IGX

johno wrote:When you're the biggest badass in the n'hood and there's a psycho murdering people two blocks down, do you wait until he kicks down your door?
ISIS has named the US as its enemy (among others). Let's not wait for the door-kick.

Yes.....Jihadist, even fake ones like Isis, need to be made dead.

The Venerable Bogatir X wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:I'm not sure I follow the reasoning on why modern communication makes things different. We can treat the Middle East the same way we treat Africa and SE Asia any time we want.

Because, as you have witnessed, this particular group (and you keep wanting to deflect up to ME vs. get granular with the ISIS conversation), is media and global communication savvy. And they have a 'sizzle' that other groups apparently don't, in other orgs or areas.

I.E. you keep thinking it's "the way we treat them" vs. our way of life vs. theirs. And this group.....ISIS, clearly wants that west instant gratification along with all the virgins if they die in a blaze of glory. And if they fuck a bunch of guys in the ass named Bruce or Carl, and do an 8th of blow while doing so, they are cool with that, too.

I'll get granular with ISIS.

We can go there and clean their clocks when it comes to taking territory. Then they blend with the local population, become the "resistance against the invading infidels," amd the longer we don't completely stamp them out, the more legit they look. They keep killing the occasional American, and we don't want to leave since that's admitting defeat. See: Taliban.

Since there's no exit strategy except "destroy ISIS," amd that's impossible, we lose. If the ISIS brand gets too badly tarnished, a new organization shows up, declares itself the enemy of America, and people think we have to fight them if they manage to kill a handful of Americans. See: ISIS.

This is the aggravating sequence when there's no exit strategy up top:

1. Start with air strikes. Hey, not really a commitment.
2. Air strikes don't work, and now we need to commit troops or the enemy wins.
3. Somebody in the administration semi-publicly warns about planning for the aftermath and gets fired.
4. Ground troops are committed and take territory. USA! USA!
5. Ground troops don't have a well defined mission after the initial wins, so they hang out and get pot-shotted.
6. Nobody wants to go home while Americans still get killed and admit defeat. Huge political weapon at home.
7. Public support fades after years when everybody except the dead-enders realize it's over. We go home, shit gets worse there.

The only way out of this cycle is to either not begin, or say, "No more" and realize the world doesn't end. The Afghans didn't follow the Russians back to Russia. The Vietnamese didn't follow the French. We've had plenty of practice wiping out Islamism, and we can't do it. If we weren't doomed from the start to end up at step 7, I could see getting behind this.

We have more American veterans dying every month to suicide than France lost last week. There's too much recent experience to tread casually into this. If there isn't a clear, achievable plan for what happens after we roll up the territory with tanks and aircraft, fuck that shit.

The Venerable Bogatir X wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

The Venerable Bogatir X wrote:No, Spells, no. We did nothing to humiliate those savages and in fact, your boy.

Dude. We killed top leadership for a decade, sent captives to black sites and "interrogated" them, bombed them whenever they gathered en masse, denied them further attacks in the US, and shot bin Laden in the head and threw his body in the ocean so he couldn't have a grave. If you think that's "nothing" you need to describe "something."

You make them understand every time one of them dies by the hands of the west, we will do so in such a way that makes it impossible for them to have glory. That's first....we need to make it utterly unsexy to be an ISIS dude. What is second, is understand, these young guys are young guys......they are not religious zealots even if they stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night or some such shit. These guys we are talking about (today) drink, do blow, watch porn, have fag sex, rape, pillage, party like rockstars and record it all on iPhones.

When I was a kid, my dad had the Time Life series of books on WWII. I'll never forget the story of the first time Rangers went to work on the Germans in North Africa.
It was a night raid, long range penetration between enemy lines. Order was, fix bayonets, use them as much as possible, and don't take prisoners.
They wanted the Germans who found their fellows to see that not only was everyone dead, but they had died horribly, and slowly.
They wanted to scare the shit out them.
Too bad we don't do it that way, anymore. Flamethrowers, napalm, bayonets, not taking prisoners, leveling entire towns, incinerating 90,000 people at once.
We haven't won a war since.

History teaches us that occupation never works (not at least in the long term): see Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq or whatever other country. The terrorists always end up hiding among civilian population, who are either too scared to refuse or who are supporting "the cause".

History also teaches us there are ways to deal with these scenarios: Carthago delenda est.

U.S. soldiers kill a bunch of somali pirates and the rest swear vengeance againts The Great Satan, so next time they capture a boat, the will kill all the hostages. Why is that? Because they really think they can get away with it. Sure, there's always a risk they will be captured, but they deem it unlikely.

So next time they kill someone, we drop bombs over Mogadishu until nothing survives, not even cockroaches. There will be a lot of collateral damage, sure, but that's the way it is. And if leveling Mogadishu is not enough, there's Merca, Hargeisa or Bosaso too.

Carthage fell, all males were killed, all surviving females were enslaved, they city was literally burned to the ground and, according to legend, the earth was salted so nothing could grow. And, after more than a century of war, that was the last time Carthage was a problem to Rome. Ever.

Maybe there's a lesson in this we all should learn.

SubClaw wrote:History teaches us that occupation never works (not at least in the long term): see Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq or whatever other country. The terrorists always end up hiding among civilian population, who are either too scared to refuse or who are supporting "the cause".

History also teaches us there are ways to deal with these scenarios: Carthago delenda est.

U.S. soldiers kill a bunch of somali pirates and the rest swear vengeance againts The Great Satan, so next time they capture a boat, the will kill all the hostages. Why is that? Because they really think they can get away with it. Sure, there's always a risk they will be captured, but they deem it unlikely.

So next time they kill someone, we drop bombs over Mogadishu until nothing survives, not even cockroaches. There will be a lot of collateral damage, sure, but that's the way it is. And if leveling Mogadishu is not enough, there's Merca, Hargeisa or Bosaso too.

Carthage fell, all males were killed, all surviving females were enslaved, they city was literally burned to the ground and, according to legend, the earth was salted so nothing could grow. And, after more than a century of war, that was the last time Carthage was a problem to Rome. Ever.

Maybe there's a lesson in this we all should learn.

I don't think anyone in the west is capable of learning that lesson anymore. As a candidate, W said we shouldn't do nation building. Then he tried to build two. I don't think he wanted two, he was probably convinced. Most seem to think we need to do that.
I'm no fan of Obama, and certainly he's guilty of doing a lot of dumb shit to get us to this point, but at least he seems to grasp that occupying a country is a losing proposition.

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche

Sangoma wrote:Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche

Frankly, I don't care about that.

Trying the "humane approach" doesn't work. Let's try what works instead.

Muslim peace conference in Norway. They are supposed to be safe there, right? No need for them to become extermists, right? Then why the fuck they all agree that stoning is an acceptable practice?

Watch the video and tell me, please.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FgI9TdE7gE[/youtube]

Why we allow that to happen under our roof is beyond me.

johno wrote:When you're the biggest badass in the n'hood and there's a psycho murdering people two blocks down, do you wait until he kicks down your door?
ISIS has named the US as its enemy (among others). Let's not wait for the door-kick.

Exactly and it's because of the half assing of Bush followed by "just enough to say I’m doing something" while I arm " Syrain resistance after having the US navy and USAF be the tac Air for jawas in Libya to unseat a dictator who was now our snitch and bitch that has brought about the perception that we are not as big a badass as we were.

That has Russia now in Syria like they have not been since they were the USSR and even more chummy with Iran.


One of the things the Russians did for us in exchange for not putting in the anti missile system on Poland and Romania was they canceled the sale of SS300 missiles to Iran (and iran was trying to sue them in the World Court over it ) but when Obama and his money man Sorros funded and enabled the demonstrations and the coup in Ukraine, Putin sold them the missiles. The SS300 is actually an airbursting area denile anti aircraft weapon. it's a bomber killer and will make any air strikes into Iran by a future US administration or the Israelis a lot more risky and ups the possibility hat it could fail.

Now this was great for Obama because he obviously (again read his books before criticising what I say here) wants Iran to get nukes and Israel to not be able to stop it. He arms ISIS and people fighting Assad, Russia's ally so Iran gets what they really want, he knows Putin wont let Assad fall, so iran is even happier. He's a slick fuck.

D'Souza had him pegged in 2012, got laughed at by the Spell's of the world yet much of what he said has come to be and if you read Obama's books and D' Souza's his theories on Obama make perfect sense. he's not a Muzzie he;s a Marxist and anti colonialist like his dad. ( and that goes beyoned colonies, it's about cutting down anyone he sees as not the rightful rulers of a place or any nation he see's as too much more powerful than others, Us and Russia, Jews in Israel and nations he feels have not payed for their past colonial sins, like his Daddy; and his grandpa's big bitch, the Brits.

Gee, maybe like the guy who exercised his 1st Amendment rights and went to jail on a BS technicality (after a DOJ phone call to the locals) D' Souza went to jail for something no one does because he's hit the nail on the head about the Faggot and on top of that it's documented obama's brother called D' Souza for money when his kid got sick, not Obama. Shows what a personal POS and hypocrite Obama is with his redistribution of wealth, other people's not on his side.

He has no issue killing Al-Quada boys with drones and Spec ops raids because A. he sees them as criminals, not freedom fighters like Hamas, B. He can always say " I killed Bin laden, I fight terror while many of the boys he armed up are in ISIS, who he has to always give them the respect of calling ISIL.

We will probably get nuked before we get on this shit right. too many pussies in the US, to many thinking keeping out islamic scum is against our traditions. Hmm Thomas Jefferson would call you a faggot and a fool. Those rules go out the window when an enemy uses them against you.

SubClaw wrote:History teaches us that occupation never works (not at least in the long term): see Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq or whatever other country. The terrorists always end up hiding among civilian population, who are either too scared to refuse or who are supporting "the cause".

History also teaches us there are ways to deal with these scenarios: Carthage delenda est.

U.S. soldiers kill a bunch of somali pirates and the rest swear vengeance againts The Great Satan, so next time they capture a boat, the will kill all the hostages. Why is that? Because they really think they can get away with it. Sure, there's always a risk they will be captured, but they deem it unlikely.

So next time they kill someone, we drop bombs over Mogadishu until nothing survives, not even cockroaches. There will be a lot of collateral damage, sure, but that's the way it is. And if leveling Mogadishu is not enough, there's Merca, Hargeisa or Bosaso too.

Carthage fell, all males were killed, all surviving females were enslaved, they city was literally burned to the ground and, according to legend, the earth was salted so nothing could grow. And, after more than a century of war, that was the last time Carthage was a problem to Rome. Ever.

Maybe there's a lesson in this we all should learn.

i agree with much of what you said after the 1st paragraph. Occupations don't work? Germany, we ran their asses for several years and they run their country but we have bases all over it, Japan the same. Now granted Germany is full of people who dig order, so is Japan but also both counties were fucking destroyed when they surrendered.

Germany had an insurgency after surrender but it did not last long because any of them caught were shot and then tied to trees with signs on them about this is what it gets you. Villages and towns were wrecked, we;d go to them and say " we have food, water, medical and tents and we can help you rebuild but you wont get shit until you rat out the Werewovles (That's what they called themselves) and soon as they could, they ratted them out. With japan they were utterly destroyed, the 2 A-bombs were more shack and awe. One firebombing raid on Tokyo killed far more people but 1 plan and one bomb taken out half a city just put the fear of God in them. I talked to a man who saw nagasaki go up, lost family and what not but also remebers starving for a few days (worse than the low rations in the last months of war) and then the Americans came in and fed him and his family and treated them kindly, which shocked them because they knew how japs would be towards people they beat.

Now if you have shelter, food and water and the US rebuilds shit for you even when you act a cunt and pretend you know nothing like so many in Iraq and Afghanistan? Well that wont work for the occupier because there is little teeth and little reason to piss of the Jihadis but when you have jack shit like the Germans, you will rat out just about anyone to put shelter over your kids head, food in it's belly and take care of illnesses.

So if our forces did not come in with a real effort to limit collaterals and destruction to non military targets, but came in blowing the shit out of everything, killing anything that looked shittyy, and then when the place is taken lock them down for the first two weeks with only a 2 hour window to be out of their homes, tents or pens, then slowly pulled it back. made the locals know that any 19 year old G.I. could kill them for harsh looks, made them dependent for food and water and the rest, you could have done it in Iraq and parts of Afghanistan.

That said, I like your approach the best. Fuck rebuilding shit, kill whatever we wish, target civilians, have a fuck you world attitude, cry to much about what we do to the dirtheads and the navy sits at oceanic choke points and fucks up your trade. then it could work.

The fields were not salted though in Carthage, all the rest did go down. The salt the fields came about because of how later Europeans precived what must have made the area so barren of vegetation.

The area became an agricultural sand pit after the Muslims invaded the area and fucked up what the Romans did for irrigation and soil erosion because they let their goats feed where ever at the risk of death to any local farmer who had a problem with that and the idiots could not make repairs to the irrigation system. The old " The Muslims preserved what the Greeks and Romans had" is bullshit, they lost and destroyed most of what they inherited when they took those areas, what they did preserves was so little next to what was lost. The Germanic tribes conquering Rome ( Who promptly started acting like Romans and had Romans running the day to day and teaching their kids to be romanlike, Roman Empire became the Church, it never really fell, it changed it's business model) is not what brought down the classical world, the Muslim invaders of the middle east and North Africa is and its effect on trade brought about the Dark Ages in Europe.

Carthage Must Be Destroyed, indeed. Imagine what the Romans or the WW2 generation would think if they saw our population (twice what it was in WW2, yet they put about 6 times as many people in uniform as the US did at the hight of the last 14 years) and technological and destructive technology yet who we tie our forces hands and wring our own over dirtheads?They'd think we'd gone faggot.

Someone attacks you in the street with a knife, but you refuse to kick him in the balls because it's not "honorable". That's exactly what's happening here.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

The Venerable Bogatir X wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:I'm not sure I follow the reasoning on why modern communication makes things different. We can treat the Middle East the same way we treat Africa and SE Asia any time we want.

Because, as you have witnessed, this particular group (and you keep wanting to deflect up to ME vs. get granular with the ISIS conversation), is media and global communication savvy. And they have a 'sizzle' that other groups apparently don't, in other orgs or areas.

I.E. you keep thinking it's "the way we treat them" vs. our way of life vs. theirs. And this group.....ISIS, clearly wants that west instant gratification along with all the virgins if they die in a blaze of glory. And if they fuck a bunch of guys in the ass named Bruce or Carl, and do an 8th of blow while doing so, they are cool with that, too.

I'll get granular with ISIS.

We can go there and clean their clocks when it comes to taking territory. Then they blend with the local population, become the "resistance against the invading infidels," amd the longer we don't completely stamp them out, the more legit they look. They keep killing the occasional American, and we don't want to leave since that's admitting defeat. See: Taliban.

Since there's no exit strategy except "destroy ISIS," amd that's impossible, we lose. If the ISIS brand gets too badly tarnished, a new organization shows up, declares itself the enemy of America, and people think we have to fight them if they manage to kill a handful of Americans. See: ISIS.

This is the aggravating sequence when there's no exit strategy up top:

1. Start with air strikes. Hey, not really a commitment.
2. Air strikes don't work, and now we need to commit troops or the enemy wins.
3. Somebody in the administration semi-publicly warns about planning for the aftermath and gets fired.
4. Ground troops are committed and take territory. USA! USA!
5. Ground troops don't have a well defined mission after the initial wins, so they hang out and get pot-shotted.
6. Nobody wants to go home while Americans still get killed and admit defeat. Huge political weapon at home.
7. Public support fades after years when everybody except the dead-enders realize it's over. We go home, shit gets worse there.

The only way out of this cycle is to either not begin, or say, "No more" and realize the world doesn't end. The Afghans didn't follow the Russians back to Russia. The Vietnamese didn't follow the French. We've had plenty of practice wiping out Islamism, and we can't do it. If we weren't doomed from the start to end up at step 7, I could see getting behind this.

We have more American veterans dying every month to suicide than France lost last week. There's too much recent experience to tread casually into this. If there isn't a clear, achievable plan for what happens after we roll up the territory with tanks and aircraft, fuck that shit.

You keep saying "over there"....the problem with this thinking is, and we have seen it, is "over there" is everywhere....to include right here in the US of A.

I agree about your suicides and vets crisis, and in that same vein, street crime is a bigger problem in the US still than ISIS is. ISIS has the sizzle though and if you don't make it taste bad, more and more of these kids are going to line up with ISIS and not because we are treating them bad.....and some might live down the block from you or me.

SubClaw wrote:Someone attacks you in the street with a knife, but you refuse to kick him in the balls because it's not "honorable". That's exactly what's happening here.

SubClaw wrote:Someone attacks you in the street with a knife, but you refuse to kick him in the balls because it's not "honorable". That's exactly what's happening here.

Yes. It's also why there being so many Liberals in martial arts puzzles me, besides Tai Chi and crunchy nut Aikido classes. Might be great on the dojo floor but their mindset makes me think most would only be good in a fistfight if that and would be dead the second the other guy picked up a piece of rebar or busted a bottle into a Nigger knife.

Yeah you fuck the fucker with the knife up and as my gator beating uncle said " You make that fucker hope it's made of chocolate because you make that fucker eat it! Whether he lives or dies from it, you do your damnedest to make sure he does not do that again because if you don't he will."

But to bring it back aside from the drone strikes and some air strikes when they are in the open, much of the last 14 years has been making our guys fight gun to gun up close with the enemy. Armour and M-4s are not a huge advantage over less weight and AKs, especially when all the worry for collaterals. it's one thing to do that when they are mixedin with your own or people you consider on your side or decent, I get that. But the older way of when American infantry takes fire, they get on a radio and have it pounded by artillery and or air power seems a better way to go. They don't have much artillery past mortars and they have zero air power.

Fallujah is a great example. not taking a damn thing from those guys who took that city, badass all the way but it never had to be that gun to gun shit there and it was the perfect situation to make a big statement. They say it was because of civilians but much that has been published and talked about says there were not that many left there that were not acquiescent toward the jawas or actually supportive. unless there is some big secret we don;t get to know, I don't see why the marines did not ring the outskirts to keep anyone from going in to help the enemy or any enemy to slip out and then stand there as the Air Force brings in B-52s and bombs the city to rubble, the rubble to rocks, the rocks to pebbles. fuck giving them the respect of a sporting fight, show them that they truly are 8th century minds with some 20th century small arms.

The Venerable Bogatir X wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

The Venerable Bogatir X wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:I'm not sure I follow the reasoning on why modern communication makes things different. We can treat the Middle East the same way we treat Africa and SE Asia any time we want.

Because, as you have witnessed, this particular group (and you keep wanting to deflect up to ME vs. get granular with the ISIS conversation), is media and global communication savvy. And they have a 'sizzle' that other groups apparently don't, in other orgs or areas.

I.E. you keep thinking it's "the way we treat them" vs. our way of life vs. theirs. And this group.....ISIS, clearly wants that west instant gratification along with all the virgins if they die in a blaze of glory. And if they fuck a bunch of guys in the ass named Bruce or Carl, and do an 8th of blow while doing so, they are cool with that, too.

I'll get granular with ISIS.

We can go there and clean their clocks when it comes to taking territory. Then they blend with the local population, become the "resistance against the invading infidels," amd the longer we don't completely stamp them out, the more legit they look. They keep killing the occasional American, and we don't want to leave since that's admitting defeat. See: Taliban.

Since there's no exit strategy except "destroy ISIS," amd that's impossible, we lose. If the ISIS brand gets too badly tarnished, a new organization shows up, declares itself the enemy of America, and people think we have to fight them if they manage to kill a handful of Americans. See: ISIS.

This is the aggravating sequence when there's no exit strategy up top:

1. Start with air strikes. Hey, not really a commitment.
2. Air strikes don't work, and now we need to commit troops or the enemy wins.
3. Somebody in the administration semi-publicly warns about planning for the aftermath and gets fired.
4. Ground troops are committed and take territory. USA! USA!
5. Ground troops don't have a well defined mission after the initial wins, so they hang out and get pot-shotted.
6. Nobody wants to go home while Americans still get killed and admit defeat. Huge political weapon at home.
7. Public support fades after years when everybody except the dead-enders realize it's over. We go home, shit gets worse there.

The only way out of this cycle is to either not begin, or say, "No more" and realize the world doesn't end. The Afghans didn't follow the Russians back to Russia. The Vietnamese didn't follow the French. We've had plenty of practice wiping out Islamism, and we can't do it. If we weren't doomed from the start to end up at step 7, I could see getting behind this.

We have more American veterans dying every month to suicide than France lost last week. There's too much recent experience to tread casually into this. If there isn't a clear, achievable plan for what happens after we roll up the territory with tanks and aircraft, fuck that shit.

You keep saying "over there"....the problem with this thinking is, and we have seen it, is "over there" is everywhere....to include right here in the US of A.

I agree about your suicides and vets crisis, and in that same vein, street crime is a bigger problem in the US still than ISIS is. ISIS has the sizzle though and if you don't make it taste bad, more and more of these kids are going to line up with ISIS and not because we are treating them bad.....and some might live down the block from you or me.

Of coarse street crime is a bigger problem as far as actual people hurt but you have to deal with scum of your own and their actions according to the rule of law over pragmatism that slips into us all losing our rights. It's part of having a society and a nation.

You don't have to be as nice about it with non citizens who's first act towards the USA is to break our laws of entry or immigration but you have to be humane and afford them basic human rights ( Goes along with another conversation about how to make a wall work or roundups) but you do not have to afford one bit of any of that to a non citizen terrorist at all.

That's a true outlaw by the classic definition of not just living outside the law with their actions but also outside the protections and rights of the law.

Pretty much vermin to be hunted and killed with about the same concern for it's feelings or any humanity towards it.

Darth,

I am not sure what you think I am proposing, but I am all for the brutal annihilation of ISIS and their supporters. I just have the apparently unpopular believe that they are more like a sexy criminal organization (sexy to the young and mallable who want all the 'sins of the flesh' on earth and then the virgins in the afterlife, and are under the guise of a jihad. I am also utterly convinced they are a global first world problem that we haven't seen the surface scratched on, yet. Ergo, the best way to deal with them is to let them understand that participation holds no value, here or in the after life.

And yes, I'd be fine with going after 'legit' jihadist, too, I just think they are a different group and need a different approach, whereas my impression here and on bookface is everyone thinks it's one in the same and it's not, IMO. Both are equally bad, but the motives are different.

Lastly, and perhaps most unpopular is my belief that not all Muslims, are all-in for jihad. In fact most aren't. But hey, I also don't think most cops are brutal, nor do I believe most RC priests shove their hands down boy's pants........

SubClaw wrote:Someone attacks you in the street with a knife, but you refuse to kick him in the balls because it's not "honorable". That's exactly what's happening here.

Shoot the guy with the knife in the head. Don't take a flamethrower to the neighborhood he's been terrorizing.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

SubClaw wrote:Someone attacks you in the street with a knife, but you refuse to kick him in the balls because it's not "honorable". That's exactly what's happening here.

Shoot the guy with the knife in the head. Don't take a flamethrower to the neighborhood he's been terrorizing.

It depends. If the guy with the knife has a lot of angry brothers, maybe it would be wise to torch the whole neighborhood.

The Venerable Bogatir X wrote:Darth,

I am not sure what you think I am proposing, but I am all for the brutal annihilation of ISIS and their supporters. I just have the apparently unpopular believe that they are more like a sexy criminal organization (sexy to the young and mallable who want all the 'sins of the flesh' on earth and then the virgins in the afterlife, and are under the guise of a jihad. I am also utterly convinced they are a global first world problem that we haven't seen the surface scratched on, yet. Ergo, the best way to deal with them is to let them understand that participation holds no value, here or in the after life.

And yes, I'd be fine with going after 'legit' jihadist, too, I just think they are a different group and need a different approach, whereas my impression here and on bookface is everyone thinks it's one in the same and it's not, IMO. Both are equally bad, but the motives are different.

Lastly, and perhaps most unpopular is my belief that not all Muslims, are all-in for jihad. In fact most aren't. But hey, I also don't think most cops are brutal, nor do I believe most RC priests shove their hands down boy's pants........

Not really arguing with you. Agreeing on the larger problem is our own scum but you have to have far less patience and tolerance for outside scum.

There might be people of Arabic and Persian extraction who are not followers of the faith and are indeed good people, but all you have to do is read the Koran and the faith itself is about warfare, subjugation, rape and paedophilia, it's the Old Testament gone Death Metal. So a Muslim (meaning a grouping) might be "moderate" but Islam is never moderate. My step mom had an Iranian born boss, guy was cool as hell and was an atheist as was I at the time. I used to party with an Egyptian born kid, he was a pot smoking, beer slamming skaterat who also got into harder drugs, fucking hated Islam, hated the Middle East ( "Fuck those ragehads!" right along with us after 9-11-01 and sadly ODed and we were all pretty ripped up about it.

Also knew a Turkish chick who was also pretty secular and thought all religions were bullshit. She was your late 80s/early 90s Alterna Punk Goth girl and you know that shit is not flying down in the sandbox. Gave GREAT HEAD! and her hazel eyes looking up at you while she sucked the cock was pretty hot.

SubClaw wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

SubClaw wrote:Someone attacks you in the street with a knife, but you refuse to kick him in the balls because it's not "honorable". That's exactly what's happening here.

Shoot the guy with the knife in the head. Don't take a flamethrower to the neighborhood he's been terrorizing.

It depends. If the guy with the knife has a lot of angry brothers, maybe it would be wise to torch the whole neighborhood.

TOTAL FUCKING FLAME WAR!!!!!

SubClaw wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

SubClaw wrote:Someone attacks you in the street with a knife, but you refuse to kick him in the balls because it's not "honorable". That's exactly what's happening here.

Shoot the guy with the knife in the head. Don't take a flamethrower to the neighborhood he's been terrorizing.

It depends. If the guy with the knife has a lot of angry brothers, maybe it would be wise to torch the whole neighborhood.

Russia did exactly that with Grozny. Twice, I think. Did not eliminate Chechen terrorism.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

SubClaw wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

SubClaw wrote:Someone attacks you in the street with a knife, but you refuse to kick him in the balls because it's not "honorable". That's exactly what's happening here.

Shoot the guy with the knife in the head. Don't take a flamethrower to the neighborhood he's been terrorizing.

It depends. If the guy with the knife has a lot of angry brothers, maybe it would be wise to torch the whole neighborhood.

Russia did exactly that with Grozny. Twice, I think. Did not eliminate Chechen terrorism.

Speaking of which, the Tsarnaev family were refugees from that conflict, right?

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

SubClaw wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

SubClaw wrote:Someone attacks you in the street with a knife, but you refuse to kick him in the balls because it's not "honorable". That's exactly what's happening here.

Shoot the guy with the knife in the head. Don't take a flamethrower to the neighborhood he's been terrorizing.

It depends. If the guy with the knife has a lot of angry brothers, maybe it would be wise to torch the whole neighborhood.

Russia did exactly that with Grozny. Twice, I think. Did not eliminate Chechen terrorism.

If cutting the hand by the wrist doesn't stop gangrene from spreading, maybe it's time to sever the entire arm. 'Carthago delenda est'.

No chechens left alive means no chechen terrorism.

DARTH wrote:
Not really arguing with you. Agreeing on the larger problem is our own scum but you have to have far less patience and tolerance for outside scum.

Figuring out who is scum and who is not is tough stuff and I am not confident we as an American collective have the stomach for it....which is why The Obama is right to send in dark and spooky, smart, and highly trained men to do what most people don't want to know is getting done....along with his drone strikes. I also think those same guys (the dark and shadowy ones) *know* they need a level of trust and respect with Muslims not in their laser sites. Search this year's comments on "Stop, Question, and Frisk" alone here on FSF as far as 'simple' policing goes and see how hard it's going to be to do what a lot of people think they want done in terms of round-ups, door-to-doors, ect.

The problem as I see it, as our aforementioned warriors and their peers bearing other flags, can't do it all and won't be able to do any of it when it happens here in terms of hunting and destroying these guys. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. I think in our lifetime, the time has come for these types of people (ISIS) to fear their intended victims, and taking one's pale and shovel and cap gun home as Spells suggests is NOT going to help us one iota with this group....just the opposite, in fact.

I actually love that the Anonymous guys are gunning for ISIS, which can only mean they will work to peel back the onion of their supporters and raise hell with them too....Putin claims to have intel that G20 members are contributing to ISIS as are a lot of private funders and we'd be foolish to assume he is even remotely wrong (or lying).

SubClaw wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

SubClaw wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

SubClaw wrote:Someone attacks you in the street with a knife, but you refuse to kick him in the balls because it's not "honorable". That's exactly what's happening here.

Shoot the guy with the knife in the head. Don't take a flamethrower to the neighborhood he's been terrorizing.

It depends. If the guy with the knife has a lot of angry brothers, maybe it would be wise to torch the whole neighborhood.

Russia did exactly that with Grozny. Twice, I think. Did not eliminate Chechen terrorism.

If cutting the hand by the wrist doesn't stop gangrene from spreading, maybe it's time to sever the entire arm. 'Carthago delenda est'.

No chechens left alive means no chechen terrorism.

Silly posing aside, we don't have an interests in the ME that wouldn't be screwed up by genocide or nukes. Maybe it makes more sense to let the place work out its own problems, since the locals there would probably prefer fighting ISIS to being killed by us.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

SubClaw wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

SubClaw wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

SubClaw wrote:Someone attacks you in the street with a knife, but you refuse to kick him in the balls because it's not "honorable". That's exactly what's happening here.

Shoot the guy with the knife in the head. Don't take a flamethrower to the neighborhood he's been terrorizing.

It depends. If the guy with the knife has a lot of angry brothers, maybe it would be wise to torch the whole neighborhood.

Russia did exactly that with Grozny. Twice, I think. Did not eliminate Chechen terrorism.

If cutting the hand by the wrist doesn't stop gangrene from spreading, maybe it's time to sever the entire arm. 'Carthago delenda est'.

No chechens left alive means no chechen terrorism.

Silly posing aside, we don't have an interests in the ME that wouldn't be screwed up by genocide or nukes. Maybe it makes more sense to let the place work out its own problems, since the locals there would probably prefer fighting ISIS to being killed by us.

Really? Are you paying any attention at all to what is happening? Get your head out of your ass.