Yeah, that's a bunch of nonsense. I don't believe for a second that anyone in the Middle East is committing themselves to violent jihad because of the offensive words of Donald Trump.
What does propel otherwise normal third-world Muslims (who haven't already joined ISIS because of economic reasons) to jihad, however, is when their family members are killed as collateral damage in air strikes carried out by the West.
there will always been collateral involved. the difference is that the US doesn't intend to kill non-combatants, it's an unfortunate reality of warfare. especially when terrorists often hide behind innocents...
on the other hand, collateral damage is entire purpose of carrying out terror attacks.
you can't just do nothing in return when a violent group attacks your civilian population. and you certainly can't give these groups a free pass into your country
I don't disagree, but the asymmetry of the situation highlights just how difficult of a crisis this is. We have to have a heavy hand as we're fighting insurgents, but we also have to be cognizant of the fact that if not carried out tactically enough, our attacks could create more terrorists than they eliminate. And then there's the issue of many young Syrians, Iraqis, Libyans, etc. turning to ISIS because they have no other economic prospects. Obviously those countries need to be rebuilt to the point where jihad isn't the only feasible career path, but how do we accomplish that? Especially when our last couple "rebuilding efforts" have been such resounding failures.
And unfortunately I don't think the American people are willing to send in tens of thousands of troops for 15-25 years, which might be what is required.
You don't send in 10,000 troops, that's the problem. You send in 50,000 troops, Spain sends in 50,000 troops, UK sends in 50,000 troops, and France sends in 50,000 troops. You send these troops in after you collectively carpet bomb the area to lower the amount of resistance you'll receive.
Sending in a thousand here, a thousand there, is what drags a war on. You drop the hammer, this thing is done within a year.
Only way to win this "war" is literally door to door. It's not about the quantity of troops it's about the quality (i.e. intelligence you gather), unless you just decide to Hiroshima/Nagasaki wherever you think ISIS is, which is "politically fine" if it's small communities/villages out in the sticks of Afghanistan. Problem is, they are in most every major city in Europe as well so that plan stops right there.
ISIS can overplay their hand by attacking "neutral targets" like today which could band the world against the common enemy, but this only works if Russia/Israel are allowed to take the lead on "interrogation tactics". Europe and the US are to pussy to extract the info we need. Those two wouldn't GAF.
When your enemy doesn't care if they die, or who they take down with them, you better be willing to get in the gutter with them. Using rational/economic/any other logic is not going to make them stop. Their belief system says anyone not practicing hard core Islam is the devil and needs to be obliterated. Not much negotiating room with that.
Yeah, that's a bunch of nonsense. I don't believe for a second that anyone in the Middle East is committing themselves to violent jihad because of the offensive words of Donald Trump.
What does propel otherwise normal third-world Muslims (who haven't already joined ISIS because of economic reasons) to jihad, however, is when their family members are killed as collateral damage in air strikes carried out by the West.
there will always been collateral involved. the difference is that the US doesn't intend to kill non-combatants, it's an unfortunate reality of warfare. especially when terrorists often hide behind innocents...
on the other hand, collateral damage is entire purpose of carrying out terror attacks.
you can't just do nothing in return when a violent group attacks your civilian population. and you certainly can't give these groups a free pass into your country
I don't disagree, but the asymmetry of the situation highlights just how difficult of a crisis this is. We have to have a heavy hand as we're fighting insurgents, but we also have to be cognizant of the fact that if not carried out tactically enough, our attacks could create more terrorists than they eliminate. And then there's the issue of many young Syrians, Iraqis, Libyans, etc. turning to ISIS because they have no other economic prospects. Obviously those countries need to be rebuilt to the point where jihad isn't the only feasible career path, but how do we accomplish that? Especially when our last couple "rebuilding efforts" have been such resounding failures.
And unfortunately I don't think the American people are willing to send in tens of thousands of troops for 15-25 years, which might be what is required.
You don't send in 10,000 troops, that's the problem. You send in 50,000 troops, Spain sends in 50,000 troops, UK sends in 50,000 troops, and France sends in 50,000 troops. You send these troops in after you collectively carpet bomb the area to lower the amount of resistance you'll receive.
Sending in a thousand here, a thousand there, is what drags a war on. You drop the hammer, this thing is done within a year.
Only way to win this "war" is literally door to door. It's not about the quantity of troops it's about the quality (i.e. intelligence you gather), unless you just decide to Hiroshima/Nagasaki wherever you think ISIS is, which is "politically fine" if it's small communities/villages out in the sticks of Afghanistan. Problem is, they are in most every major city in Europe as well so that plan stops right there.
ISIS can overplay their hand by attacking "neutral targets" like today which could band the world against the common enemy, but this only works if Russia/Israel are allowed to take the lead on "interrogation tactics". Europe and the US are to pussy to extract the info we need. Those two wouldn't GAF.
When your enemy doesn't care if they die, or who they take down with them, you better be willing to get in the gutter with them. Using rational/economic/any other logic is not going to make them stop. Their belief system says anyone not practicing hard core Islam is the devil and needs to be obliterated. Not much negotiating room with that.
Kill them until they don't want to fight anymore. Seems that's how we were successful before the "win hearts and minds" hippie asshats got involved. Collateral damage is unavoidable . The problem is we've been trying to avoid it.
What I don't get is why aren't all these kind peaceful muslims ratting out the bad guys? Oh yeah, a large percentage like what they are doing.
Comments
It is going to keep happening. What is the surprise.
Lets just keep talking. Talk ,talk talk........
Lets just appease these fucks and enable them.
Neville Chamberlaine lovers unite. Peace in our time!!!!
ISIS can overplay their hand by attacking "neutral targets" like today which could band the world against the common enemy, but this only works if Russia/Israel are allowed to take the lead on "interrogation tactics". Europe and the US are to pussy to extract the info we need. Those two wouldn't GAF.
When your enemy doesn't care if they die, or who they take down with them, you better be willing to get in the gutter with them. Using rational/economic/any other logic is not going to make them stop. Their belief system says anyone not practicing hard core Islam is the devil and needs to be obliterated. Not much negotiating room with that.
What I don't get is why aren't all these kind peaceful muslims ratting out the bad guys? Oh yeah, a large percentage like what they are doing.