ISIS

There is no strategy because an actual strategy would involve going back in, and we don't want to do that.

But we will probably have to.

It's doublespeak. His statement would appear to be part of a strategy.

What astonishes me is that he seems to have been caught with his knickers down. These deadly morons seem to have come out of nowhere, but that can't really be the case. Surely US/UK intelligence must've known what was afoot.
He really did drop the ball on this one, which is why he has no strategy. I've lost a lot of respect for him. He's clearly just serving time now until his term is up.

Right now, I wouldn't worry too much about ISIS. Let Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iraq mop it up. It's getting more and more apparent that ISIS is part pipedream (useful for drawing bloodthirsty adventurers) and part provocateurs. Syria was caught funding ISIS in the start, but I'm certain Russia is funding them to draw the US back into Iraq. Get the US into Iraq, the US will be busy. Russia can then more openly operate (attack) in Ukraine. Now that Putin has been putting his finger on the Ukrainian Crisis tilting it back to the DPR, it becomes a bit more difficult for Putin because ISIS' marginal utility is cut short.

c.e.lawson said:

Our other threads on ISIS are specific to one aspect -- Iraq, James Foley, the American terrorist killed, etc. -- so I thought perhaps we could have a thread to discuss general events and our administration's response as this issue evolves.

Today (as in my prior comments), I'm concerned about our president's continued lack of a clear strategy.

Click to expand...

Oi! International board. "Our" administration needs to be clarified. And your President is not my President (although if wishing made it so... )

Xelebes said:

Right now, I wouldn't worry too much about ISIS. Let Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iraq mop it up. It's getting more and more apparent that ISIS is part pipedream (useful for drawing bloodthirsty adventurers) and part provocateurs. Syria was caught funding ISIS in the start, but I'm certain Russia is funding them to draw the US back into Iraq. Get the US into Iraq, the US will be busy. Russia can then more openly operate (attack) in Ukraine. Now that Putin has been putting his finger on the Ukrainian Crisis tilting it back to the DPR, it becomes a bit more difficult for Putin because ISIS' marginal utility is cut short.

Click to expand...

This makes about as much sense as anything, and I was wondering if the russians were funding ISIS (or whatever they are calling themselves now). My position is we should stay as far away from this mess as possible, let the middle east deal with this problem!!!

milkweed said:

This makes about as much sense as anything, and I was wondering if the russians were funding ISIS (or whatever they are calling themselves now). My position is we should stay as far away from this mess as possible, let the middle east deal with this problem!!!

Click to expand...

Egypt suggests we call them QSIS since what they're doing is totally unconnected with modern Islam.

Xelebes said:

Right now, I wouldn't worry too much about ISIS. Let Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iraq mop it up. It's getting more and more apparent that ISIS is part pipedream (useful for drawing bloodthirsty adventurers) and part provocateurs. Syria was caught funding ISIS in the start, but I'm certain Russia is funding them to draw the US back into Iraq. Get the US into Iraq, the US will be busy. Russia can then more openly operate (attack) in Ukraine. Now that Putin has been putting his finger on the Ukrainian Crisis tilting it back to the DPR, it becomes a bit more difficult for Putin because ISIS' marginal utility is cut short.

Click to expand...

Really?
It appears that the British government would beg to differ and they're not given to upping the level of security threats for shits and giggles.

Xelebes has a point about Russia playing games to draw us in, but I disagree that QSIS/ISIS/ISIL is an ignorable threat.

Obama gets points for honesty from me, but not much else.

Xelebes said:

Right now, I wouldn't worry too much about ISIS. Let Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iraq mop it up.

Click to expand...

Really? With 500+ British jihadists fighting for them? That's a lot of British passport holders who are highly motivated to kill British or US citizens (and possibly Canadians). I'd say that's a f#ck of a lot to worry about.

firedrake said:

Really?
It appears that the British government would beg to differ and they're not given to upping the level of security threats for shits and giggles.

Click to expand...

That's nice. How in any way does that negate what I am saying? Once the leadership in ISIS collapses, yes there will be a risk to the countries where contingent members of ISIS originate from.

milkweed said:

This makes about as much sense as anything, and I was wondering if the russians were funding ISIS (or whatever they are calling themselves now). My position is we should stay as far away from this mess as possible, let the middle east deal with this problem!!!

Click to expand...

No-one is funding ISIS. They're doing very well on their own since they pillaged the Bank of Mosul and got access to oil to sell on the black market.

waylander said:

No-one is funding ISIS. They're doing very well on their own since they pillaged the Bank of Mosul and got access to oil to sell on the black market.

Click to expand...

They might not need funding anymore. Or they might. The money trail regarding ISIS is not fully uncovered. All that said, the four nations are well funded and can take on ISIS very easily if they put a concerted effort into it. Syria and Iraq are right now weak. Saudi Arabia and Iran are pretty strong right now. Put aside what they disagree with, they can take care of ISIS.

Xelebes said:

That's nice. How in any way does that negate what I am saying? Once the leadership in ISIS collapses, yes there will be a risk to the countries where contingent members of ISIS originate from.

Click to expand...

Erm, you said "Right now, I wouldn't worry too much about ISIS"

I'd say there's a hell of a lot to worry about. These people are now occupying chunks of the Syrian/Turkish border, ostensibly to make it easier for 'jihadists' from other countries to come and join the party. Turkey's the buffer between the Middle East and Europe, there have been shifts towards a more Islamic society in Turkey. Okay, so maybe now, ISIS is just content to sit on the border as gatekeepers, but who knows what could happen down the road.

Given that, yesterday, they apparently slaughtered 250 Syrian soldiers, and are currently holding a few Kurdish soldiers captive, I'd say they look like a credible threat for the foreseeable future, especially as everyone in the west is running around with their hair on fire trying to work out how to fix this.

I don't buy the assertion that Putin's sticking his finger into the pot. He doesn't need to do that, he's stirred up enough shit by, apparently, sending troops into the Ukraine and, earlier today, justifying that action by comparing the Ukrainian army to Nazis, which, in Russia is fighting talk and guaranteed to get popular support in Russia for further action.

Colour me unimpressed by what ISIS has done. They are nothing more DPR. Let's not gloss over the mass graves that they are finding in Slovyansk. If the folks in the region want something done, I want some leadership from the fucking region. You get rid of ISI, who else is going to pop up? Another fucking bogeyman? Fuck them. The interventionism over folks who apparently don't want our help is going to do fuck all. Provide refuge is all we can do.

Xelebes said:

Colour me unimpressed by what ISIS has done. They are nothing more DPR. Let's not gloss over the mass graves that they are finding in Slovyansk. If the folks in the region want something done, I want some leadership from the fucking region. You get rid of ISI, who else is going to pop up? Another fucking bogeyman? Fuck them. The interventionism over folks who apparently don't want our help is going to do fuck all. Provide refuge is all we can do.

Click to expand...

Well, maybe up in the wilds of Canada, you don't feel the need to worry about getting on a train and getting your arse blown to kingdom come, or worry about deluded idiots returning well armed, and well trained, to earn their ticket to paradise and 72 virgins by placing a few bombs around major cities.
We'd all like the region's leaders to step up, but I don't see anything like that happening. Nor do I advocate boots on the ground. But they're a threat whether you like it or not.
When you've lived in a country where terrorists have killed and caused havoc, you tend to get a little nervous when arseholes like this are around.

firedrake said:

Well, maybe up in the wilds of Canada, you don't feel the need to worry about getting on a train and getting your arse blown to kingdom come, or worry about deluded idiots returning well armed, and well trained, to earn their ticket to paradise and 72 virgins by placing a few bombs around major cities.
We'd all like the region's leaders to step up, but I don't see anything like that happening. Nor do I advocate boots on the ground. But they're a threat whether you like it or not.
When you've lived in a country where terrorists have killed and caused havoc, you tend to get a little nervous when arseholes like this are around.

Click to expand...

We have to worry just as much as you do. There are an untold number of Canadians amongst the ISIS ranks. You deal with them accordingly when they return.

Xelebes said:

We have to worry just as much as you do. There are an untold number of Canadians amongst the ISIS ranks. You deal with them accordingly when they return.

Click to expand...

That worked really well here when the IRA were causing havoc on the British mainland in the 70s and 80s.

c.e.lawson said:

Our other threads on ISIS are specific to one aspect -- Iraq, James Foley, the American terrorist killed, etc. -- so I thought perhaps we could have a thread to discuss general events and our administration's response as this issue evolves.

Today (as in my prior comments), I'm concerned about our president's continued lack of a clear strategy. (And it seems I'm not the only one concerned) But what's almost worse to me than him admitting there's no strategy, is how he characterized ISIS in the following paragraph. It's like we're hearkening back to his "JV" comment. Really, Mr. President? They have no vision or ideology beyond violence and chaos? Once again, he's underestimating this movement.

Obama Says ‘We Don’t Have a Strategy Yet’ for Fighting ISIS

http://time.com/3211132/isis-iraq-syria-barack-obama-strategy/

“This should be a wake-up call to Sunni, to [Shi‘ite], to everybody, that a group like ISIS is beyond the pale; that they have no vision or ideology beyond violence and chaos and the slaughter of innocent people,” Obama said. “And as a consequence, we’ve got to all join together — even if we have differences on a range of political issues — to make sure that they’re rooted out.”

Click to expand...

I don't get it. Why does the president of the U.S. need a strategy to deal with a group that isn't in the U.S., hasn't done anything to the U.S., is in other countries, etc.

Does he have a strategy to deal with everything in the world?

c.e.lawson said:

I agree with you, firedrake. And today on the radio (yes, it's a conservative talk station) commentator Michael Medved played a clip of David Cameron speaking about ISIS and stated this is the clarity and vision he wishes Obama had. I wish I had the transcript of the clip.

The horrors ISIS is committing are just...I have no words. They are gaining in membership and funding. And I hear Obama is going to a fundraiser this weekend. It's actually sad. I JUST WANT SOME DECISIVE LEADERSHIP FROM MY PRESIDENT ON THIS ISSUE!

According to this CNN article, Obama has been talking to Iraq officials about this problem for over a year.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/29/politics/obama-isis-strategy/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Click to expand...

Again, on what issue, specifically, and how is he meant to provide 'leadership?' Did you demand leadership from Reagan on the IRA? Or from Bush on the terrorist groups in Colombia or... etc?

What is he supposed to do, specifically, and why him?

cornflake said:

I don't get it. Why does the president of the U.S. need a strategy to deal with a group that isn't in the U.S., hasn't done anything to the U.S., is in other countries, etc.

Does he have a strategy to deal with everything in the world?

Click to expand...

Didn't you know? Being President of the US means being President of the World.

You must have missed the memo. It was sent about five decades ago.

Xelebes said:

We have to worry just as much as you do. There are an untold number of Canadians amongst the ISIS ranks. You deal with them accordingly when they return.

Click to expand...

And your strategy for distinguishing them from any other traveller when they return is....?

c.e.lawson said:

And I guess I still hold the idealistic view that America is a good country, with good values, which wants to do good in the world. And we do, on an ongoing basis. Thank goodness we have the means to. And if our allies are being slaughtered by the thousands (Kurds), and genocide is being carried out on people because of their religion, and if this ISIS movement continues to grow and threaten the scope of not just Middle East security but world security, then I believe it is only right that we do something to stop this. I believe the future threat to us is very, very real.

Click to expand...

ISIS does not pose the military threat the Axis did, and is unlikely to, but they are equally malevolent, and they also operate in a region of global significance. They need to be crushed.