Thoughtful And Intriguing Analysis On United States IS[IS] Options...

[Brant Gaede]

Well, there's the problem of Ba'al. One billion should do it!

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

The Sunni supporting ISIS in Iraq only need to turn on ISIS and destroy it there, but keep their Sunni authority and identity giving up this Caliphate-Jihad shit, which they would have done eventually.

--Brant

How do you know they would give up this Caliphate-Jihad shit? It hasn't been given up in 1400 years, so why would they suddenly give it up now?

The ISIS fighters are 1400 yo? (They'll stop doing it, mostly because most of them will soon be dead*.)

--Brant

hard to believe

*unless the President's balls are all in his mouth

[Richard Wiig]

The Sunni supporting ISIS in Iraq only need to turn on ISIS and destroy it there, but keep their Sunni authority and identity giving up this Caliphate-Jihad shit, which they would have done eventually.

--Brant

How do you know they would give up this Caliphate-Jihad shit? It hasn't been given up in 1400 years, so why would they suddenly give it up now?

The ISIS fighters are 1400 yo? (They'll stop doing it, mostly because most of them will soon be dead*.)

--Brant

hard to believe

*unless the President's balls are all in his mouth

That is quite a narrow view, Brant. For every ISIS fighter that dies, 2 or 3 or 4 are being born. Not just in Iraq and Syria, but also in your very own beloved America. This is a philosophical/ideological war, not a static numbers game.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

That is quite a narrow view, Brant.

That's a hell of a statement from the one-note samba guy.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

The Sunni supporting ISIS in Iraq only need to turn on ISIS and destroy it there, but keep their Sunni authority and identity giving up this Caliphate-Jihad shit, which they would have done eventually.

--Brant

How do you know they would give up this Caliphate-Jihad shit? It hasn't been given up in 1400 years, so why would they suddenly give it up now?

The ISIS fighters are 1400 yo? (They'll stop doing it, mostly because most of them will soon be dead*.)

--Brant

hard to believe

*unless the President's balls are all in his mouth

That is quite a narrow view, Brant. For every ISIS fighter that dies, 2 or 3 or 4 are being born. Not just in Iraq and Syria, but also in your very own beloved America. This is a philosophical/ideological war, not a static numbers game.

They're "being born" because of guys like you who want to fight religious wars with secular means. They're answering the call to arms. That's what Bush did when he invaded Iraq and the young Jihadists responded only to find themselves in an American killing field. With over one billion Muslims in the world you seem to want to fight them all forever. This one ups George Orwell's 1984 and its perpetual wars amongst a small block of super-states. The key trick in fighting these Muslim terrorists is deny them as much casus belli as possible while destroying state sponsorship of terrorism by various means as much under the table as possible. The Gulf War War (qua war) was one crude way to sort of do that. The second time was a trillion-dollar continuous disaster. What about 9-11? Flying those planes into the World Trade Center was pure bear-baiting. The terrorists want war. They don't want to create and produce. They want to fight and die (mostly the fellow Muslim other guy) and go to heaven and fuck the lights out of 72 (infidel?) virgins.

I left SOLO~Passion~eight years ago because I couldn't stand the bomb-the-mosque stupidity--but I have nothing against masturbation--and now that it's become a one-leg hopper you've decided to follow me here--but I ain't leaving OL because of you, but I will trounce and denounce what you are about and give you no mercy or surcease while bitch-slapping you all over this joint. If you only knew what you were really talking about I'd deal with you civilly. Since you don't, I'll have fun roasting you with words on the spit of rationality even if it catches your underwear on fire.

--Brant

that felt good--let's do it again!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

They're "being born" because of guys like you who want to fight religious wars with secular means. They're answering the call to arms.

Brant,

There is more depth to your comment than appears on the surface.

A fundamental component of the human psyche is that loss is a much stronger motivator than gain is. Marketers have known this for decades, but now it is being borne out empirically through neuroscience and psychology.

In other words, if a young man (the only one who does the actual frontline fighting en masse) feels he and/or his culture is under attack (especially by Satan), it is easy to get him to march straight into hell to avoid the loss to the conquerors. No questions asked. He doesn't go for the virgins. That's just icing. He goes to protect what he believes is Allah's will.

If you tell him he has to conquer the world in the name of this or that, even virgins or Allah, and that is all that is on the table, he will find all kinds of excuses to keep from signing up.

That's just human nature.

And the last time I looked, Muslims are humans, even the Islamist fanatics. These last may try to corrupt their minds as much as they can convincingly lie to themselves and get away with, but they are still human.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm almost afraid to say this because I do not want to encourage the normal bigotry that follows (need I name names? ), but here goes.

Obama said that ISIL is not Islamic.

Horseshit.

ISIL is Islamic.

Just as the KKK practices Christianity according to their warped understanding, so does ISIL practice Islam.

The great thing about holy books (all holy books) is that they are full of contradictions and metaphors, so one can pick and choose what one likes according to one's character and claim one is justified by God's will (or some version thereof), i.e., such a person can present "written proof" straight from the holy books.

But Obama packed in so much horseshit in under two minutes, it's breathtaking.

• He says ISIL is not Islamic. The fact is ISIL is Islamic.
• He says no religion condones the killing of innocents. The fact is lots of religions do.
  
• He says ISIL is certainly not a state. The fact is ISIL is definitely a state. Maybe not recognized by other states, but it is a state.
  
• He says ISIL took advantage of sectarian strife and Syria's civil war as if those were the only reasons it has grown. The fact is ISIL has a compelling mission for young Muslims who are being nudged into Islamism, that Satan (which is us) is winning and the only way to beat him is to reestablish the Caliphate and give hell right back to Satan. Young men do not take up arms and become brutal monsters over Obama's focus-group-studied phrases. They do that because they believe in a cause--mind, heart and soul all the way down to their toenails.
  
• He says the ISIL state is not recognized as a state by the people it subjugates. The fact is the people it subjugates are all scared not to recognize it.
  
• He says ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. The fact is ISIL is a new theocratic government that practices terrorism as one strategy among many.
  
• He says ISIL has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way. The fact is ISIL has a different and wickedly effective vision for attracting young men, i.e., defeating Satan here and now, including raising the ISIL flag over the White House. Slaughter is just one strategy for implementing that vision. Converting non-Muslims to Islam is another way. Propaganda is another way. Trickery is another way. (Need I go on?)
  
• He says ISIL is unique in its brutality. The fact is lots of people and organizations are just as brutal.
  
• He says ISIL, if left unchecked, could pose a threat to the United States. The fact is ISIL already does pose a threat to the United States.
  
• He says "we" (the USA government) have not yet detected specific plotting against our homeland. The fact is Homeland Security is currently saying to Congress that there are such specific plots, starting with ISIL agents crossing the Mexican border. Also, Obama claimed that ISIL started as a branch of Al Qaeda. So, by definition, ISIL was born with specific plots against the USA homeland already elaborated.
  
• He says citizens of other countries have joined ISIL and could try to return to their respective countries to carry out deadly attacks. The fact is lots have already received their indoctrination and training and returned to their respective countries.

That is a lot of horseshit to pack into such a small amount of time.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I'm confused by the previous post. Is this some kind of proactive activity?

--Brant

[Richard Wiig]

First off, I am not saying that you are narrow-minded, but I'm sure that is clear to you.

They're "being born" because of guys like you who want to fight religious wars with secular means. They're answering the call to arms.

Their call to arms doesn't even require the existence of guys like me. Why do you say that it does? Their call to arms is to establish Sharia. That is there imperative, and guys like me have nothing to do with that.

That's what Bush did when he invaded Iraq and the young Jihadists responded only to find themselves in an American killing field.

It's funny how the argument always goes one way and not the other. It's America, in whatever its latest flavour is, that is the problem. People respond to America and it is never the other way around. If only America did nothing all would be well with the world. You say that Bush deposing Saddam created Jihadists. By the same token, if you attack IS, won't you be creating Jihadists too just like Bush did?

And don't forget that in order to create Jihadists all you have to do is say I hate Islam, or draw a cartoon that Muslims find offensive. You don't have to go as far Bush did.

With over one billion muslims in the world you seem to want to fight them forever.

I don't know why it seems that way to you. I simply want to adequately deal with the problem of the rising jihad, not fight all the muslims, let alone forever. I want an efficacious approach to the problem, something that we are not getting at the moment, that is all. An efficacious approach is going to require truthfully looking at the problem, but ever since 9/11 it's been full-throttle to evade the truth.

This one ups George Orwell's 1984 and its perpetual wars amongst a small block of super-states.

The only reason they are calling it a perpetual war is because of evasion of naming the problem. Name the problem and there won't/can't be any perpetual war. Also, all the unnecessary surveillance could be removed.

The key trick in fighting these Muslim terrorists is deny them as much casus belli as possible while destroying state sponsorship of terrorism by various means as much under the table as possible.

Considering that all it takes to justify warring with non-muslims is a cartoon, it's a bit difficult to deny them as much justification as possible. They follow a religion that divides the world into two houses. The house of war (dar al harb) and the House of Peace (dar al Islam). Their religion tells them they are supposed to struggle until they bring all of dar al harb under dar al Islam. It prescribes a heap of rules for achieving that, some of which relate to terror. The rules don't say that all Muslims must strike terror into the hearts of the Kuffar. Only a handful are expected to do that. It is a means to an end, and the end is Sharia established universally on Earth. In regards to all the Muslims going to war, only a Caliph has the authority to make such a call. Since there is, so far, no firmly established Caliph that has legitimacy in the eyes of the majority of Muslims, we don't have a problem in that regard.

The terrorists want war.

The terrorists want to do their part in the struggle to bring dar al harb under dar al Islam, to bring the world under Sharia. The terrorists, or jihadists as they are properly known, are only one VERY SMALL part of that picture. The terrorism is the softening up, the scaring into compliance. The much greater part is cultural shift that is pushed for.

I left SOLO~Passion~eight years ago because I couldn't stand the bomb-the-mosque stupidity--but I have nothing against masturbation--and now that it's become a one-leg hopper you've decided to follow me here-

I didn't even know you were here, so how could I follow you. But in terms of constructiveness, my comment above, in saying your view was too narrow, was not non-constructive. I think that just killing them on the field won't stop them, because the problem isn't arising from out there in the killing fields. It's arising in the mosques.

-but I ain't leaving OL because of you,

I'd hope not, especially since I'm not doing anything against you or too you.

but I will trounce and denounce what you areabout and give you no mercy or surcease while bitch-slapping you all over this joint. If you only knew what you were really talking about I'd deal with you civilly. Since you don't, I'll have fun roasting you with words on the spit of rationality even if it catches your underwear on fire.

Whatever.

--Brant

that felt good--let's do it again!

Only if you take care of the birth control and make me breakfast.

[Brant Gaede]

Whenever I say "virgins" I'm being sarcastic. When I use the singular I'm in bed with one correcting the situation, or planning to.

--Brant

666 of them so far--so many virgins, so little time

[Brant Gaede]

Okay, Richard, we'll agree to disagree on tactics. We seem to be aiming at the same target, so WTF?

--Brant

a killer in the family

[Richard Wiig]

Okay, Richard, we'll agree to disagree on tactics. We seem to be aiming at the same target, so WTF?

--Brant

a killer in the family

Blowed if I know, Brant. In a nutshell all I've said is that just smashing them on the battlefield is not enough. It won't be the magic bullet.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Okay, Richard, we'll agree to disagree on tactics. We seem to be aiming at the same target, so WTF?

Brant,

Just a sweet bundle of rationality with a different tactic, ain't he?

Michael

[moralist]

First off, I am not saying that you are narrow-minded, but I'm sure that is clear to you.

They're "being born" because of guys like you who want to fight religious wars with secular means. They're answering the call to arms.

Their call to arms doesn't even require the existence of guys like me. Why do you say that it does? Their call to arms is to establish Sharia. That is there imperative, and guys like me have nothing to do with that.

That's what Bush did when he invaded Iraq and the young Jihadists responded only to find themselves in an American killing field.

It's funny how the argument always goes one way and not the other. It's America, in whatever its latest flavour is, that is the problem. People respond to America and it is never the other way around. If only America did nothing all would be well with the world. You say that Bush deposing Saddam created Jihadists. By the same token, if you attack IS, won't you be creating Jihadists too just like Bush did?

And don't forget that in order to create Jihadists all you have to do is say I hate Islam, or draw a cartoon that Muslims find offensive. You don't have to go as far Bush did.

With over one billion muslims in the world you seem to want to fight them forever.

I don't know why it seems that way to you. I simply want to adequately deal with the problem of the rising jihad, not fight all the muslims, let alone forever. I want an efficacious approach to the problem, something that we are not getting at the moment, that is all. An efficacious approach is going to require truthfully looking at the problem, but ever since 9/11 it's been full-throttle to evade the truth.

This one ups George Orwell's 1984 and its perpetual wars amongst a small block of super-states.

The only reason they are calling it a perpetual war is because of evasion of naming the problem. Name the problem and there won't/can't be any perpetual war. Also, all the unnecessary surveillance could be removed.

The key trick in fighting these Muslim terrorists is deny them as much casus belli as possible while destroying state sponsorship of terrorism by various means as much under the table as possible.

Considering that all it takes to justify warring with non-muslims is a cartoon, it's a bit difficult to deny them as much justification as possible. They follow a religion that divides the world into two houses. The house of war (dar al harb) and the House of Peace (dar al Islam). Their religion tells them they are supposed to struggle until they bring all of dar al harb under dar al Islam. It prescribes a heap of rules for achieving that, some of which relate to terror. The rules don't say that all Muslims must strike terror into the hearts of the Kuffar. Only a handful are expected to do that. It is a means to an end, and the end is Sharia established universally on Earth. In regards to all the Muslims going to war, only a Caliph has the authority to make such a call. Since there is, so far, no firmly established Caliph that has legitimacy in the eyes of the majority of Muslims, we don't have a problem in that regard.

The terrorists want war.

The terrorists want to do their part in the struggle to bring dar al harb under dar al Islam, to bring the world under Sharia. The terrorists, or jihadists as they are properly known, are only one VERY SMALL part of that picture. The terrorism is the softening up, the scaring into compliance. The much greater part is cultural shift that is pushed for.

I left SOLO~Passion~eight years ago because I couldn't stand the bomb-the-mosque stupidity--but I have nothing against masturbation--and now that it's become a one-leg hopper you've decided to follow me here-

I didn't even know you were here, so how could I follow you. But in terms of constructiveness, my comment above, in saying your view was too narrow, was not non-constructive. I think that just killing them on the field won't stop them, because the problem isn't arising from out there in the killing fields. It's arising in the mosques.

-but I ain't leaving OL because of you,

I'd hope not, especially since I'm not doing anything against you or too you.

but I will trounce and denounce what you areabout and give you no mercy or surcease while bitch-slapping you all over this joint. If you only knew what you were really talking about I'd deal with you civilly. Since you don't, I'll have fun roasting you with words on the spit of rationality even if it catches your underwear on fire.

Whatever.

--Brant

that felt good--let's do it again!

Only if you take care of the birth control and make me breakfast.

Infidel... you have calmly and eloquently made a very good case. While I can't speak for Miehael, I believe that his Muslim friends figure heavily into his responses.

I also have Muslim friends, but the difference is I understand that they are good people because they are bad Muslims. So I have absolutely no problem understanding your view without sinking into hate. The Islamic fascists have nothing to do with my friends and visa versa, because their values don't match.

The real threat to Western civilization is the bad people who are good Muslims. Their evil is most definitely spawned in the Mosques and the Medrasas.

Greg

[Selene]

The real threat to Western civilization is the bad people who are good Muslims. Their evil is

most definitely spawned in the Mosques and the Medrasas.

Greg

Sticky part of your statement Greg is that part of our federal taxes went to propping up those Mosques and Madrasas via our "intricate" relations with the House of Saud.

The House of Al Saud traces its origins to the 18th century emir, Muhammad ibn Saud, whose family ruled large parts of the Arabian Peninsula for over three hundred years. The modern House of Saud was

established in 1932, when Abd al-Aziz ibn Saud, a direct descendent of the 18th-century ruler,

established the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with himself as absolute monarch. Today, only his descendants

are considered part of the "royal" family line and eligible to ascend the throne.

Prolific little bastards...

Every Saudi king since has been a son of Abd al- Aziz. The number of his daughters is not known - they were not counted - but are estimated to be more than 50. Though many of his contemporaries regarded his practice of polygamy as excessive, it was continued and surpassed by his son, King Saud, who had 53 sons and at least 54 daughters. The descendants of King Abd al-Aziz now number in the thousands, many of whom hold important government positions.

Before he died, King Abd al-Aziz established a line of succession: Future kings were to be chosen from among his own sons, beginning with the oldest surviving son, Saud, and followed by the second oldest, Faisal. To date, five sons have ruled: Saud (1953-1964), Faisal (1964-1975), Khalid (1975-1982), Fahd (1982-2005), and Abdullah (2005-present). Several of his other sons currently serve in the highest levels of government: Salman, Nayef and Sultan - three of the famous "Sudayri Seven," a close-knit group of seven sons born to a mother from the Sudayri tribe. But most of King Abd al-Aziz's sons are now in their eighties - King Abdullah is eighty-three - and the day will soon come when a Saudi king is chosen from the third generation of the Al Saud.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saud/tree/ <<<< there is a nice "tree trunk" graphic on

the page.

A...

[moralist]

Sticky part of your statement Greg is that part of our federal taxes went to propping up those Mosques and Madrasas via our "intricate" relations with the House of Saud.

And to add insult to injury... the politically correct liberals who defined the terrorist Fort Hood mass murder as "workplace violence", also support CAIR because they hate American culture and values almost as much as the Islamic fascists do.

Greg

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

While I can't speak for Miehael, I believe that his Muslim friends figure heavily into his responses.

Greg,

When CAIR makes a long reasonable statement, which it sometimes does, would you take it at face value? Or would you evaluate it in light of its past and see the reasonable statement as an attempt to obfuscate its true intentions?

I evaluate based on observing the past.

I use the same standard for everyone, including this guy.

That is what figures heavily into my response.

Michael

[moralist]

Fair enough Michael. I should know better than to try to speak for you.

I still hold the subjective opinion that the good/bad Muslim issue figures into the picture. In my experience from those I know, the worse the Muslim, the better the person, and visa versa.

Greg

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Greg,

The enemy of my enemy is not my friend. At times such a person can be a useful idiot, but it's like keeping a pet rattlesnake. When biting time comes, it doesn't care who it bites.

Michael

[Jules Troy]

Warning! Now entering a Sharia-free zone!

Set your watches forward 1400 years.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jules,

I agree.

OL is and always will be a sharia-free zone.

The whole sharia law system sucks, just like all theocracies.

Michael

[Jules Troy]

I used to be pretty hardcore anti catholic, with all the boy bumping priests etc. I still am but more in a "who gives a damn about religion kind of way".

As long as a religion doesn't try and change ME or make me accommodate it then people can just carry in believing in fairy dust or whatever nonsensical crap they want. If the West just stuck to the laws governing western values and didn't budge we would not have this domestic mess we are in thanks to the "progressive" girly men in power pissing away our freedoms.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Getting back to the enemy of my enemy is not my friend, here is an example of two people who are against ISIS (which I am against), so much so they say ISIS needs to be "smoked."

Are these enemies of ISIS really my friend?

Heh.

http://youtu.be/NFiEE09gnzY

Let's start with basics.

Would anyone follow these two clowns into battle against ISIS?

If I were in the military and was ordered to go against ISIS, I know I would not get much sleep if people like this were in control. I might even think about deserting, not because I would be against the cause, but because I know they would fuck it up so bad, and for all the wrong reasons, I and everyone around me could get killed over nothing.

I used to think these folks lied on purpose, but now I believe they don't even see the contradictions coming out of their own mouths. I swear, this interview between Maher and Pelosi reminds me of James Taggart talking to Lillian Rearden.

Michael

[Richard Wiig]

Infidel... you have calmly and eloquently made a very good case. While I can't speak for Miehael, I believe that his Muslim friends figure heavily into his responses.

I also have Muslim friends, but the difference is I understand that they are good people because they are bad Muslims. So I have absolutely no problem understanding your view without sinking into hate. The Islamic fascists have nothing to do with my friends and visa versa, because their values don't match.

The real threat to Western civilization is the bad people who are good Muslims. Their evil is most definitely spawned in the Mosques and the Medrasas.

Greg

Thank you Greg,

I haven't said anything here in the past that has any other meaning than the above.

Richard

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I haven't said anything here in the past that has any other meaning than the above.

Got any bridges to sell cheap? I want to buy one.

Michael