Thundercrack85
Avenger
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2009
- Messages
- 21,668
- Reaction score
- 8
- Points
- 33
Sure. Just don't publicly declare war. It will bring soldiers to ISIS.
You mean like Vietnam?
Sure. Just don't publicly declare war. It will bring soldiers to ISIS.
Bin Laden was a non-issue after 9/11. The problem was Iraq, where we had a war that destabilized the region and allowed for even crazier people to take over.
You mean like Vietnam?
If we start putting a legit amount of troops on the ground, it will be mostly US. It shouldn't be.Er. The US isn't fighting by themselves. You know that France attacked ISIS after the Paris attacks and Russia has been steadily bombing the **** out of them for months right?
Yeah, those tanks are there just because. Same thing with the tens of thousands troops.Sure. Just don't publicly declare war. It will bring soldiers to ISIS.
Totally separate issue.
Which is why Bin Laden is still alive and Al Qeada is a bigger problem then ISIS.... of course not.Oh really? Is that why statements were made about World War 3 and the threat of nuclear war and the very fabric of American life being ripped apart? The Bush Administration used that rhetoric to invade Iraq, but Bin Laden gained followers from it.
Bombing runs. He's the most unpopular leader France has ever had. And that's saying something, given their history.
Which is why Bin Laden is still alive and Al Qeada is a bigger problem then ISIS.... of course not.
Which is why Bin Laden is still alive and Al Qeada is a bigger problem then ISIS.... of course not.
Yeah, I know nobody wants to really say it, but going in guns blazing and hitting these guys where they are may be the only recourse. It's gonna be unpopular, but yeah.
Technically not a war though.
France clearly has a homegrown problem. The enemy is already within its borders. Some of these guys were originally from France and left to join the ISIS ranks and returned home. They have a target on its back.
So calling it a war publicly would have made it better? Vietnam was a crap shoot to begin with. Like I said, totally separate issue.
you can't stop it. it's not something rational driving it. attacking them will just play into that irrationality.
you can't stop it. it's not something rational driving it. attacking them will just play into that irrationality.
The problem with Radical Islam is that it's an ideology, not a physical group or object you can take care of. To quote V for Vendetta, ideas are bulletproof. Even with the ISIS leaders gone, the idea that drives ISIS would still live on.
My friend's cousin visited him from France just a week's ago. According to her, everyone in France is scared. No one likes to admit they are, but they live in fear on a consistent basis.
Not really. Kill enough of them, and there's no one left to carry on their ideology or manage their websites.
Not really. Kill enough of them, and there's no one left to carry on their ideology or manage their websites.
I totally agree.The problem with Radical Islam is that it's an ideology, not a physical group or object you can take care of. To quote V for Vendetta, ideas are bulletproof. Even with the ISIS leaders gone, the idea that drives ISIS would still live on.
My friend's cousin visited him from France just a few weeks ago. According to her, everyone in France is scared. No one likes to admit they are, but they live in fear on a consistent basis.
should that tactic be employed against all terrorist groups or just the radical islamists? like, would it be ok to root out/cull white supremacists?
There's 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. About 22% of them hold either Jihadist or Islamist beliefs.
It's not something you can physically take out. You have to reform the religion from within by empowering the Muslim liberals / moderates.
Not really. Kill enough of them, and there's no one left to carry on their ideology or manage their websites.