Islamic State

[Vincent]

The world in general and the western country in general must stop taking things easy. They must stop relying on the air strikes and start sending in the ground forces to stop those extremist ISIS once and for all. We have tolerated ISIS far too long.

Edited October 14, 2014 by vincentsum8

[Alex]

I'm somewhat undecided on the issue of the West vs. ISIS.

 

On one hand, I'm obviously not pro-ISIS. They're doing horrible things and I don't think they should be able to form their own state. They're a terrorist organization and should be treated like one.

 

On the other hand, I'm not for airstrikes against them, and I'm certainly not for sending American troops to Syria & Iraq to fight them. Since we've started airstrikes, ISIS recruitment has increased significantly. We're turning the more moderate people living in regions that ISIS controls into people willing to fight and die for ISIS because they see Americans meddling in their business, killing their friends and family, etc. I think that for every terrorist that we kill, we create 10 more, and we're not addressing the actual issue of terrorism. I think that putting boots on the ground to retake Iraq & Syria is a possible solution, but very costly in regards to money spent, casualties, and we'd have to be there for a long, long time. As soon as we withdrew from Iraq there was a power struggle and ISIS has come out on top (so far).

 

Now I'm no foreign policy expert by any means, and I don't know if this has been suggested by someone far more qualified than myself, but it seems to me that the best way to stop the terrorism in the middle east would be by providing financial aid to the countries there. Nearby Arab countries, like Saudi Arabia, UAE, and even Iran seem to have far less interest in waging war against America. They're more peaceful and more prosperous countries. I think that we ought to finance the building of infrastructure, create industry, etc. in Iraq, Syria, and Afganistan so that they become more developed countries, and the people within have a better standard of living. They'll be far less likely to give up a nice prosperous life and come try to fight the country that game them all the perks of a developed country.

 

Essentially, something like the Marshall Plan, but for the middle east. It might seem silly to "reward" our enemies, but we would be able to curb the appeal of terrorist groups and hopefully bring peace to the middle east.

 

Just my two cents. I could be entirely wrong. Like I said, not a foreign policy expert.

[Vincent]

Still I would think is not meddling in their matter. Ok to , maybe we should not meddle when is muslims vs muslims. When is the syiah vs sunni, by all means let them kill each other, if that is what they wanted. But when they start turning their guns on other religious minorities such as kurds and etc, then we should not close one eye to it.

Edited October 14, 2014 by vincentsum8

[Jerry LeRow]

Well Sheepy, the countries which you mention (arabs, iran) are only peaceful because they're authoritarian regimes or, in case of iran, close to it (still got the revolutionairy guard) and they can crack down on the slighest uproar within hours. That to their "peacefulness".

 

Besides that, the west has to see that radical islam is not something you can destroy by killing the people who support it. Maybe you've seen the film Vendetta... "ideas are bulletproof". And radical islam will sustain, not only will it not be weakened by killing those people but it will become stronger and stronger as those people are seen as martyrs and are heroized. It's like Hydra.

 

Also we gotta pressure the arabs to stop funding terrorists. I mean for years now those countries have been sending money and weapons directly or indirectly to those people, and now as they're surprised those terrorists pose a threat for their own countries they cry for the west's protection. There'll never be peace when countries like saudi arabia try to spread their sharia-monarchy-ideology to the surrounding countries.

 

Some say the arabs have been living in tents and bashing each other's head about a hundred years ago, and they'll be in the same situation in another hundred years. I don't hope it'll come to that, but they're imo trying pretty hard to achieve that. Either limit the tensions in the region and work together or stop wasting trillions of dollars on this region... some say a ruling power, e.g. iran, would help stabilize the region (though iran is pretty isolationist).

Edited October 14, 2014 by Jerry LeRow

[WISD0MTREE]

 

Besides that, the west has to see that radical islam is not something you can destroy by killing the people who support it. Maybe you've seen the film Vendetta... "ideas are bulletproof". And radical islam will sustain, not only will it not be weakened by killing those people but it will become stronger and stronger as those people are seen as martyrs and are heroized. It's like Hydra.

 

Also we gotta pressure the arabs to stop funding terrorists. I mean for years now those countries have been sending money and weapons directly or indirectly to those people, and now as they're surprised those terrorists pose a threat for their own countries they cry for the west's protection. There'll never be peace when countries like saudi arabia try to spread their sharia-monarchy-ideology to the surrounding countries.

False flag where they "kill" a bunch of children? 

[Jazza]

The US have the backing of many nations including Middle Eastern states to fight ISIS. And not only is the US conducting the air strikes, France, Britain and Australia have all conducted air strikes! ISIS have managed to take control of oil plants and therefore are now able to fund there extremist regime. The problem is that ISIS make over $2m a day from selling oil on the black market. So a top priority should be to remove there financial capital and funding by eliminating or seizing the oil plants.

Now I am from Australia, and before any ISIS extremist event occurred the majority of the Australian population were still war weary from WWII, Korea, Vietnam and Middle East (Iraq/Afghanistan). Now that we have had two attempted terrorist attacks in the last month public opinion has done a landslide. Although We, like many thousands of others do not support our brave men enduring a tearful tiring ground war, we do all agree that action must be taken. Although there will never be a very good answer we cannot sit and watch the catastrophes that are occurring! The current air strikes, I believe are a temporary action to pass more stratergy and thinking time to come up with a better solution to this crisis. There will never be any perfect uncontreversiable answer, but I fully support and sympathise the actions of world leaders who do not tolerate the actions and people committing such horrendous acts of in justice.

We are no longer barbaric, violent, irrational, tribalistic religious crusaders. We in the Western World promote secularism to ensure and protect the large biodiversity of faith, religion, and mutliculturalistic features of a functionable harmonic society. Therefore I believe that more people should support or in someway help those affected or show support to governments who have taken it upon themselves to attempt to handle and ultimately fix the situation to preserve and protect the freedom and justice that is essential for our modern society!

[Speaker Faris Wheeler]

They just need to carpet bomb the entire Iraq and Syria, It may kill innocent people but the terrorist will still be there if we dont do something about it

[elsuper]

The world in general and the western country in general must stop taking things easy. They must stop relying on the air strikes and start sending in the ground forces to stop those extremist ISIS once and for all. We have tolerated ISIS far too long.

 

Haven't we learned anything from the last 13 years? We didn't stop AQ "once and for all," we didn't stop the Taliban "once and for all." You can't completely eradicate an underground organization with force, because they melt away and hide until an opportune time. We'll bleed ourselves dry if we keep trying. We need realistic goals, and supporting the Iraqi army in reclaiming their own territory is far more realistic.

 

ISIS has only met with success so far because they've been expanding into a power vacuum; they have almost no chance to actually defeat any one of the hard targets that surround them (Turkey, Iran, Shia Iraq, Israel, Saudi Arabia), and certainly no chance to defeat all of them.

 

Assad is the real monkey wrench in all of this, because hurting ISIS helps him regain ground and consolidate his position, and this is the real genius of ISIS's grand strategy, because attacking the enemy of our enemy gives Obama pause.

[SoS]

I think Isis is actually a greater threat than the general population can fathom. There's practically nothing in Syria and Iraq to stop them from conquering the whole of those nations. When they have accomplished that, they will have more momentum toward their goal than we have to the contrary. They will have the resources to fight hard target nations. By the time we muster the resolve to fight them it'll be a Herculean task and likely fought in the Balkans.

 

For thousands of years, the east and west have been fighting for dominance and survival. This is far from being something new. what's new is we're losing our heart to fight, where they have at least as much as ever.

[WISD0MTREE]

The US have the backing of many nations including Middle Eastern states to fight ISIS. And not only is the US conducting the air strikes, France, Britain and Australia have all conducted air strikes! ISIS have managed to take control of oil plants and therefore are now able to fund their extremist regime. The problem is that ISIS makes over $2m a day from selling oil on the black market. So a top priority should be to remove their financial capital and funding by eliminating or seizing the oil plants.

Now I am from Australia, and before any ISIS extremist event occurred the majority of the Australian population were still war weary from WWII, Korea, Vietnam and Middle East (Iraq/Afghanistan). Now that we have had two attempted terrorist attacks in the last month public opinion has done a landslide. Although We, like many thousands of others do not support our brave men enduring a tearful tiring ground war, we do all agree that action must be taken. Although there will never be a very good answer we cannot sit and watch the catastrophes that are occurring! The current air strikes, I believe are a temporary action to pass more stratergy and thinking time to come up with a better solution to this crisis. There will never be any perfect uncontreversiable answer, but I fully support and sympathise the actions of world leaders who do not tolerate the actions and people committing such horrendous acts of in justice.

We are no longer barbaric, violent, irrational, tribalistic religious crusaders. We in the Western World promote secularism to ensure and protect the large biodiversity of faith, religion, and mutliculturalistic features of a functionable harmonic society. Therefore I believe that more people should support or in someway help those affected or show support to governments who have taken it upon themselves to attempt to handle and ultimately fix the situation to preserve and protect the freedom and justice that is essential for our modern society!

This is on the spot (and strangely poetic somehow). The one thing that gets me however is 

[Alex]

Well Sheepy, the countries which you mention (arabs, iran) are only peaceful because they're authoritarian regimes or, in case of iran, close to it (still got the revolutionairy guard) and they can crack down on the slighest uproar within hours. That to their "peacefulness".

 

Besides that, the west has to see that radical islam is not something you can destroy by killing the people who support it. Maybe you've seen the film Vendetta... "ideas are bulletproof". And radical islam will sustain, not only will it not be weakened by killing those people but it will become stronger and stronger as those people are seen as martyrs and are heroized. It's like Hydra.

 

Also we gotta pressure the arabs to stop funding terrorists. I mean for years now those countries have been sending money and weapons directly or indirectly to those people, and now as they're surprised those terrorists pose a threat for their own countries they cry for the west's protection. There'll never be peace when countries like saudi arabia try to spread their sharia-monarchy-ideology to the surrounding countries.

 

Some say the arabs have been living in tents and bashing each other's head about a hundred years ago, and they'll be in the same situation in another hundred years. I don't hope it'll come to that, but they're imo trying pretty hard to achieve that. Either limit the tensions in the region and work together or stop wasting trillions of dollars on this region... some say a ruling power, e.g. iran, would help stabilize the region (though iran is pretty isolationist).

 

I agree with you that ideas are bulletproof, and that's why I think that the best solution is not through warfare but through economics. By building their nations and increasing their quality of life, they'll lose their will to fight and be more satisfied with a more peaceful and prosperous life. As for whether they're democratic/republic government forms in the nations is off little consequence. We can't force democracy or a republican form of government onto a people that don't want it. Every nation is a democracy, once the people living there realize they have the power to make it so. 

 

The US have the backing of many nations including Middle Eastern states to fight ISIS. And not only is the US conducting the air strikes, France, Britain and Australia have all conducted air strikes! ISIS have managed to take control of oil plants and therefore are now able to fund there extremist regime. The problem is that ISIS make over $2m a day from selling oil on the black market. So a top priority should be to remove there financial capital and funding by eliminating or seizing the oil plants.

 

You are correct that the captured oil fields are a cash cow for ISIS, but you have to realize it's not the main source of their income. They are the government in the regions that they control, and they are imposing taxes on everyone that lives in ISIS territory. You want to run your business? You pay ISIS. You want to be able to go to the market and get food for your family? You pay ISIS.

 

So long as they have control they will have the money they need to keep fighting, regardless of whether we bomb all their oil fields or not.

[Dietrich]

Now I'm no foreign policy expert by any means, and I don't know if this has been suggested by someone far more qualified than myself, but it seems to me that the best way to stop the terrorism in the middle east would be by providing financial aid to the countries there. Nearby Arab countries, like Saudi Arabia, UAE, and even Iran seem to have far less interest in waging war against America. They're more peaceful and more prosperous countries. I think that we ought to finance the building of infrastructure, create industry, etc. in Iraq, Syria, and Afganistan so that they become more developed countries, and the people within have a better standard of living. They'll be far less likely to give up a nice prosperous life and come try to fight the country that game them all the perks of a developed country.

 

Essentially, something like the Marshall Plan, but for the middle east. It might seem silly to "reward" our enemies, but we would be able to curb the appeal of terrorist groups and hopefully bring peace to the middle east.

 

Just my two cents. I could be entirely wrong. Like I said, not a foreign policy expert.

 

I agree in principle with this view; I think that it is impossible for stability to be maintained in the Middle East unless it is achieved by Middle Eastern countries. I'm not so sure, though, that it would be prudent for the U.S. to interfere in this process in any way.

 

U.S. military interference - no matter how limited it is - inevitably adds fuel to the fire faster than it can extinguish the fire itself; you know that, I know that, and anyone with even the barest knowledge of recent Middle Eastern history knows that. This has been proven time and time again, even if the U.S. is reluctant to accept it:

• In 2001, the U.S. barreled into Afghanistan, toppled the relatively stable Taliban government, and left behind a dead Osama bin Laden, a fully-functional al-Qaeda, a resurgent Taliban, many thousands of civilian casualties, and an unpopular, unsustainable U.S.-backed government which was eventually forced to distance itself from the very nation that brought it into being due to the sheer resentment that most Afghans feel towards their great liberator.
• In 2003, the U.S. launched into a full-scale war with Iraq, toppled the stable, secular Ba'athist government, and left behind a dead Saddam Hussein, a dangerously marginalized Ba'ath faction, many thousands of civilian casualties, and a divisive government closely allied to Iran, one of the few countries in the world that openly despises the U.S. and its allies.
• In 2011, the U.S. participated in airstrikes against Libya, helped to topple the still-dominant, secular Gaddafi government, and left behind a dead Muammar Gaddafi, a suddenly powerful coalition of radical Islamists, various armed rebels vying for control of the government, a budding secessionist rebellion in Cyrenaica, and two competing national governments, neither of which has the recognized authority or real power to govern a country rapidly descending into absolute anarchy.

It's obvious that we have a really, really bad track record in the Middle East as far as military interference goes. Iraq is the closest thing that we had to a success story, but its U.S.-funded army disintegrated the moment that the Islamic State crossed the border, and its U.S.-backed government didn't take too long to follow suit.

 

However, it seems less well-accepted that economic and diplomatic interference is equally unproductive and harmful. The U.S. helped to support the Free Syrian Army against the Ba'athist government of Syria, attempted to prevent support from reaching the government, and allowed its close allies - the Sunni Arab monarchies - to funnel support, weaponry, and funding to various rebel factions in Syria, ranging from the relatively moderate Free Syrian Army to groups as radical as the Islamic State itself. What has happened since then? The Free Syrian Army has collapsed, the Islamic State has taken control of vast swathes of territory, and the Ba'athist government has reasserted control over much of Syria and now enjoys almost absolute support from Christians, Shi'ites and even some Sunnis in Syria. If the U.S. had not interfered, and if it had prevented its allies from interfering, then the Ba'athist government would have reasserted control within Syria and thoroughly purged the country of radical Islamists, which, while not the most humane solution ever suggested, would have been a solution, which is better than anything available this late in the game.

 

The bottom line is that U.S. interference in the Middle East has never had a stabilizing effect. Support for the State of Israel? Caused half a dozen wars, numerous deaths, and the ongoing suffering of millions of Palestinians. Support for the Shah? Caused a radical Islamic revolution, numerous deaths, and the emergence of a major power whose official documents are practically signed, "Hoping that today will be the day that Allah mercifully destroys America." Support for the Gulf Arab monarchies? Well, we already discussed that: it's led straight to the direct arming and funding of the Islamic State.

 

The U.S. government would do best to get its grubby hands out of the bloody sandbox and into the suspiciously bulging pockets of its own elite.

 

Haven't we learned anything from the last 13 years? We didn't stop AQ "once and for all," we didn't stop the Taliban "once and for all." You can't completely eradicate an underground organization with force, because they melt away and hide until an opportune time. We'll bleed ourselves dry if we keep trying. We need realistic goals, and supporting the Iraqi army in reclaiming their own territory is far more realistic.

 

ISIS has only met with success so far because they've been expanding into a power vacuum; they have almost no chance to actually defeat any one of the hard targets that surround them (Turkey, Iran, Shia Iraq, Israel, Saudi Arabia), and certainly no chance to defeat all of them.

 

Assad is the real monkey wrench in all of this, because hurting ISIS helps him regain ground and consolidate his position, and this is the real genius of ISIS's grand strategy, because attacking the enemy of our enemy gives Obama pause.

 

I agree that radical Islamism will never be eradicated; after all, it does derive its fundamental ideas from a relatively obvious (though, depending on who you ask, flawed) interpretation of the Quran.

 

But Bashar al-Assad is not the problem here. Bashar al-Assad and the Ba'athist government of Syria would be happy to lend their full cooperation - and their full military power, which is very significant, especially as their soldiers are highly experienced after years of civil war, and highly motivated, too, since they view this as a struggle for their very existence, which isn't something that can be said of the weak-kneed Iraqi military - to any international efforts to defeat the Islamic State; what is the purpose of preventing them from doing so? They have an intact government, an intact army, numerous powerful allies in the region, and the only legitimate claim to any territory occupied by the Islamic State west of the Iraqi border.

 

If the U.S. insists upon being a party to this war, then the best possible thing that it could do would be to facilitate the efforts of the Ba'athist government to reassert full control over Syria, which it can and will do unless the Gulf Arab monarchies and their overseas enforcer continue working against it. In doing this, it may even win a new regional ally, and thus deprive Iran of a vital partner; all in all, this course of action is in the U.S.'s best interest, even if the U.S. is to stubborn to recognize it.

 

I think Isis is actually a greater threat than the general population can fathom. There's practically nothing in Syria and Iraq to stop them from conquering the whole of those nations. When they have accomplished that, they will have more momentum toward their goal than we have to the contrary. They will have the resources to fight hard target nations. By the time we muster the resolve to fight them it'll be a Herculean task and likely fought in the Balkans.

 

This is... wholly unfounded. The Islamic State is powerful, well-organized, and undoubtedly dangerous to regional security, but it is not going to be conquering the entirety of Iraq and Syria, much less enough territory to extend their influence into the Balkans. They would first have to defeat the Kurds and the Ba'athist government of Syria, both of which are fighting for their very existence; then they would run up upon Turkey, Iran, and Israel, none of which will crumble easily; and even if it manages to somehow survive this and make inroads into the Balkans, it will be facing the might of the entire Western world. Europe isn't what it used to be, but it's also not just going to roll over and allow itself to be invaded without a vigorous fight. Even if the Greek government collapsed - and I can imagine the Greek government collapsing without much difficulty - groups like the Golden Dawn, which have at the very least thousands of able-bodied young men willing to give their lives to defend their nation, would be able to give them a hell of a fight.

 

The Islamic State should not be underestimated, but this kind of apocalyptic hyperbole is absolutely overblown. This isn't 1529; the Ottomans aren't at the gates of Vienna.

[SoS]

The Islamic state already has elements in all those nations you mentioned. Those nations are fighting various Islamic faction for their precarious survival already. Isis is the type of ideology and organization that will bring them all under one banner and return the middle east to it's former order. You cannot underestimate the popular will of the people. World cops wouldn't be scrambling if there were a foregone conclusion. To the contrary, they have determined Isis is a serious military/political threat to the region.

 

The success (and ultimate defeat) of this Islamic state is written in the bible. Apocalyptic hyperbole is absolutely in order. We can't have the apocalypse without the formation of the Islamic state.

[Dietrich]

The Islamic state already has elements in all those nations you mentioned. Those nations are fighting various Islamic faction for their precarious survival already.

I can see how you might think that the Kurds and the Ba'athist government of Syria are fighting for their "precarious survival", but I see nothing precarious about the survival of Turkey, Iran, Israel, and Greece. I'll readily agree that there are radical Islamists operating within all of those countries, and many more, but they aren't a major concern for the time being, and they certainly don't currently threaten the very survival of any countries other than Syria and Iraq, although the former has recovered over the past several years and the latter has proven more resilient than might have been expected, thanks to the organization of Shi'ite militias to reinforce its broken army, as well as U.S. and Iranian support.

 

Isis is the type of ideology and organization that will bring them all under one banner and return the middle east to it's former order. You cannot underestimate the popular will of the people. World cops wouldn't be scrambling if there were a foregone conclusion. To the contrary, they have determined Isis is a serious military/political threat to the region.

 

If by "world cups" you mean self-righteous Americans, then yes, there has been a great deal of scrambling. But Americans scrambled to attack al-Qaeda, and that didn't do anyone much good in the long run. Americans scrambled to attack Iraq under Saddam Hussein, and not only did that result in the toppling of one of the few secular governments in the region, which was already fighting against radical Islamists on its own territory, but it turned out that there weren't even weapons of mass destruction in the country. To be honest, when I see the U.S. scrambling to counter a perceived threat to "freedom and democracy" or "human rights" or whatever the next big thing is, I reevaluate that threat in light of the fact that the one government which has consistently made all of the wrong choices in recent years has made another choice, and chances are it will be another wrong one.

 

I tend to be more affected by the reactions of Iran and Turkey, which have stayed calm in the face of the Islamic State and are working to secure their borders and support their regional allies. I think it's indicative that only the U.S. and its Sunni Arab monarchical allies are reacting so strongly to the crisis: the U.S. thinks that it has a right and a duty to intervene anywhere that it sees its values being threatened or undermined, and the Sunni Arab monarchies fear that this group which they cultivated is now on the verge of turning on them, which they know would massively undermine their security and potentially result in the loss of the oil reserves which are the only source of their regional influence besides their American military sponsorship.

 

Again, the Islamic State is the most powerful radical Islamist organization that has appeared in years, but it only got this far because it was armed, funded, and encouraged by the Sunni Arab monarchies that have now realized how much of a threat it really is to their national security. It does have significant local support, too, but only from Sunnis who felt marginalized by the Shi'ite-led governments of Iraq and Syria. There's evidence, for example, that Iraqi Ba'athists played a major role in the Islamic State's lightning advance through Iraq, indicating that its presence in Iraq is (or at least was at that time) largely beholden to the good will of the Ba'athists, who represent an experienced, well-armed, and highly motivated military force which enjoys tremendous local support in Sunni Arab cities like Mosul and especially Tikrit, undoubtedly in large part because their marginalization by the Shi'ite-led government stoked some nostalgia for the years of Sunni-led government under Saddam Hussein. One way to weaken the Islamic State, then, is to kick out these local pillars that it leans so heavily upon: the U.S. could twist the Iraqi government's arm and force it to call new elections in which the Ba'ath Party is legally allowed to participate and the new government contains Sunnis in important positions (because it's highly doubtful that the Ba'ath Party could actually scrape together anything resembling a majority), which might persuade many Sunnis to rescind their support of the Islamic State.

 

The majority of the Middle Eastern population does not support the Islamic State. There are a great deal of Islamists - maybe even a majority in some areas - but few are radical enough to support an organization like the Islamic State, and there are also a great deal of Arab nationalists, like the Ba'athists, and even a few Western-influenced liberals, who aren't really useful to anyone or anything but are still some part of the population and do not support the Islamic State. Even some other radical Islamists have disavowed the Islamic State; it possesses no clear mandate. We're not on the verge of a new Caliphate, whatever you and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi may believe.

[Jazza]

They just need to carpet bomb the entire Iraq and Syria, It may kill innocent people but the terrorist will still be there if we dont do something about it

You can't do that!!! As much as some people think it may be necessary you cannot do that! I can't give you a great answer as to why not but I promise you that nothing like that will ever happen regardless of all that it could achieve!

[WISD0MTREE]

You can't do that!!! As much as some people think it may be necessary you cannot do that! I can't give you a great answer as to why not but I promise you that nothing like that will ever happen regardless of all that it could achieve!

I know! Where will we get the gas to carpet bomb other people? We shouldn't kill a ton of innocent people like that. Plus, even Americans with no ties to Islam are going over and fighting for ISIS. 

 

This is on the spot (and strangely poetic somehow). The one thing that gets me however is 

Oops, wireless keyboard. I'll type later. 

 

EDIT: Sheepy, I doubt that their money from controlling that territory comes close to the oil money. 

Edited October 15, 2014 by WISD0MTREE

[elsuper]

But Bashar al-Assad is not the problem here. Bashar al-Assad and the Ba'athist government of Syria would be happy to lend their full cooperation - and their full military power, which is very significant, especially as their soldiers are highly experienced after years of civil war, and highly motivated, too, since they view this as a struggle for their very existence, which isn't something that can be said of the weak-kneed Iraqi military - to any international efforts to defeat the Islamic State; what is the purpose of preventing them from doing so? They have an intact government, an intact army, numerous powerful allies in the region, and the only legitimate claim to any territory occupied by the Islamic State west of the Iraqi border.

 

If the U.S. insists upon being a party to this war, then the best possible thing that it could do would be to facilitate the efforts of the Ba'athist government to reassert full control over Syria, which it can and will do unless the Gulf Arab monarchies and their overseas enforcer continue working against it. In doing this, it may even win a new regional ally, and thus deprive Iran of a vital partner; all in all, this course of action is in the U.S.'s best interest, even if the U.S. is to stubborn to recognize it.

 

 

I agree that is probably the best option. I didn't mean to indicate that Assad is the cause of the problem, only that his presence complicates the West's strategic calculus. We are left with the status quo ante of supporting dictators against less palatable elements.

[elsuper]

The success (and ultimate defeat) of this Islamic state is written in the bible. Apocalyptic hyperbole is absolutely in order. We can't have the apocalypse without the formation of the Islamic state.

 

I'm interested to know more.

[Sailor Jerry]

.......supporting the Iraqi army in reclaiming their own territory is far more realistic.

 

Becuase this has worked out well so far.  We might as well take all the weapons and equipment that we'd give the Iraqis and just give it to ISIS instead.......cut out the middle man.  The Iraqi army hasn't done squat since just before the first Gulf War, what makes you think they will now.  We thought we had them all trained and ready to go, then along comes ISIS, farts in their direction, the army drops everything, tucks tail and runs!  Since the locals can't control it or don't want to, I say we just put up a version of the Great Wall around the entire Middle East and let them sort it out themselves.......anyone caught leaving.....sorry, toss them right back in.

[SoS]

I'm interested to know more.

All you need to know for now is the tetrad is this year and that an Islamic empire combined with that is not a pleasant omen. There is a very specific timeline established which began on the last lunar eclipse. We have 14 months, one day, and a very specific hour. It's all in there; in black and white. Even the meaning of the hour, which it is said "no man knows the hour". You'll certainly know when that hour has passed, though.

 

Turkey will be complicit and Israel will be subservient. One fourth of the land mass of the earth will be controlled by the four horsemen. The western border of this empire will be Israel and Europe.

[Ayayay]

All you need to know for now is the tetrad is this year and that an Islamic empire combined with that is not a pleasant omen. There is a very specific timeline established which began on the last lunar eclipse. We have 14 months, one day, and a very specific hour. It's all in there; in black and white. Even the meaning of the hour, which it is said "no man knows the hour". You'll certainly know when that hour has passed, though.

 

Turkey will be complicit and Israel will be subservient. One fourth of the land mass of the earth will be controlled by the four horsemen. The western border of this empire will be Israel and Europe.

Prophecies are horseshit.

 

This thread is lol worthy btw, not even going to bother reading/commenting most of this stuff as 90% of what I've seen seems to be taken from the other threads about this.

[SoS]

It's scientifically proven they are horseshit only half the time.

[WISD0MTREE]

All you need to know for now is the tetrad is this year and that an Islamic empire combined with that is not a pleasant omen. There is a very specific timeline established which began on the last lunar eclipse. We have 14 months, one day, and a very specific hour. It's all in there; in black and white. Even the meaning of the hour, which it is said "no man knows the hour". You'll certainly know when that hour has passed, though.

 

Turkey will be complicit and Israel will be subservient. One fourth of the land mass of the earth will be controlled by the four horsemen. The western border of this empire will be Israel and Europe.

While I believe (Christian) prophecy, it does say in the bible that we will not know the exact time when it will begin. 

 

Also we are missing a few things. 

[SoS]

While I believe (Christian) prophecy, it does say in the bible that we will not know the exact time when it will begin.

 

Also we are missing a few things.

The timeline is long enough (14 years) to collect the missing pieces later (I assume you're mainly referring to the stuff in Israel). The first sign of the beginning is the four horsemen. Every other catastrophic sign happens after their appearance.

 

An empire in Syria and Iraq is absolutely necessary for what is written to manifest. It may be Isis or it may be whoever counters Isis. It seems more likely that it would be the faction with the broadest appeal throughout the region.

 

Being "a sign" the appearance of the four horsemen will be recognizable to anyone with understanding. That hasn't happened yet.

 

Aside from all this, Isis is growing in numbers, territory, power much faster than their opposition. The governments of Syria and Iraq were already basically mobilized for war. How much more can they bring to this fight? Obviously, they cannot. All that remains to be seen is if Isis can take the strongholds, one by one.

[Alex]

EDIT: Sheepy, I doubt that their money from controlling that territory comes close to the oil money. 

 

Check out this Forbes article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/taxanalysts/2014/08/18/how-isis-is-using-taxes-to-build-a-terrorist-state/

 

Another great source about how ISIS is funded is this video: http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/07/studentnews/sn-content-weds/

 

 

 

You want to do business in ISIS control territory, you pay a tax. You want to move truck down a highway, you pay a toll. Villages on ISIS territory pay for just about everything. Mawaz Mustafa (ph) is the executive director of the Syrian Emergency Taskforce in Washington, D.C. He says ISIS literally formed in the void made by the pullout of U.S. troops and the retreating Iraqi army. That kind of self-financing mob, he says, can`t be destroyed from airstrikes. 

You need to take back the territory and restore order.

U.S.-led coalition airstrikes have now begun targeting ISIS locations, attacking the oil facilities and even grain silos. But as long as ISIS controls any ground where civilians can be taxed, extorted and robbed, ISIS will remain self-financing.

 

I can't find exact figures for what they make from taxes and tolls on people in their territory, but I'm positive it's no small figure.