Uh oh...Iraq

[mtangelsfan]

Just stating the facts

 

I think your definition of the term facts is incorrect.

[nate]

They've also called for sympathizers in Canada, Australia, and the U.S. to kill as many civilians as they can in those countries. In other words, the message to the various sleeper cells has been heard, loud and clear.

 

Australian authorities thankfully uncovered a plot to behead people in the streets there.

 

I'm seriously considering applying for a concealed-carry permit. The only problem is, there's a long waiting list.

 

Shockingly Canada and Australia haven't started any bombing campaigns.

[Adam]

I think these ****ers are just amateur film makers who's movies didn't get into Cannes

[fan_since79]

I think these ****ers are just amateur film makers who's movies didn't get into Cannes

 

I'd rather not star in one of their movies.

 

Call me conceited, but I value my head and prefer it to remain right where it is.

[mtangelsfan]

Shockingly Canada and Australia haven't started any bombing campaigns.

 

You left out where Australia just stopped an ISIS plot.  Interesting omission.

[Blarg]

For now anyway.

 

They'll start burying IEDs once we take out their heavy equipment. 

 

And at that point they become ignored as a threat to nation hop and become a local rather than international problem. At this point they are an army with territory under their control and held with military tactics and weapons. That makes them easier targets for nations with more sophisticated weapon systems and satellite tracking and targeted strikes can take out hundreds and thousands at a time instead of a couple of insurgents with AK's being assholes. That is for the local police action to contain.

[nate]

You left out where Australia just stopped an ISIS plot.  Interesting omission.

 

Actually that is exactly what we should do.  They did it on their own soil instead of bombing them on foreign soil.

[TobiasFunke]

I think your definition of the term facts is incorrect.

Probably

[mtangelsfan]

Actually that is exactly what we should do.  They did it on their own soil instead of bombing them on foreign soil.

 

Not really arguing the overall idea of not bombing ISIS but I also think it is naive to believe they will just leave us be if we do nothing as well. 

[TobiasFunke]

And at that point they become ignored as a threat to nation hop and become a local rather than international problem. At this point they are an army with territory under their control and held with military tactics and weapons. That makes them easier targets for nations with more sophisticated weapon systems and satellite tracking and targeted strikes can take out hundreds and thousands at a time instead of a couple of insurgents with AK's being assholes. That is for the local police action to contain.

Ok then I'll ask you what I would have asked Jay or Flop. Let's say these assholes are more of a standing army and we go full blown attack on them. At what point is it "mission accomplished"? We don't have a list of troops of theirs to know we got 'em all. We don't expect them to surrender like a nation at war would. So at what point do we say in 3 months, 9 months, two years, ten years, that we won the war against IS?

 

This is the important question that people like Nate, Lawrence and I would be asking to you pro-war with IS people (that includes Jay and Obama).

Edited September 22, 2014 by TobiasFunke

[Adam]

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/isis-calls-on-muslims-to-kill-non-muslims-everywhere-in-every-way/2014/09/22/

 

This makes me feel warm and fuzzy

[Adam]

Not really arguing the overall idea of not bombing ISIS but I also think it is naive to believe they will just leave us be if we do nothing as well. 

 

Agreed. They're a threat no matter what. Still have a hard time supporting much intervention from a practical perspective. Certainly, on an emotional level I'd love to see them destroyed. 

[TobiasFunke]

Not really arguing the overall idea of not bombing ISIS but I also think it is naive to believe they will just leave us be if we do nothing as well. 

Since 9/11 our country has been doing a pretty damn good job at rooting out terrorist activities. We aren't going to catch them all (Boston) but we've caught a lot that we know of and probably caught a lot more that we the public don't know of. Why can't we just keep our government doing the good job it's been doing instead of sending money and troops back into the middle east?

[nate]

Since 9/11 our country has been doing a pretty damn good job at rooting out terrorist activities. We aren't going to catch them all (Boston) but we've caught a lot that we know of and probably caught a lot more that we the public don't know of. Why can't we just keep our government doing the good job it's been doing instead of sending money and troops back into the middle east?

 

Exactly.  I never said they weren't a threat to us.  There are threats everywhere.  We would be better served to protect our own than go on the offensive with every terrorist group out there.

 

Like I said, all you need are 20 dudes and a rich Saudi to attack us.  Groups like ISIS don't pose a greater threat.  They do post a greater threat to those in the Middle East, but like I said, who gives a ****?  Let them deal with it.

[mtangelsfan]

Since 9/11 our country has been doing a pretty damn good job at rooting out terrorist activities. We aren't going to catch them all (Boston) but we've caught a lot that we know of and probably caught a lot more that we the public don't know of. Why can't we just keep our government doing the good job it's been doing instead of sending money and troops back into the middle east?

 

Just to play devil's advocate, I'm guessing one could argue that a very good reason we have been able hugely limit terrorist attacks here is because we have kept them occupied abroad.  Now I don't know if this is so or not, I would guess even the people in the highest levels of espionage couldn't answer that with a complete affirmative

[nate]

One could also argue that we just made it easier for them to kill Americans.

 

For some reason we are ok with killing American soldiers because it was in the line of duty.

 

It is absurd.  We haven't achieved anything.  Thousands of Americans have died, and we spend 6 trillion dollars.

[mtangelsfan]

One could also argue that we just made it easier for them to kill Americans.

 

For some reason we are ok with killing American soldiers because it was in the line of duty.

 

It is absurd.  We haven't achieved anything.  Thousands of Americans have died, and we spend 6 trillion dollars.

 

Totally agree, just answering the 'we have been able to stop the attacks on U.S. soil' statement.  It hasn't been worth it.  I still believe that Afghanistan was worth it because it was a direct response to 9/11 but we decided to double down on Iraq and that was a horrible, dubious, ridiculous and idiotic decision that not only costs us lives in Iraq but I believe cost us in Afghanistan as well.

[Jay]

Ok then I'll ask you what I would have asked Jay or Flop. Let's say these assholes are more of a standing army and we go full blown attack on them. At what point is it "mission accomplished"? We don't have a list of troops of theirs to know we got 'em all. We don't expect them to surrender like a nation at war would. So at what point do we say in 3 months, 9 months, two years, ten years, that we won the war against IS?

 

This is the important question that people like Nate, Lawrence and I would be asking to you pro-war with IS people.

 

When you say, "pro-war with IS people" you mean Obama?

[nate]

I totally agree, MT.  I also think we should have gone in and obliterated the Taliban and the Al Quada camps and left.  I think the only reason we stuck around was for $$.  Lots of American corporations have profited from commodities contracts in Afghanistan/Iraq.

 

We all know Iraq was GWB finishing what Daddy failed to do.  Ironically it was one of the reasons his Dad wasn't reelected.  Along with a really poor economy of course.

[TobiasFunke]

When you say, "pro-war with IS people" you mean Obama?

Since you have a boner for Obama I will edit it for your sake

[TobiasFunke]

Just to play devil's advocate, I'm guessing one could argue that a very good reason we have been able hugely limit terrorist attacks here is because we have kept them occupied abroad.  Now I don't know if this is so or not, I would guess even the people in the highest levels of espionage couldn't answer that with a complete affirmative

I appreciate your devil's advocate as I am a man of it as well. One could argue that point and I wish them well on it.

[Jay]

Not a big surprise, but airstrikes in Syria have begun.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-launches-first-airstrikes-against-isis-in-syria/

[mtangelsfan]

"F" that.

[Lhalo]

Bahrain, Jordan, Qatar, UAE and the Saudis all participating. How? I have no idea.

Does this put us in a de facto war against Syria?

[nate]

Lol.  Wonder how much $ per bomb it costs.

 

Ridiculous.