American Journalist James Foley Reportedly Beheaded

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Pearsy92 wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Pearsy92 wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
I m sure that whatever is done about this, the response will be “measured” and “proportional”. Nothing scares the Jihadi’s more than the possibility that the political winds could blow strong enough for the US to muster a measured and proportional response. [/quote]

Well what can the U.S do? The country is in massive debt, has recently been in two very costly wars and is still propping up the very likely to collapse governments installed there with money and arms.

The U.S can not afford to go to war really and even if they did hatred of the U.S around the world is so strong right now that it could just make things worse.

I would love to see the U.S go in and smash IS but the problem is can they? What do they do if IS is defeated, there is a vacuum in that region after the U.S overthrew regimes, these will eventually be filled and it won’t be by a democrat or an independent, it will be by someone with views and laws we deem horrendous, the U.S can’t stay in that region forever without crippling itself economically.

On the other hand it eventually might need to. This is a very very hard topic and rashness and bravado won’t really help. The U.S has the greatest military power known to man, but its about what comes after the victory. You can’t and won’t defeat insurgencies that have popular backing. They just keep sprouting up. [/quote]

What we can do is handle it the Chicago way. They killed one of ours, now we kill all of them.

The US populace needs to grow up and stop with all this juvenile people aren’t going to like us bullshit. We need to do what is best for us and not worry about what others are going to think about it. Especially people who already don’t like us.

The Jihadists aren’t going to go away, they have designs on the entire world. Sooner or later they are going to come after us. Aside from giving up and surrendering, the only option we have is to go after them and kill all of them.
[/quote]

That isn’t a real plan that is just saying something that makes us feel better.
[/quote]

Not the perfect analogy by any stretch but when the Khans “killed 'em all” (those who fought and wouldn’t surrender) did it enrage the conquered populace and cause their numbers to swell

OR

did the Mongolian Empire last for hundreds of years?

Which one?

Don’t tell me that totally crushing these demons from hell with the hammer of Thor wouldn’t put an end to this for a good long while.[/quote]

The Mongol Empire fell apart due to infighting between several of the Khan’s grandsons who split the Empire into warring territories. Had they retained a strong central leadership, they might have survived.

82

[quote]Pearsy92 wrote:

[quote]BPCorso wrote:
The people who have funded IS are culpable and I hope the various intelligence communities can figure out where the money came from. I know the various countries in play, but the specific people or families doing it need to be publicly admonished.[/quote]

The people funding them are U.S allies, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. The U.S government has been in bed with the Islamist movement via proxy since the newest incarnation of it began. [/quote]

Not really, they were originally AQ in Iraq, I believe they were our enemies there. We only possibly helped them when they turned on Assad.

84

Delta Force operatives were sent to rescue Foley and other hostages early this summer.

85

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

[quote]Pearsy92 wrote:

[quote]BPCorso wrote:
The people who have funded IS are culpable and I hope the various intelligence communities can figure out where the money came from. I know the various countries in play, but the specific people or families doing it need to be publicly admonished.[/quote]

The people funding them are U.S allies, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. The U.S government has been in bed with the Islamist movement via proxy since the newest incarnation of it began. [/quote]

I know Qatar and Saudi Arabia are the primary nations where the money is coming from. What I want is for the specific people to be found out. Which wealthy families are contributing to this movement?

Also interested in the current state of funding. Surely the Saudis and Qataris know that an expanding IS movement does not bode well for them at this point. They were thinking super short-term.

And fuck, USA should call them out for allowing this to happen under their noses. We’ve called out much better allies than SA and Qatar for much less (see: Israel). I think the USA has all the leverage while the Qataris and Saudis have ever decreasing leverage. If we’re not afraid to fuck with Russia, then we damn sure shouldn’t be afraid of the Saudis and Qataris. [/quote]

What happens when Is sets it’s sites on the Holy Cities and rides up into Saudi Arabia? Will it then cease being “Saudi” Arabia then? Will Isis proceed to take down the house of Saud?

87

[quote]Pearsy92 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Pearsy92 wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Pearsy92 wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
I m sure that whatever is done about this, the response will be “measured” and “proportional”. Nothing scares the Jihadi’s more than the possibility that the political winds could blow strong enough for the US to muster a measured and proportional response. [/quote]

Well what can the U.S do? The country is in massive debt, has recently been in two very costly wars and is still propping up the very likely to collapse governments installed there with money and arms.

The U.S can not afford to go to war really and even if they did hatred of the U.S around the world is so strong right now that it could just make things worse.

I would love to see the U.S go in and smash IS but the problem is can they? What do they do if IS is defeated, there is a vacuum in that region after the U.S overthrew regimes, these will eventually be filled and it won’t be by a democrat or an independent, it will be by someone with views and laws we deem horrendous, the U.S can’t stay in that region forever without crippling itself economically.

On the other hand it eventually might need to. This is a very very hard topic and rashness and bravado won’t really help. The U.S has the greatest military power known to man, but its about what comes after the victory. You can’t and won’t defeat insurgencies that have popular backing. They just keep sprouting up. [/quote]

What we can do is handle it the Chicago way. They killed one of ours, now we kill all of them.

The US populace needs to grow up and stop with all this juvenile people aren’t going to like us bullshit. We need to do what is best for us and not worry about what others are going to think about it. Especially people who already don’t like us.

The Jihadists aren’t going to go away, they have designs on the entire world. Sooner or later they are going to come after us. Aside from giving up and surrendering, the only option we have is to go after them and kill all of them.
[/quote]

That isn’t a real plan that is just saying something that makes us feel better.
[/quote]

Not the perfect analogy by any stretch but when the Khans “killed 'em all” (those who fought and wouldn’t surrender) did it enrage the conquered populace and cause their numbers to swell

OR

did the Mongolian Empire last for hundreds of years?

Which one?

Don’t tell me that totally crushing these demons from hell with the hammer of Thor wouldn’t put an end to this for a good long while.[/quote]

So what, we should be the moral equivalent of the Mongols and wipe out entire populations and skin people alive? Also the Mongols were driven back in Russia, their initial massacres in Russia enraged Russians enough to unite them in defeating the mongols.[/quote]

Bullshit, the Mongols walked over Russia for Centuries. They lost their territory in the 1800’s.

89

[quote]Pearsy92 wrote:
And yes I meant Pakistan, i was listing nations in that post and put turkey as one of the two Nuclear nations by mistake.[/quote]

You listed Pakistan. I’m still unsure who you are referring to in regard to the second NWS.

92

[quote]Pearsy92 wrote:

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

[quote]Pearsy92 wrote:

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

[quote]Pearsy92 wrote:

[quote]BPCorso wrote:
The people who have funded IS are culpable and I hope the various intelligence communities can figure out where the money came from. I know the various countries in play, but the specific people or families doing it need to be publicly admonished.[/quote]

The people funding them are U.S allies, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. The U.S government has been in bed with the Islamist movement via proxy since the newest incarnation of it began. [/quote]

I know Qatar and Saudi Arabia are the primary nations where the money is coming from. What I want is for the specific people to be found out. Which wealthy families are contributing to this movement?

Also interested in the current state of funding. Surely the Saudis and Qataris know that an expanding IS movement does not bode well for them at this point. They were thinking super short-term.

And fuck, USA should call them out for allowing this to happen under their noses. We’ve called out much better allies than SA and Qatar for much less (see: Israel). I think the USA has all the leverage while the Qataris and Saudis have ever decreasing leverage. If we’re not afraid to fuck with Russia, then we damn sure shouldn’t be afraid of the Saudis and Qataris. [/quote]

The U.S knows who is doing the funding i would bet, they however control the natural resources the west needs, so really its a case of come at me brah.[/quote]

To a certain degree but I still maintain the USA has all the real leverage. The West has more natural resources than ever and that diminishes their leverage. For one these countries are completely dependent on Western companies and professionals to run their countries. And the West can play economic stunts just as well. I don’t even think these countries could manufacture a damn screw on their own.

Qatar’s whole economy is based on LNG shipments to Europe and Asia. Would they ruin their economy just to fuck with us? The reason Qatar is stable is because it gives its citizens a lot of free money. If that were to dry up Qatar is nothing more than a desert with people who aren’t capable of much.

Saudi is more important than Qatar, but would the Saudis dare cut oil production to spite us? Things are different now. All of North America and a lot of South America is going through a gigantic energy revolution. Saudi oil isn’t really important to the USA anymore (it is to allies though). Saudi’s largest enemy is Iran and although it’s unlikely a nuclear deal happens, the Saudi’s are still scarred shitless about it because it makes them expendable. Does SA really want to give the USA a reason to replace them with Iran? I doubt it.

Neither of these countries can afford to pull any economic stunts on the West. This isn’t the 70s.[/quote]

I think the emergence of the new super powers in the east means that they could totally afford to cut us off and only deal with the newly emerging superpowers. I however think both the U.S have the juice still to keep the Saudi’s somewhat in line however the Saudi’s have the leverage to still do shit like fund Jihadists without any ramifications from the U.S.[/quote]

Emerging superpowers? The international system is still unipolar, with the U.S. enjoying its status as the world’s lone regional hegemon. Hell, it’s debatable if China is even a great power currently, much less India. Both states are still classified as developing countries.

93

[quote]Sifu wrote:
I m sure that whatever is done about this, the response will be “measured” and “proportional”. Nothing scares the Jihadi’s more than the possibility that the political winds could blow strong enough for the US to muster a measured and proportional response. [/quote]

The literature on religious terrorism suggests otherwise. Both bellicosity and timidness on the part of the U.S. would serve to bolster the strategic goals of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham.

"If the United States had failed to protect its allies, ISIS forces would have been able to advance deep into Kurdish territory and masses of â??undesirableâ?? non-Sunni inhabitants would have fled. The demonstration of U.S. timidity would also have given ISIS a boost as it set its sights on Jordan, another anxious U.S. ally in need of Washingtonâ??s defense.

If the United States decided to step in on behalf of its allies – as it did – then ISIS must have believed that it would be able to strengthen its position within the jihadi camp. ISIS could use the bombings as evidence that the United States is waging a war on Islam, and to portray itself as the defender of Muslims from â??Crusaderâ?? aggression. In other words, ISIS would steal a page right out of al Qaedaâ??s playbook. And that puts more pressure on al Qaeda. After all, if ISIS wins vast territory in the heart of the Middle East, implements Islamic governance, and battles apostate regimes and their backers, al Qaeda will – after refusing to do so – have to give its full support to ISIS. Already, ISIS supporters are calling all jihadi forces to stand behind Omar al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS. As a result, the flow of fighters abandoning al Qaeda affiliates to join ISIS, which U.S. intelligence has already observed, is likely to increase. Moreover, leaders of al Qaeda franchises will come under greater pressure to shift allegiance from al Qaeda to ISIS."

94

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Pearsy92 wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
I m sure that whatever is done about this, the response will be “measured” and “proportional”. Nothing scares the Jihadi’s more than the possibility that the political winds could blow strong enough for the US to muster a measured and proportional response. [/quote]

Well what can the U.S do? The country is in massive debt, has recently been in two very costly wars and is still propping up the very likely to collapse governments installed there with money and arms.

The U.S can not afford to go to war really and even if they did hatred of the U.S around the world is so strong right now that it could just make things worse.

I would love to see the U.S go in and smash IS but the problem is can they? What do they do if IS is defeated, there is a vacuum in that region after the U.S overthrew regimes, these will eventually be filled and it won’t be by a democrat or an independent, it will be by someone with views and laws we deem horrendous, the U.S can’t stay in that region forever without crippling itself economically.

On the other hand it eventually might need to. This is a very very hard topic and rashness and bravado won’t really help. The U.S has the greatest military power known to man, but its about what comes after the victory. You can’t and won’t defeat insurgencies that have popular backing. They just keep sprouting up. [/quote]

What we can do is handle it the Chicago way. They killed one of ours, now we kill all of them.

The US populace needs to grow up and stop with all this juvenile people aren’t going to like us bullshit. We need to do what is best for us and not worry about what others are going to think about it. Especially people who already don’t like us.

The Jihadists aren’t going to go away, they have designs on the entire world. Sooner or later they are going to come after us. Aside from giving up and surrendering, the only option we have is to go after them and kill all of them.
[/quote]

The current atmosphere of caution isn’t underpinned by a naive popularity contest. It’s known as the conservation of enemies. Regional malcontents can become international ones if they are unnecessarily provoked. The U.S. should only target groups that have demonstrated the capacity and will to conduct attacks against the homeland. Regional allies should be enlisted to combat regional threats. ISIS, however, clearly will develop international capabilities if it is allowed to consolidate its gains.

95

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

[quote]Pearsy92 wrote:

[quote]BPCorso wrote:
The people who have funded IS are culpable and I hope the various intelligence communities can figure out where the money came from. I know the various countries in play, but the specific people or families doing it need to be publicly admonished.[/quote]

The people funding them are U.S allies, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. The U.S government has been in bed with the Islamist movement via proxy since the newest incarnation of it began. [/quote]

I know Qatar and Saudi Arabia are the primary nations where the money is coming from. What I want is for the specific people to be found out. Which wealthy families are contributing to this movement?

Also interested in the current state of funding. Surely the Saudis and Qataris know that an expanding IS movement does not bode well for them at this point. They were thinking super short-term.

And fuck, USA should call them out for allowing this to happen under their noses. We’ve called out much better allies than SA and Qatar for much less (see: Israel). I think the USA has all the leverage while the Qataris and Saudis have ever decreasing leverage. If we’re not afraid to fuck with Russia, then we damn sure shouldn’t be afraid of the Saudis and Qataris. [/quote]

What happens when Is sets it’s sites on the Holy Cities and rides up into Saudi Arabia? Will it then cease being “Saudi” Arabia then? Will Isis proceed to take down the house of Saud?
[/quote]

Without question which is why their short-term thinking is so befuddling. A clear goal of most Islamic radicals, especially those aiming for a Caliphate, is the destruction of the various Arab monarchies. The Saudi royal family in particular is known throughout the Muslim world as having a penchant for flashy, un-Islamic and opulent lifestyles and gay sex. To the Isamlist, the House of Saud having guardianship over their Holy Cities is a disgrace.

What I’d like to more of is how that fits into the IS’ grand plans. If they’re still getting regular funds from rich Saudi’s with tacit support of the government (I don’t know if this or is not the case) then it would be logical for IS to be patient with that goal. If they’re not getting funds, IS might reason expanding southward is easier than going East. All very interesting things to ponder, but I don’t think IS will ever be powerful enough to challenge for the Islamic holy sites. If they ever are, then the civilized world screwed up.

96

[quote]Bismark wrote:

The current atmosphere of caution isn’t underpinned by a naive popularity contest. It’s known as the conservation of enemies. Regional malcontents can become international ones if they are unnecessarily provoked. The U.S. should only target groups that have demonstrated the capacity and will to conduct attacks against the homeland. Regional allies should be enlisted to combat regional threats. ISIS, however, clearly will develop international capabilities if it is allowed to consolidate its gains. [/quote]

I tend to agree with this. We should enlist all the groups who IS disenfranchised and arm them ie Kurds, Christian militias, Shia,(Sadr’s militias) the Baghdad government,and one must remember, the US government was able to topple the Saddam regime which was composed of a highly armed professional army. IS is a rag tag radical militia at best. We should attack it with the same zeal we used against Saddam and instead of nation build, leave it up to the powers we support in Iraq (see list above) to clean up the mess this time.

And as far as comparing this to a Mongol invasion, it seems to me IS are the ones leaving several dozens of severed heads on posts in Syria, not the U.S.

97

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

The Mongol Empire fell apart due to infighting between several of the Khan’s grandsons who split the Empire into warring territories. Had they retained a strong central leadership, they might have survived.
[/quote]

Correct.

And not because they “enraged” their enemies. This “enraging” bullshit needs to be called out as the bullshit it is.[/quote]

There is already maximum enragement, no room for them to be further enraged. It’s childish to think going out of our way to appease the feelings of a bunch of barbarians is going to make the problem better. It would mean the Foley video was successful.

99

Wiki-expert

100

[quote]pushharder wrote:

To stay with the Genghis Khan analogy, we do not apply overwhelming devastation to opposing militaries while sparing the civilians. We want too many people to like us too much.
[/quote]

Sad story but very true. Trying to win wars without offending anyone is a pipe dream and all it ends up doing is setting us up for failure and puts our boys is grave danger at the same time. Hitler got one thing right…blitzkrieg.