• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ISIS reportedly burns 45 people alive

Infinite Chaos said:
After Iraqi troops dropped their weapons and ran when confronted by ISIS, I wouldn't rely on them either. The kurds have shown themselves prepared to die, throw men and women into the front line and more importantly, in one video I saw on ISIS recruits walking past Turkish border troops - they were the only ones trying to stop the recruits entering Syria.

If a country called "Kurdistan" appears from all this, they will have deserved it completely.
Click to expand...
Absolutely!

In an episode of a cooking/travel show, No Reservations, made prior to 2011, Anthony Bourdain (the host) asked the Kurdish people about Obama's promised retreat from Iraq and they responded that it would never happen, that America would never do such a thing, etc. But they did and the Kurds, previously gassed by Saddam Hussein in genocidal attacks, are on their own and not receiving any help at all. These brave people should be receiving help from everyone around the world, and it's to the free world's discredit that they are not.

Kurdish Women Fight on Front Lines Against Islamic State - WSJ
 
Grant said:
Absolutely!

In an episode of a cooking/travel show, No Reservations, made prior to 2011, Anthony Bourdain (the host) asked the Kurdish people about Obama's promised retreat from Iraq and they responded that it would never happen, that America would never do such a thing, etc. But they did and the Kurds, previously gassed by Saddam Hussein in genocidal attacks, are on their own and not receiving any help at all. These brave people should be receiving help from everyone around the world, and it's to the free world's discredit that they are not.

Kurdish Women Fight on Front Lines Against Islamic State - WSJ
Click to expand...


What was really funny......ISIS didn't even have a clue that some Woman Pilots were bombing the **** out of them and lighting their asses up. Yet they think they can talk some smack talk to the west.

I mean its pretty bad when dumb gets dumber and still can't figure **** out. Oh well.....the terrorist future. Made to look like a dumbass from the start.
 
MMC said:
What was really funny......ISIS didn't even have a clue that some Woman Pilots were bombing the **** out of them and lighting their asses up. Yet they think they can talk some smack talk to the west.

I mean its pretty bad when dumb gets dumber and still can't figure **** out. Oh well.....the terrorist future. Made to look like a dumbass from the start.
Click to expand...
Morning, MMC. I don't know about the truth of this report but it does say something about propaganda and the first casualty of war. Also something about the Kurdish people. URGENT: ISIS beheads Kurdish female fighter "Rehana" - Iraqi News
 
Grant said:
Morning, MMC. I don't know about the truth of this report but it does say something about propaganda and the first casualty of war. Also something about the Kurdish people. URGENT: ISIS beheads Kurdish female fighter "Rehana" - Iraqi News
Click to expand...

Yeah I heard when they said the Terrorists did that. Still.....they were trembling and not so eager to play martydumb knowing there was some women killing them.

They were even more scared of the ones on the ground.
 
MMC said:
Yeah I heard when they said the Terrorists did that. Still.....they were trembling and not so eager to play martydumb knowing there was some women killing them.

They were even more scared of the ones on the ground.
Click to expand...
Obviously, we need to fight them on their own terms, using religion against them. Send an all female army to kill and capture as many as possible, then lock up the captured, take their Korans away from them, and feed them a steady diet of ham and shrimp, washed down with cheap beer (why waste the good stuff?) Don't tell them which way Mecca is. Post Charlie cartoons all over their cell walls.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Obviously, we need to fight them on their own terms, using religion against them. Send an all female army to kill and capture as many as possible, then lock up the captured, take their Korans away from them, and feed them a steady diet of ham and shrimp, washed down with cheap beer (why waste the good stuff?) Don't tell them which way Mecca is. Post Charlie cartoons all over their cell walls.
Click to expand...


Well, I did mention before that we don't hear about the ones in Morocco at all......so I think the Hashish. Might mellow them out and give them the munchies. Hard to go out killin on a full stomach when tired, ya knows.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
This is not a conventional force. This is a force that uses bombing, and invasions to their advantage. We have been in a War on Terror for the past 14+ years. The only thing we have seen during this "war on terror" is a drastic increase in terror. Terror groups have seen their ranks increase, they have seen their funds increase, they are now even taking over states. The only thing this war on terror has done is increase terror. If you think we can realistically kill our way out of this war, the recent history proves that wrong. We cannot win a war on a tactic.
Click to expand...

But we don't have a "war on terror". We never have, we probably never will. After 9/11, we pledged to go wherever we needed to in order to wipe out terrorists worldwide. We went two places, then we stopped and really screwed the pooch in both. You have to remember that just because we declare "war" on something, as we do all too often, we don't actually fight that war. We just talk about it a lot and do a couple things and then give up. That's, unfortunately, the modern American way.
 
US Conservative said:
They dont even get along with each other (the Arabs). Obama has the opportunity to lead the largest Arab coalition to ever fight-and it wont be against Israel but ISIS.

What the world needs right now is a strong leader, and there isn't one in Obama.
Click to expand...

But he can't lead the fight if these nations aren't willing to fight. The world has simply failed to rally around the "war on terrorism", they expect us to go in and fight the fight. Nobody in the supposed "coalition" is willing to actually do anything. All of our supposed partners have refused to actually do anything to fight this war. They've got soothing words but no actual action and the only reason they're doing anything is that the U.S. promised them things so we don't look like we're alone in this. ISIS could be wiped out in a day if every nation on the planet sent significant forces into the Middle East with orders to shoot to kill. It just won't ever happen. These nations are just lazy.
 
US Conservative said:
Think of Iraq after we committed to the surge, thats what Im after. We could draw down greatly once the situation is generally calmed. We need to establish that we are committed to fighting them and in it for the long haul. That probably means decades.
Click to expand...

And who pays for this?
 
Infinite Chaos said:
We aren't doing enough to coerce Turkey to take a stand, the Kurds should be supported much more, they are dying in large numbers at the hands of ISIS and I think if we start training and arming the Kurds with much more potent weaponry then Turkey would be pressured into doing more than she does now.
Click to expand...

But that's the problem, we shouldn't have to coerce them into anything, they ought to be volunteering and they're not. It isn't America's problem to force the countries of the world to get on board, if it is, then this isn't going to be a coalition of the willing, but a coalition of the bought-off.
 
Cephus said:
But that's the problem, we shouldn't have to coerce them into anything, they ought to be volunteering and they're not. It isn't America's problem to force the countries of the world to get on board, if it is, then this isn't going to be a coalition of the willing, but a coalition of the bought-off.
Click to expand...
The European nations are suffering more than the US as a result of Islamism but, with the exception of the UK, they have not contributed a great deal to getting the problem under greater control. This is strange, unless they have already given their future to Islam.
 
Cephus said:
But he can't lead the fight if these nations aren't willing to fight. The world has simply failed to rally around the "war on terrorism", they expect us to go in and fight the fight. Nobody in the supposed "coalition" is willing to actually do anything. All of our supposed partners have refused to actually do anything to fight this war. They've got soothing words but no actual action and the only reason they're doing anything is that the U.S. promised them things so we don't look like we're alone in this. ISIS could be wiped out in a day if every nation on the planet sent significant forces into the Middle East with orders to shoot to kill. It just won't ever happen. These nations are just lazy.
Click to expand...

Of course we would like to see other governments do more to fight jihadists. But the ones in Iraq and Syria are not pushovers, and whatever forces confront them there have to be strong enough, and skilled enough, so there is no question about winning any fight. This president should have left behind a powerful peacekeeping force in Iraq, like the one the U.S. has maintained in South Korea for sixty years, but somewhat smaller. One very competent study estimated the force needed at about 25,000 total.

About half this number would be made up of three Army Combat Aviation Brigades dispersed to several bases, and a few thousand special forces working with whatever local infantry units could be formed. The other half would be various units defending and supplying the bases, maintaining equipment, and supporting the combat force in other ways. Only about one-fourth of the total number would have assignments that would involve them in combat. The centerpiece of this force would be quick-reaction units of helicopter-borne infantry, about 1,200 in all, on call at several bases and very heavily supported by armed helicopters and other aircraft.

What we are seeing now is the start of a much smaller effort whose main element is the 3d Armored Brigade Combat Team of the 4th Infantry Division. This brigade, which will take some time to reach Kuwait from Colorado, is not nearly as mobile as the aviation brigades suggested in the study, but it is much heavier than one of them. It normally would have, for example, eighteen 155mm. howitzers, several dozen armored fighting vehicles, and as many as a hundred heavily armored main battle tanks.

This is not a quick-reaction force--it would not be able to pursue jihadists in pickup trucks very well, or rush to reinforce local fighters who had come under fire. The idea behind it seems to be to give the put the smallest possible number of U.S. servicemen in harm's way while giving them the most possible protection.
 
Last edited:
matchlight said:
Of course we would like to see other governments do more to fight jihadists. But the ones in Iraq and Syria are not pushovers, and whatever forces confront them there have to be strong enough, and skilled enough, so there is no question about winning any fight. This president should have left behind a powerful peacekeeping force in Iraq, like the one the U.S. has maintained in South Korea for sixty years, but somewhat smaller. One very competent study estimated the force needed at about 25,000 total.

About half this number would be made up of three Army Combat Aviation Brigades dispersed to several bases, and a few thousand special forces working with whatever local infantry units could be formed. The other half would be various units defending and supplying the bases, maintaining equipment, and supporting the combat force in other ways. Only about one-fourth of the total number would have assignments that would involve them in combat. The centerpiece of this force would be quick-reaction units of helicopter-borne infantry, about 1,200 in all, on call at several bases and very heavily supported by armed helicopters and other aircraft.

What we are seeing now is the start of a much smaller effort whose main element is the 3d Armored Brigade Combat Team of the 4th Infantry Division. This brigade, which will take some time to reach Kuwait from Colorado, is not nearly as mobile as the aviation brigades suggested in the study, but it is much heavier than one of them. It normally would have, for example, eighteen 155mm. howitzers, several dozen armored fighting vehicles, and as many as a hundred heavily armored main battle tanks.

This is not a quick-reaction force--it would not be able to pursue jihadists in pickup trucks very well, or rush to reinforce local fighters who had come under fire. The idea behind it seems to be to give the put the smallest possible number of U.S. servicemen in harm's way while giving them the most possible protection.
Click to expand...
The "surge" in Iraq was hugely successful and there doesn't seem to be any clear reason why another can't take place, perhaps in the form of 'shock and awe' as well. This responding in dribs and drabs only puts the lives of the US Military and others at risk, while not achieving a great deal. And while all this is going on there is still talk of closing Gitmo and releasing more Islamic terrorists.

None of this appears to make any practical or tactical sense.
 
Grant said:
The "surge" in Iraq was hugely successful and there doesn't seem to be any clear reason why another can't take place, perhaps in the form of 'shock and awe' as well. This responding in dribs and drabs only puts the lives of the US Military and others at risk, while not achieving a great deal. And while all this is going on there is still talk of closing Gitmo and releasing more Islamic terrorists.

None of this appears to make any practical or tactical sense.
Click to expand...

The problem is that enough Americans thought this man was wonderful to elect him president--twice. Apparently it did not occur to many of them that his father was a Muslim; his stepfather was a Muslim; he attended Muslim schools; he had a Muslim roommate at Occidental College; one of his closest friends in Chicago was a great admirer of Yasser Arafat and a former PLO propagandist; and that his preacher of twenty years was sympathetic to Black Muslims and a great friend of Louis Farrakhan.

I have no doubt that Barack Hussein Obama feels much more sympathetic to foreign Muslims than he does to the men who founded the country whose interests he is supposed to be defending. That is exactly why he has been bowing and scraping to foreign Muslims ever since he first became president. It is the reason he refuses to admit what is obvious to most people in the civilized world--that Islamic jihadists, far from having nothing to do with Islam, are directly inspired by the most orthodox Islamic texts.

Their religion, Islam, was founded by a brutal warrior who thought nothing of subjugating and murdering various peoples by the thousands, if they did not adopt his beliefs. These modern jihadists are only taking Mohammed's views more literally than most Muslims. They are members of a cult of cruelty and murder that celebrates violence for its own sake. In this sense they have something in common with the ancient cult of thuggee in India, although they have infested more of the earth than the thugs ever did, and have more sympathizers. I think nothing would discredit Islamic jihadists more than exposing their military weakness. And killing them--and their sympathizers, if they interfere--on a scale that makes their own efforts look puny would show just how weak they are in real warfare.
 
Cephus said:
But that's the problem, we shouldn't have to coerce them into anything, they ought to be volunteering and they're not. It isn't America's problem to force the countries of the world to get on board, if it is, then this isn't going to be a coalition of the willing, but a coalition of the bought-off.
Click to expand...

I completely agree the bolded - but what you have to realise is that Turkey professes to be part of NATO, wants to be seen as an ally and seen as progressive.

Turkey shouldn't need to be pushed but that's where we are.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
I completely agree the bolded - but what you have to realise is that Turkey professes to be part of NATO, wants to be seen as an ally and seen as progressive.

Turkey shouldn't need to be pushed but that's where we are.
Click to expand...

They used to be "progressive", they've become increasingly religious recently. Religion ruins everything. In fact, most of the Middle East was "progressive" until the late 70s, after which it became a religious cesspool.

Iran Before After.jpg
 
matchlight said:
The problem is that enough Americans thought this man was wonderful to elect him president--twice. Apparently it did not occur to many of them that his father was a Muslim; his stepfather was a Muslim; he attended Muslim schools; he had a Muslim roommate at Occidental College; one of his closest friends in Chicago was a great admirer of Yasser Arafat and a former PLO propagandist; and that his preacher of twenty years was sympathetic to Black Muslims and a great friend of Louis Farrakhan.

I have no doubt that Barack Hussein Obama feels much more sympathetic to foreign Muslims than he does to the men who founded the country whose interests he is supposed to be defending. That is exactly why he has been bowing and scraping to foreign Muslims ever since he first became president. It is the reason he refuses to admit what is obvious to most people in the civilized world--that Islamic jihadists, far from having nothing to do with Islam, are directly inspired by the most orthodox Islamic texts.
Click to expand...
This idea is what many Americans are now struggling to come to terms with. Those investigating hs past connection to Islam, or even where he was born, were subject to ridicule and denial, really a first when investigation Presidential backgrounds.

Now even his sycophants are beginning to have doubts about what they have unleashed on their country because he certainly doesn't appear to have American interests at heart.

He has alienated long term allies and demonstrated his antipathy towards the Israeli Prime Minister while bowing to Islamic leaders. His intention to close Gitmo while releasing terrorists is unfathomable, with the excuse that it creates terrorism as weak as the idea that lack of jobs does the same thing. Just looking at his record, his policies and his choice of words would strongly suggest that he does not have the county's best interests at heart. That would apply to his domestic policies as well.
 
US Conservative said:
Hmm try real hard here-what happened in 07? Oh! It was the surge that the left said wouldnt work.
Click to expand...
How are you claiming "it worked"? Attacks still rose....


And in the end, the number of attacks concerns me less than the number of innocents killed.
Click to expand...
It concerns you less because it refutes your talking point of somehow Iraq was stable and the war was a success.

You may not like the fact that a presence and commitment works, but it does, and it will again.
Click to expand...
"It works"? :lamo How did it "work"?
"The report suggests that U.S. foreign policy has played a big role in making the problem worse: "The rise in terrorist activity coincided with the US invasion of Iraq," it concludes. "This created large power vacuums in the country allowing different factions to surface and become violent." After 13 years, 2 wars and trillions in military spending, terrorist attacks are rising sharply - The Washington Post Seems like if you mean creating terrorist activity, then **** the invasion "worked".

"GEN. WESLEY CLARK: I don’t think that keeping a few thousand troops in Iraq would have stopped ISIS. And it wouldn’t have fixed the Iraqi forces. There are deep schisms inside Iraq and they reflect the deep problems and they reflect the problems that really Islam has. They were God’s chosen people, they were the center of civilization for hundreds of years, and three hundred years ago these barbarians from Europe with more money technology and know how and took over the world and Islam has had a hard time coping with that."
Gen. Wesley Clark: Staying Longer In Iraq Wouldn’t Have Made A Difference | Liberaland
 
TheDemSocialist said:
How are you claiming "it worked"? Attacks still rose....



It concerns you less because it refutes your talking point of somehow Iraq was stable and the war was a success.


"It works"? :lamo How did it "work"?
"The report suggests that U.S. foreign policy has played a big role in making the problem worse: "The rise in terrorist activity coincided with the US invasion of Iraq," it concludes. "This created large power vacuums in the country allowing different factions to surface and become violent." After 13 years, 2 wars and trillions in military spending, terrorist attacks are rising sharply - The Washington Post Seems like if you mean creating terrorist activity, then **** the invasion "worked".

"GEN. WESLEY CLARK: I don’t think that keeping a few thousand troops in Iraq would have stopped ISIS. And it wouldn’t have fixed the Iraqi forces. There are deep schisms inside Iraq and they reflect the deep problems and they reflect the problems that really Islam has. They were God’s chosen people, they were the center of civilization for hundreds of years, and three hundred years ago these barbarians from Europe with more money technology and know how and took over the world and Islam has had a hard time coping with that."
Gen. Wesley Clark: Staying Longer In Iraq Wouldn’t Have Made A Difference | Liberaland
Click to expand...


The American Council on Foreign Relations, doesn't quite see the success in the surge, the building of a Sunni army, or the two million refugees largely un dealt with.

Has the Surge Put Iraq on the Path to Success? - Council on Foreign Relations
 
Cephus said:
But he can't lead the fight if these nations aren't willing to fight. The world has simply failed to rally around the "war on terrorism", they expect us to go in and fight the fight. Nobody in the supposed "coalition" is willing to actually do anything. All of our supposed partners have refused to actually do anything to fight this war. They've got soothing words but no actual action and the only reason they're doing anything is that the U.S. promised them things so we don't look like we're alone in this. ISIS could be wiped out in a day if every nation on the planet sent significant forces into the Middle East with orders to shoot to kill. It just won't ever happen. These nations are just lazy.
Click to expand...

They are fighting now-bombing ISIS territory-more arab nations than ever in history. But they dont have a cohesive strategy, lack leadership, and are also suspicious of each other, plus they are also terrified of ISIS in their own territory.

If they knew they had us leading them, with a commitment for victory they'd do even more. **** I'd give them the bombs to drop and bullets to shoot.
But they dont have a leader to make that happen-it wont be Obama-that dog wont hunt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom