Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 04 Feb '15 19:57
    The question is, will the United States be a global leader to eradicate this evil from existence?

    1. The first step must be to isolate ISIS by interdicting the flow of men, materiel, and financial support. Follow the money and cut it off, and employ sanctions against any state that is lending support to ISIS or allowing recruits to traverse through their territory. On that point, I can think of Turkey and the Islamist President Erdogan.

    2. We then need to stop the Islamapologist posturing and define this enemy for what it is: an Islamic terrorist organization practicing militant Islam. We must develop a targeted information operation that defeats their propaganda and demonize them using all available media means.

    ISIS sent a clear message to other Muslims who would take up the fight against them. The death by burning means the Jordanian pilot cannot rise to “paradise” and that he was cast into the fires of hell. This was a deliberate act of propaganda in the mode of execution or this Muslim man, and we must comprehend that in order to win the information operation war.

    3. It is not only about containing ISIS, but we must cordon it off, effectively sealing ISIS in order to begin the most important phase: defeat. Notice I did not say destroy, because that means every single fighter is killed — not a bad idea, but probably not an achievable goal. What needs to happen is that ISIS is rendered ineffective to pursue any goals or objectives. It means that wherever the black flag flies, someone dies. And let me be very clear, this is not about restocking GITMO so the progressive socialist “coexist” crowd will rally for their release.
  2. 04 Feb '15 20:02
    Just like I said, surround them cut them off from the outside world, and kill them.. Now maybe the muslim world will wake up and start fighting. That is yet to be seen. Like I said, to kill a den of snakes, you put a pig pen around it.. of course the USA will have to lead this effort,, again.. do we have the will, nope... thanks a great deal to Obama and his liberal politics.. ya he is fundamentally changing this country alright.. to a bunch of spineless people who rely on the work of others to survive.. a sad state.
  3. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    09 Feb '15 08:11
    Originally posted by Hugh Glass
    The question is, will the United States be a global leader to eradicate this evil from existence?

    1. The first step must be to isolate ISIS by interdicting the flow of men, materiel, and financial support. Follow the money and cut it off, and employ sanctions against any state that is lending support to ISIS or allowing recruits to traverse through the ...[text shortened]... bout restocking GITMO so the progressive socialist “coexist” crowd will rally for their release.
    ISIS is just another band of muslem nut cases to come out of the middle east. America does not need to be a "leader" in eradicating them. Sharing intel with other governments, and forming an overall plan with other countries will be more than enough to solve this problem. It's working with the islamic state, and it will work with these idiots.
  4. 09 Feb '15 23:12
    Originally posted by Hugh Glass
    The question is, will the United States be a global leader to eradicate this evil from existence?

    1. The first step must be to isolate ISIS by interdicting the flow of men, materiel, and financial support. Follow the money and cut it off, and employ sanctions against any state that is lending support to ISIS or allowing recruits to traverse through the ...[text shortened]... bout restocking GITMO so the progressive socialist “coexist” crowd will rally for their release.
    You sound like a very aggressive type yourself.
    Just because you are American does not mean that
    everything is solved by guns and bombs.

    We Irish fought the British for over 800 years
    with guns, bombs, blades, sticks and stones.

    It is not always the best way.

    I wonder how your fellow Americans and the rest
    of the wider world would view you if you were the
    President and you went on TV with that speech you
    just made here.

    You can kill people but you can't kill an idea.


    You need to moderate your tone a bit.
  5. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    10 Feb '15 00:05
    Originally posted by Hugh Glass
    The question is, will the United States be a global leader to eradicate this evil from existence?

    1. The first step must be to isolate ISIS by interdicting the flow of men, materiel, and financial support. Follow the money and cut it off, and employ sanctions against any state that is lending support to ISIS or allowing recruits to traverse through the ...[text shortened]... bout restocking GITMO so the progressive socialist “coexist” crowd will rally for their release.
    Your first mistake is to make the false assumption that ISIS is the problem, or that eliminating ISIS (whatever that might mean) would remove the problem.

    Your second error is failing to understand that bombing ISIS does not weaken them - it strengthens them and provides an endless stream of new recruits. The more Americans and their allies attack ISIS the more ISIS will grow stronger. A related error is your inability to recognise that being incinerated by American bombs is as disgusting and hateful a way to go as any ISIS atrocity.

    Another confusion is your idea that one way to defeat ISIS is to demonize them. It seems to escape your attention that they are busy demonizing themselves. They are better with media than your side seems to be. The people they have gained control over dislike and fear their methods, but arguably see them as a credible force and one they may accept.

    You correctly notice that ISIS threatens other Muslims but need to try harder to understand what that signifies. Clue: there is a very strong sectarian force at play and ISIS is definitively appealing to Sunni Muslims, and against Shia Muslims. But ISIS is not the force that is provoking this sectarian violence. Indeed, in some respects, Sunni Muslims in Iraq see ISIS as a preferable alternative to the sectarian, Shia led government of Iraq - you know, the one the USA and its allies put in place. (Whatever the USA says in public about Iran, they are not that far apart in Iraq and have not been for a long long time.) It is not by accident that much of the ISIS leadership emerged from American POW camps in Iraq.

    So who is behind it all? Well, it was Pakistan that put the Taliban in place in Afghanistan and will do so again, while it is Saudi Arabia, through its massive investment in promoting its Wahhabi sect, that is destabilising Islam around the world, actively promoting and inciting sectarian hatred, against Shia and Sufi Muslims as well as Jews and Christians, putting forward a nasty, 18th Century schismatic version of Islam that is pure, undiluted poison because it preaches hatred. But these are US allies, as is the United Arab Emirates and other oil dictatorships in the region that are actually stirring hatred and violence on an industrial scale. But the Americans will not confront them, because you have sold out your political system to corporate interests, and your elite shares too much in common with the wealthy Arab aristocracies that the West put in place after demolishing the Ottoman Empire.

    Even 9/11 was funded and organised from Saudi Arabia, with most of the terrorists on those planes coming from there, and yet Saudi nationals were able to leave the US without hindrance after the attack.

    So it is not even enough to notice the role of the Saudi elite in destabilising Islam with their stunning wealth. You have to start noticing that they work closely with our elites and begin to question just how long you will go on swallowing their propaganda.

    ISIS? They are a distraction because when they are gone, if they go, nothing will have changed for the better, Sunni Muslims in Iraq will fall victim to Shia retribution and violence, the process will continue as it already does with the same people playing the same cynical game.
  6. 10 Feb '15 00:09 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by finnegan
    Your first mistake is to make the false assumption that ISIS is the problem, or that eliminating ISIS (whatever that might mean) would remove the problem.

    Your second error is failing to understand that bombing ISIS does not weaken them - it strengthens them and provides an endless stream of new recruits. The more Americans and their allies attack ISIS ...[text shortened]... the process will continue as it already does with the same people playing the same cynical game.
    You are correct, there is no hope for the region. They are all snakes and rats that need to be exterminated.
  7. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    10 Feb '15 00:35 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Eladar
    You are correct, there is no hope for the region. They are all snakes and rats that need to be exterminated.
    It is impossible to debate such a huge issue while treating vast populations with such idiotic generalisations and being unable to understand the complexity of their politics.
  8. 10 Feb '15 01:54
    Originally posted by finnegan
    It is impossible to debate such a huge issue while treating vast populations with such idiotic generalisations and being unable to understand the complexity of their politics.
    The problems in the Middle East are not going to be solved by debating. They will be solved by slaughtering the enemy. The only question is which side will out slaughter the other and as you have pointed out no group is worthy of winning.
  9. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    10 Feb '15 02:19
    Originally posted by Eladar
    The problems in the Middle East are not going to be solved by debating. They will be solved by slaughtering the enemy. The only question is which side will out slaughter the other and as you have pointed out no group is worthy of winning.
    Assuming that is correct, why should the West slaughter anybody in the Middle East?
  10. 10 Feb '15 02:21
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Assuming that is correct, why should the West slaughter anybody in the Middle East?
    Why slaughter them? Because they have this problem of migrating out of the Middle East. As long as they stayed in their countries, I wouldn't really care.
  11. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    10 Feb '15 02:24
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Why slaughter them? Because they have this problem of migrating out of the Middle East. As long as they stayed in their countries, I wouldn't really care.
    Terrorists will keep migrating out of the Middle East to attack the West as long as the West continues to "migrate" into the Middle East by invading their countries.
  12. 10 Feb '15 06:42
    Originally posted by Hugh Glass
    Just like I said, surround them cut them off from the outside world, and kill them.. Now maybe the muslim world will wake up and start fighting. That is yet to be seen. Like I said, to kill a den of snakes, you put a pig pen around it.. of course the USA will have to lead this effort,, again.. do we have the will, nope... thanks a great deal to Obama and ...[text shortened]... lright.. to a bunch of spineless people who rely on the work of others to survive.. a sad state.
    Why aren't you out there fighting ISIS?
  13. 10 Feb '15 22:58 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Terrorists will keep migrating out of the Middle East to attack the West as long as the West continues to "migrate" into the Middle East by invading their countries.
    Yep, Muslims only ended up taking parts of Europe because of the Crusades. If the Crusades never happened, Muslims would never have invaded what would become Spain and they would never have attacked south eastern Europe.
  14. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    11 Feb '15 00:12
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Yep, Muslims only ended up taking parts of Europe because of the Crusades. If the Crusades never happened, Muslims would never have invaded what would become Spain and they would never have attacked south eastern Europe.
    So you think the West should currently wage war in the Middle East as pay back for the Muslims invading Spain and parts of Europe centuries ago?
  15. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    11 Feb '15 01:13
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    So you think the West should currently wage war in the Middle East as pay back for the Muslims invading Spain and parts of Europe centuries ago?
    The Moors lost and the Turks are allies of the West IDK how this is going to work