Sucrose posted:

Maybe I'm wrong. With something like a third of Syria's civilian population displaced and the war in its third year, I was thinking there wouldn't be that many unaligned young men left to recruit, but that could be completely off base. At this point it just seems like logically, with ISIS actually holding territory and acting like a state but having enemies on the ground, that they'd have more to lose from a sustained bombing campaign than they'd gain from recruits angered by the bombing.

But I must be wrong, because they do indeed seem to be intentionally trying to goad the United States and now Britain into war with them, I can't think of much other explanation for the execution videos.

Typo posted:

lemme guess you expected the buzz words "bush doctrine" and "imperial aggression" to actually mean something in this argument

Volkerball posted:

The worry is that there are likely thousands of Americans in ISIS, and it only takes two of them deciding to come home and gently caress poo poo up to cause another Boston Marathon.

FlamingLiberal posted:

This is why I tell people that, like it or not, Bin Laden got what he wanted when he declared war on the US years ago. Yes he's dead and Al Qaeda is a shadow of what it was, but he succeeded in getting us to invade a Muslim country that had not attacked us (which was one of his stated goals), and bleed us heavily in blood and treasure in the process. Plus all of the regional destabilization from the invasion of Iraq has created an even worse version of Al Qaeda.

FlamingLiberal posted:

Just like the killing of two Americans is not a good enough reason to launch another indefinite war against a group, doing the same because perhaps some Americans will launch a terror attack isn't sufficient either. Terrorism is going to affect us no matter what we do, the real important thing is how we react.

This is why I tell people that, like it or not, Bin Laden got what he wanted when he declared war on the US years ago. Yes he's dead and Al Qaeda is a shadow of what it was, but he succeeded in getting us to invade a Muslim country that had not attacked us (which was one of his stated goals), and bleed us heavily in blood and treasure in the process. Plus all of the regional destabilization from the invasion of Iraq has created an even worse version of Al Qaeda.

McDowell posted:

euphronius posted:

If you support the US attacking IS and effecting regime change at least use a somewhat respectable argument like the US trying to calm the region and support its allies and make sure of friendly control of resources. This Cheney 1% crap is dumb. No one cares about terrorism other than its PR value.

FlamingLiberal posted:

Just like the killing of two Americans is not a good enough reason to launch another indefinite war against a group, doing the same because perhaps some Americans will launch a terror attack isn't sufficient either. Terrorism is going to affect us no matter what we do, the real important thing is how we react.

This is why I tell people that, like it or not, Bin Laden got what he wanted when he declared war on the US years ago. Yes he's dead and Al Qaeda is a shadow of what it was, but he succeeded in getting us to invade a Muslim country that had not attacked us (which was one of his stated goals), and bleed us heavily in blood and treasure in the process. Plus all of the regional destabilization from the invasion of Iraq has created an even worse version of Al Qaeda.

fspades posted:

This argument is dumb because ISIS isn't even a terrorist organization anymore, whatever that means. They are a revolutionary army that has its own quasi-state. They fund their stuff through taxes and oil revenue and poo poo. They fight for territory. The argument that some ISIS members are going to commit terror attacks in the West is shameless scaremongering on the part of Western politicians and pundits. Even if some ISIS members, or even their leadership, planned attacks in Europe, the US or elsewhere, the argument is used for promoting intervention and greater state surveillance. People are rightly comparing it with the Bush era because it is the exact same spiel.

ISIS's victims are overwhelmingly Syrians and Iraqis. ISIS threatens Arab monarchies, US clients and Iran. Those are the ones that have legitimate reasons to worry about ISIS. Not some random American who's shocked by what he hears at Fox News. Man up and hold up your political leaders to scrutiny this time.

fspades posted:

This argument is dumb because ISIS isn't even a terrorist organization anymore, whatever that means. They are a revolutionary army that has its own quasi-state. They fund their stuff through taxes and oil revenue and poo poo. They fight for territory. The argument that some ISIS members are going to commit terror attacks in the West is shameless scaremongering on the part of Western politicians and pundits. Even if some ISIS members, or even their leadership, planned attacks in Europe, the US or elsewhere, the argument is used for promoting intervention and greater state surveillance. People are rightly comparing it with the Bush era because it is the exact same spiel.

ISIS's victims are overwhelmingly Syrians and Iraqis. ISIS threatens Arab monarchies, US clients and Iran. Those are the ones that have legitimate reasons to worry about ISIS. Not some random American who's shocked by what he hears at Fox News. Man up and hold up your political leaders to scrutiny this time.

McDowell posted:

Snipee posted:

When you have Rush on your side, you need to reevaluate your positions.

Cippalippus posted:

There's a funny article related to ISIS on a Swiss newspaper talking about the following mythological creatures: unicorns, Santa Claus and moderate Muslims talking against the ISIS. Goes on to talk about how right we were when we banned minarets a few years ago and quotes the late Oriana Fallaci.
I bet a lot of posters here would become mad at it, for it isn't very politically correct and some would even label it "islamophobic" or whatever term you use to people who point out facts about Islam and its pedophile, war criminal founder Muhammed.

Cippalippus posted:

There's a funny article related to ISIS on a Swiss newspaper talking about the following mythological creatures: unicorns, Santa Claus and moderate Muslims talking against the ISIS.

V. Illych L. posted:

so youre just going to ignore my two-second google result that completely debunked your racist talking point in favour of oblivious pedantry, cool

T. Bombastus posted:

It's taqiyya, hth.

Cippalippus posted:

Islam: not a religion. A race.

Cippalippus posted:

Hey let's give total legitimacy to a "religion" founded by a pedo, and full of people who're happy to behead people with kitchen knives or blow themselves up for 70 virgins and a collection of anime in their afterlife. No really it's totally legit.

V. Illych L. posted:

loving sikhs with their turbans and knives and poo poo i hate those guys

what are you talking about im not racist how dare you


goddamn jews always rubbing their hands about fleecing filthy gentiles

racism no what my issues are strictly theological

Cippalippus posted:

Hey let's give total legitimacy to a "religion" founded by a pedo, and full of people who're happy to behead people with kitchen knives or blow themselves up for 70 virgins and a collection of anime in their afterlife. No really it's totally legit.

Zuhzuhzombie!! posted:

Before we make the situation worse by trying to engage ISIS in any meaningful way, isn't there some way we can steer them towards the Saudis for a while?

Nintendo Kid posted:

You sure talk poo poo about the pope a lot.

Cippalippus posted:

Hey let's give total legitimacy to a "religion" founded by a pedo, and full of people who're happy to behead people with kitchen knives or blow themselves up for 70 virgins and a collection of anime in their afterlife. No really it's totally legit.