you need "evidence" that they are backed by wealthy foreign powers.

The FSA has been bleeding, getting kicked out of every city and population center, losing manpower after an initial burst, losing ground. The majority of their fighters have defected to clearcut jihadi Islamist groups, yet you need "evidence" they don't have the support of the people and they have been hardcore Islamists since the start.

You are a curious fellow. This isn't the Arab Spring anymore, when you had to have half a brain to see minority groups of Islamists were instigating the chaos. It happened, we've seen the outcomes. What do you need my evidence for? Go to wikipedia.
You are not describing the events of 2011. Al Qaeda had nothing to do with the start of the Syrian civil war.

[LJJ]

You are not describing the events of 2011. Al Qaeda had nothing to do with the start of the Syrian civil war.

You are kidding yourself with that whole the rebels were cute and innocent narrative. Open your eyes. Look what they are now.You honestly believe they suddenly started to believe in horrific terrorism and horrific ideologies in one month? Don't be so naive.

[fiddy]

and it had to withdraw ground troops in Afghanistan and continues to draw down ground troops.

why is that?

you must know nothing about about basic war tactics if you don't understand the concept of being stretched thin and how many troops are needed for a ground operation.

you know why the US can't afford to get into an extended war with anyone?

it has too many enemies on so many fronts and it doesn't have the troops it needs to fight on all fronts. Middle East, Pacific, Europe.

goddamn, you're the retard if you think the US can afford landing troops on Syria. a ground invasion in one place means less presence in other places.

the reason why Russia and China have grown so emboldened and unafraid of US military backlash is because they know the US has its hands stuck in deep shit in the Middle East.
First of all you had not business invading Afghanistan or Iraq. Your post speaks volumes why U.S. is the biggest aggressor in the world (so many enemies), third you can afford ground operations in Syria, either a full blown invasion or tactical operations. The thing is that, theres no need for that as Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are working proactively against Assad, hence they are doing your dirty job.

Its time put our tinfoil hats on, a German conspirator wrote a book in 2004 claiming that WW3 will be the west against Russia and there will be a religious war along it. If hes remotely right, i can see why the U.S. doesnt want to intervene in Syria against jihadist. They are your product, before 9/11 there were less than 10k extremist worldwide, now that number is 100k+ thanks to your "war against terror". Well done U.S. :applause:

[KevinNYC]

First of all you had not business invading Afghanistan
Why not?

Why wouldn't the right of self-defense apply?

[gigantes]

how close are any of these lunatic sects to getting their hands on long-range missile material? ...is what i'm curious about.


i was reading yesterday that in 1995 a scandinavian country sent up a science rocket and one of its stages malfunctioned and strayed in to an alert corridor between russia and the US. this was back in the days of yeltsin, what with his relative goodwill towards the west.

the immediate concern was that the lone rocket was a 'smokescreen' rocket, whose mission is to jam detection systems so that the trailing ICBM wave can get through as much as the defences as possible. but because of having inadequate long-range satellite coverage, the russians couldn't tell if the rocket was an anomaly or whether a real attack wave was coming.

so they had seven brick-shitting minutes to decide whether to launch the all-out nucelar retaliation or whether to ignore the rocket. fast-forward to today with tensions a millions times higher, and i really hope these wackos don't get to create some sort of intentional incident because some former USSR nation (or whoever) was foolish enough to sell them materials. this is our concern, dude.

[fiddy]

Why not?

Why wouldn't the right of self-defense apply?
Did the Afghan state or government attack you? Iraq was a complete joke, WMD, really?

[sweggeh]

First of all you had not business invading Afghanistan or Iraq. Your post speaks volumes why U.S. is the biggest aggressor in the world (so many enemies), third you can afford ground operations in Syria, either a full blown invasion or tactical operations. The thing is that, theres no need for that as Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are working proactively against Assad, hence they are doing your dirty job.

Its time put our tinfoil hats on, a German conspirator wrote a book in 2004 claiming that WW3 will be the west against Russia and there will be a religious war along it. If hes remotely right, i can see why the U.S. doesnt want to intervene in Syria against jihadist. They are your product, before 9/11 there were less than 10k extremist worldwide, now that number is 100k+ thanks to your "war against terror". Well done U.S. :applause:

This can't be stressed enough. America stay ****in up.

[KevinNYC]

Did the Afghan state or government attack you? Iraq was a complete joke, WMD, really?

Notice I didn't ask about Iraq.

Back to Afghanistan. The Afghan government was aiding and sheltering the non-state terrorist actors who did attack us. Non-state terrorist groups are a new type of threat. Does the right of self defense still apply?

The Taliban were told we would not take action against them if they turned over Al Qaeda, they did not. What would have been the appropriate response be in this case?

[fiddy]

Notice I didn't ask about Iraq.

Back to Afghanistan. The Afghan government was aiding and sheltering the non-state terrorist actors who did attack us. Non-state terrorist groups are a new type of threat. Does the right of self defense still apply?

The Taliban were told we would not take action against them if they turned over Al Qaeda, they did not. What would have been the appropriate response be in this case?
The appropriate response was to wage a war on terrorism? A war you cant win because terrorism doesnt exist physically, however, it does have physical aspects. You cant win a war for whats going in people's head. Because 2-3k religious nutcases have picked weapons it does not mean that there arent millions who think alike or support them. Because before anything else terrorism lies upon certain ideology, if go to war against certain type of terrorism you go to war against an ideology, a set of beliefs and certain mentality. U.S. actions in the middle are responsible for the surge in extremism.

[gigantes]

The appropriate response was to wage a war on terrorism? A war you cant win because terrorism doesnt exist physically, however, it does have physical aspects. You cant win a war for whats going in people's head. Because 2-3k religious nutcases have picked weapons it does not mean that there arent millions who think alike or support them. Because before anything else terrorism lies upon certain ideology, if go to war against certain type of terrorism you go to war against an ideology, a set of beliefs and certain mentality. U.S. actions in the middle are responsible for the surge in extremism.
granted the iraq thing was a complete eff-up, but what would you have done re: al-qaeda in afghanistan if you were the US prez, post 9-11?

[KevinNYC]

The appropriate response was to wage a war on terrorism? A war you cant win because terrorism doesnt exist physically, however, it does have physical aspects. You cant win a war for whats going in people's head. Because 2-3k religious nutcases have picked weapons it does not mean that there arent millions who think alike or support them. Because before anything else terrorism lies upon certain ideology, if go to war against certain type of terrorism you go to war against an ideology, a set of beliefs and certain mentality. U.S. actions in the middle are responsible for the surge in extremism.

You didn't answer the question. We did launch specific, physical war against The Taliban. Was that war justified by our right of self-defense?

[FKAri]

Really wish US would stop playing world police. It's a stupid disguise and its not even effective. Sure we've fuked up the Middle East but all we can do is make it worse, not better. Better to stay out of it at this point.

[fiddy]

You didn't answer the question. We did launch specific, physical war against The Taliban. Was that war justified by our right of self-defense?
On theory it was justified. The question is, was that the most appropriate answer to the situation? Given the results 13 years later, i think not. Not to mention that collateral damage has killed many more civilians than the 9/11 attack. Your country went hunting for sand monkeys on the other end of the planet, while your south border possesses many more dangers from violent cartels that roam freely, heck they can sneak a nuke from Mexico if they had it. The thing that really bothers me, why was Saudi Arabia left out of the operation, while people that carried out the 9/11 attack were saudi nationals? If Bin Land is saudi himself.

[I<3NBA]

granted the iraq thing was a complete eff-up, but what would you have done re: al-qaeda in afghanistan if you were the US prez, post 9-11?
bring the US dream to them. flood that shitty country with jobs, McDonalds, all the comforts of US society...

[KevinNYC]

On theory it was justified. The question is, was that the most appropriate answer to the situation? Given the results 13 years later, i think not. Not to mention that collateral damage has killed many more civilians than the 9/11 attack. Your country went hunting for sand monkeys on the other end of the planet, while your south border possesses many more dangers from violent cartels that roam freely, heck they can sneak a nuke from Mexico if they had it. The thing that really bothers me, why was Saudi Arabia left out of the operation, while people that carried out the 9/11 attack were saudi nationals? If Bin Land is saudi himself.
So you agree it was justified.

You also seem to pretend it was only American actions that kept the war going for 13 years. You ignore the Afghanistan has a democratically elected government and the UN Security council agreed to set up a security force and that a good portion of the collateral damage you're speaking of is caused by the terrorist insurgency trying to overthrow that government.

[KingBeasley08]

Did the Afghan state or government attack you? Iraq was a complete joke, WMD, really?
Afghanistan was a fair war. If we could do it again, I'd agree with the decision. Iraq is the war that was a complete joke

[gigantes]

bring the US dream to them. flood that shitty country with jobs, McDonalds, all the comforts of US society...
LOL interesting invasion force.

[D-FENS]

It is impossible to win the war on terror with bombs. Terrorists are created by bombs.


Not true.



https://miepvonsydow.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/nuclear_57-046-60f5b6f991b3e30513cdf4c575e64312fa852445-s6-c30.jpg



http://i1086.photobucket.com/albums/j452/wetpaintpod1/courtneyrobertsonwinningGIF.gif

[FKAri]

Not true.



https://miepvonsydow.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/nuclear_57-046-60f5b6f991b3e30513cdf4c575e64312fa852445-s6-c30.jpg



http://i1086.photobucket.com/albums/j452/wetpaintpod1/courtneyrobertsonwinningGIF.gif

Bombing won't solve anything. It just breeds more haters.

[fiddy]

So you agree it was justified.

You also seem to pretend it was only American actions that kept the war going for 13 years. You ignore the Afghanistan has a democratically elected government and the UN Security council agreed to set up a security force and that a good portion of the collateral damage you're speaking of is caused by the terrorist insurgency trying to overthrow that government.
Partially, i dont agree with the shit storm that followed the original war. Do you feel like you won the war in Afghanistan? Because as of today 90% of world's heroin is still produced there, after U.S. and NATO withdraw all of their troops from there, the country will back to there where it was before the 9/11. When i said collateral damage i didnt mean Afghanistan only, what about all of the innocent drone victims in northern Pakistan, Iraq and Yemen? Drones alone are responsible for about 2.5k civilians deaths.

[Dresta]

Partially, i dont agree with the shit storm that followed the original war. Do you feel like you won the war in Afghanistan? Because as of today 90% of world's heroin is still produced there, after U.S. and NATO withdraw all of their troops from there, the country will back to there where it was before the 9/11. When i said collateral damage i didnt mean Afghanistan only, what about all of the innocent drone victims in northern Pakistan, Iraq and Yemen? Drones alone are responsible for about 2.5k civilians deaths.
This was an incredibly idiotic mistake. Opium farming was like the biggest chunk of industry in Afghanistan, and despite us having a shortage of opiate medications, and paying the Turks to grow it for us, we neglected the opportunity to collaborate with Afghan farmers, instead opting to destroy their livelihoods, and to drive them straight into the arms of the Taliban.

People with inane shit like 'you don't win wars by bombing people' - well, yeah, you do, you just also need to not be retarded in every other respect. It also helps not to have a democratic citizenry that always drags its feet whenever there is a war going on. Should have been acknowledged from the start that if this was to work in any way it would be necessary to spend decades in the Middle East, not simply to remove Saddam and go 'here you go Iraqis: freedom!' - all while they have no food or power or security, and have had their administrative bodies completely dismantled by Americans on an anti-Baathist crusade.

Would have been best if Bush Snr didn't betray all those Shia and actually removed Saddam the first time round :facepalm .

[KevinNYC]

Partially, i dont agree with the shit storm that followed the original war. Do you feel like you won the war in Afghanistan? Because as of today 90% of world's heroin is still produced there, after U.S. and NATO withdraw all of their troops from there, the country will back to there where it was before the 9/11. When i said collateral damage i didnt mean Afghanistan only, what about all of the innocent drone victims in northern Pakistan, Iraq and Yemen? Drones alone are responsible for about 2.5k civilians deaths.
No, I don't think we are going to achieve our objectives in Afghanistan.

I think we made several critical mistakes in our original prosecution of the war.
It's clear in retrospect that we didn't did fight the war as if it was a true national priority. We did not send it enough troops. When we had the core of Al Qaeda pinned in the mountains of Tora Bora, we did not have enough of our soldiers on the ground to prevent them from escaping. We relied on locals, some of whom cut a deal with Al Qaeda. Thus we allowed them to escape and find refuge in Pakistan. The number one thing an insurgent army needs for success is a refuge.

It was also quite clear that after the initial rout, our national priority became Iraq and we pulled assets/attention away from Afghanistan.

So these are a couple of big original sins. However, it might not have mattered anyway, especially with other countries willing to arm and fund the forces fighting against the new Afghanistan state, as the most recent few years have shown. Afghanistan has been at war in one form or another since 1979 and probably will remain so. It probably would be better for the US to use less hubris and redefine what success would look like to match the local conditions. (Is there anyway we were going to stop heroin production in Afghanistan? What other industry do they have that could replace it?)

This site has numbers on the drone strikes for both Yemen and Pakistan and your civilian numbers are high.
http://securitydata.newamerica.net/drones/pakistan/analysis

The question for me about drones is, not which instrument of war should you be using, but should you fighting a war? If we should be waging war against Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Yemen, then the truth is that collateral damage is far, far lower fighting a war with drone strikes than fighting a war with ground troops. Civilians die in modern warfare and I don't think there is anyway around that. However, with drone strikes, you don't have massive flows of refugees and even greater civilian casualties than you do when you send in ground troops. Drones have even become far, far better minimizing casualties because they can keep militants under surveillance for days at a time which is why so few civilians are now killed in drone strikes. (Also because the US has tightened their rules on using drones.)

[Dresta]

America should have just bought the Opium off the farmers themselves, it's not like we don't need it; instead, by persecuting them they just provided easy finances to the Taliban. Also, destroying the livelihood's of the citizenry is no way to win over the local populace.