Islamic State Strategy Is to Lure US Into War
I take everything CFR, Bilderberger Krauthammer says with an eye to his larger agenda, but he is correct in this. The best and fastest way for these guys to get street cred is to get the U.S. and or Brits into a war waged by politicians, not soldiers.
The only ones who profit from these conflicts are the same chessmasters who have always profited from financing wars: banksters.
To find the truth, follow the money (currently fiat created from nothing.)
Of course with Islam, this gets very complicated in that their own ideology proclaims the "right" to execute dissenters, which is probably why we don't hear any of those so-called "moderates" in the media calling for restraint on the "religion of peace".
Will the excesses of the jihadists result in a Muslim Reformation, or will it further radicalize the faith and result in a worldwide bloodbath? We can only hope for the former, and encourage those within Islam who call for it when the opportunity presents itself. In the meantime, we should show that criminal, abhorrent acts against America and its friends must be dealt with swiftly and finally.
I don't disagree that there are adherents of Islam who don't agree with the extremists, the problem is that until they speak up, they are irrelevant. Those who don't vote get voted for by those who do.
As for the acts of America, I completely agree that we should not tolerate aggression by these zealots. The problem I see is with the religion itself - not just the extremists. When it is written in their canon that it is okay to beat one's wife, that it is okay to deceive one not of Islam, that it is okay to kill someone who abandons the Islamic faith, that it is okay to rape a woman who was the victim of rape, and much more, I can not in any way condone the continued existence of such a philosophy or religion. If they want to alter their faith to do away with such things, we can talk. Until then, however, these are people based on a religion with principles I find utterly repugnant.
There are Muslims who speak out against the extremists, but you can thank the media for not giving them the light of day. Remember the watchword of the media: "If it bleeds, it leads!" Panic, hysteria, and violence draw more of an audience than calm and civilized action. News people are self-serving and amoral, so a charity bake sale doesn't stand a chance against a murder story.
Wrong. Australia has (again) made combat troops available. Perhaps this is a fairly safe response as I doubt that our prime minister Abbott will send them without being part of a major effort which looks unlikely. .
A comment says that Syria has volunteered. I would believe that, cannot see BO accepting.
I agree, human rights, rules of engagement, conventions of war, respect for civilians, prisoners, non-combatants, and so on, all important - but if you do not intend to win, save your breath.
I agree with CoolDigger. The states there need to police their own people. If we do go over there are a military, we need to make it clear that doing otherwise will not be tolerated, perhaps by instituting another territory, as the example.
On the other hand, right now, people who _want_ to kill each other _are_ killing each other. It may be that the best thing to do is offer sanctuary to groups (Yannis) who do not want to kill/convert others...and to the Kurds (I am still wowed by the Kurdish women units! ) and then get out of the way and let them go to it.
Key! How about land grants to the Kurds? Ranchers down by the Rio Grande can donate land plots to Kurdish families...No more illegal immigration problem!
Jan
What works is getting the two sides to reconcile their differences and declare peace - like East/West Germany and more recently Vietnam.
There is the danger that the idiots that run the US may decide that anyone they define as "domestic terrorists" deserve like treatment.
Personally, I don't think the military strategy works except on the hard-cases, and for that you'd have to take out the mullahs. What you need is a change of philosophy: you need to give them a reason to abandon their mentality of hate and choose a different path.
1) It is a flaw in their ideology that will persist as long as the mainstream allows it to stand and that makes all culpable.
2) Conventional approaches used when at war with the governments of other countries is futile. There are no countries or governments involved just a bunch of cockroaches rampaging and killing that believe dying in this activity is the ultimate good and will be rewarded in heaven.
3) Christians have never had good results in their Crusades against Islam because Christians limit their savagery.
4) Our idiot leaders think they can do business and negotiate treaties, based on reason, with people that at their best are defying their God by not slitting their throats.
2) Agreed, again. This is not a war against a nation-state. We must discard the Geneva Convention.
3) Actually, one of the main reasons the Christians went into the Holy Land in the first place was in recognition of the real threat posed to all of Europe by the expansion of the Ottoman Empire. The reason they invaded the Holy Land is to keep the war away from Europe (sound familiar?), and in that regard they were entirely successful. They did manage to hold the Holy Land for several centuries before being driven back out, but in that time they pretty much halted the advances of the Muslims until they got bored and declared war on each other instead. I would also point out that the Spanish civil war was also largely a Christian v Muslim war and the Christians were successful there in beating back the Muslims.
After all is said and done, however, you are right in that Christianity isn't going to be militarily successful against Islam. It's also why I believe that the only really successful attack is one based on changing their philosophy and mindset.
4) Agreed. You have one group of narcissists who think that everyone else should just accept their own superiority trying to talk to another group of zealots who believe in their OWN superiority. The difference is that one side is more than willing to use their guns to assert their superiority, while the other just wants to assert their hot air.
Regarding our tactics against ISIS I have been ashamed to be thinking that a few dozen neutron bombs might be a good solution. Ashamed because I'm a libertarian and that is not a libertarian response, nor probably an objectivist one Libertarians make a big deal out of sticking by their principles so it bothered me that I really just want to wipe them all out.
I've been thinking, then, that a better solution, and a very easy one militarily, would be to destroy the power grid that supplies the areas controlled by ISIS. There would be no, or minimal, direct loss of human life and it would make it damned inconvenient for them to leverage the internet for publicity.
That was probably OT, sorry.