ISIS territories have doubled in Syria since allied bombings began

[Deleted]

Except no one is calling for that. There are people in this thread calling for nuclear strikes. It's not just a liberal strawman of their position.

http://www.svt.se/nyheter/regionalt/...per-is-krigare

Enjoy.

[Kaneiac]

ISIS has no goal of surrendering, or no self-preservation instinct, like they would if it was an actual country. Bombing alone isn't enough to stop them, especially with radicals growing by the day.

[ringpriest]

Left wing psychopaths are demanding we take the Islamic warriors and give them a stable job hot wife and a villa.

That actually works - "All You Need Is Love".

[Tradewind]

http://www.svt.se/nyheter/regionalt/...per-is-krigare

Enjoy.

I can't speak IKEA

[Deleted]

That actually works - "All You Need Is Love".

Not against people that haven't experienced enlightenment.

I can't speak IKEA

It's swedish you can guess the contents.

[Tradewind]

It's swedish you can guess the contents.

I see a picture of dudes on a hummer, lookin, thing with guns...and then instructions on building a bed, or possibly a desk.

[ringpriest]

Not against people that haven't experienced enlightenment.

Actually, for pretty much anyone. The article I linked is about how the PLO shut down their Black September wing (very much a terrorist organization); they found them "hot wives", a home, and "good paying jobs". It worked. (And compared to war, war, war, war and more war, it's a hell of a lot cheaper. Doesn't make any defense contractors big bucks though.)

Even leaving aside such optimistic solutions, a study by the RAND Corporation back in 2008 showed quite clearly that war doesn't work. (.pdf link to full study)

All terrorist groups eventually end. But how do they end? The evidence since 1968 indicates that most groups have ended because (1) they joined the political process (43 percent) or (2) local police and intelligence agencies arrested or killed key members (40 percent). Military force has rarely been the primary reason for the end of terrorist groups, and few groups within this time frame have achieved victory. This has significant implications for dealing with al Qa'ida and suggests fundamentally rethinking post-9/11 U.S. counterterrorism strategy: Policymakers need to understand where to prioritize their efforts with limited resources and attention. The authors report that religious terrorist groups take longer to eliminate than other groups and rarely achieve their objectives. The largest groups achieve their goals more often and last longer than the smallest ones do. Finally, groups from upper-income countries are more likely to be left-wing or nationalist and less likely to have religion as their motivation. The authors conclude that policing and intelligence, rather than military force, should form the backbone of U.S. efforts against al Qa'ida. And U.S. policymakers should end the use of the phrase “war on terrorism” since there is no battlefield solution to defeating al Qa'ida.

[Deleted]

Actually, for pretty much anyone. The article I linked is about how the PLO shut down their Black September wing (very much a terrorist organization); they found them "hot wives", a home, and "good paying jobs". It worked. (And compared to war, war, war, war and more war, it's a hell of a lot cheaper. Doesn't make any defense contractors big bucks though.)

Even leaving aside such optimistic solutions, a study by the RAND Corporation back in 2008 showed quite clearly that war doesn't work. (.pdf link to full study)

Sure, you'll end the troublemakers abroad, but how are you going to prevent your own troublemarkers from going apeshit? the same way? Then the outside troublemakers start feeling left out and they begin again... the circle continues.

[araine]

bombing etc can only ever do a minor job of slowing down things it cant solve the underlaying problem in the region and the world. What can do that is making sure we get a better middle eastern policy in place as a whole. The one that has been used for the last 60 years have clearly not worked very well in creating peace and removing terrorists from getting recruited.

It over and over comes down to this overall failed middle eastern policy and as long as we hold on to that we arent credible when it comes to handling the issues in the middle east

[ati87]

Sure, you'll end the troublemakers abroad, but how are you going to prevent your own troublemarkers from going apeshit? the same way? Then the outside troublemakers start feeling left out and they begin again... the circle continues.

The same way you handle people that go on a killing spree when their ethnic background isn't from a muslim country.

Also it will also help if immigrants feel less threatened....

That will start ofc with reporting events equal in the news for example.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...s-islamophobia

This happened a few weeks ago...if this had happened to a Jewish or Christian building it would have been breaking news and you would have seen people demanding that they nuked everything in the middle east.

And if your going to say ''freedom of speech'' for everybody then it has to be true freedom of speech, so if you can say everything about Islam then you should be allowed to say everything about Jews which right now isn't the case (have nothing against jews)

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/01...ending-terror/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_6469726.html

Like many European countries, France has strong laws against hate speech and especially anti-Semitism in the wake of the Holocaust. In a message distributed to all French prosecutors and judges, the Justice Ministry laid out the legal basis for rounding up those who defend the Paris terror attacks as well as those responsible for racist or anti-Semitic words or acts.

This is the important part (source fox news), it literately say if you say anything bad about jews then that's a reason to get arrested, but you are allowed to say everything about Muslims.

[Dezerte]

I specifically said in the OP that the bombing did not cause their gains to grow, just that they are not stopping them

Fair enough.

[PACOX]

That map is like saying the Crips own the entire US...

[Orlong]

Let's see if you see your family and children blown to pieces, killed like a dog for no good reason, if you wouldn't want to go on a killing spree in the lands of the priviledged with soft lives.

US is responsible for creating all these terrorists, someone else probably is going to have to clean up the mess.

They are the ones that made the first move hundreds of years ago

[breadisfunny]

why is there that white space in the middle of all that red?

[Fugus]

They are the ones that made the first move hundreds of years ago

While it is true that they have been killing EACH OTHER for centuries, them attacking others and getting this severe about it is an effect of the US and other nations interfering with them for the last few decades.

Yes, ISIS needs to go and go with a quickness, all sides agree with that, but don't discount or own involvement in creating them. We were the ones who overthrew a democratically elected government decades ago and installed our own tyrant, this is fallout from that crap.

[Thekri]

They are the ones that made the first move hundreds of years ago

No, they were not alive hundreds of years ago. Each generation makes their own choices.

Rochana is not wrong, in fact that is a huge reason for the radicalization of new terrorists. But it isn't the full story either.

Counter-terrorism on a global scale is an incredibly difficult problem, and obviously not one that has been solved yet. Lethal force is absolutely needed against those that are already radicalized, in most cases they cannot be negotiated with, and it is necessary to neutralize them before they strike. On the other hand the phenomena Rochana points out is real, strike too hard, or the wrong targets, and you create a vast population in fear and misery, and they will strike back.

While most westerners fall into the "Kill them all" or "Leave them alone" camps, the fact is that neither work. Some theories that have been tried include nation building, a concept that was idolized by several administrations and the news. The concept is that if you build a prosperous secular democracy in the middle east, terrorism will naturally starve from lack of recruits. The only problem is that you can't do it for them, it doesn't last even if many of them want it too. Also that approach took so much resources even the US can't afford it any more.

Some advocate a surgical strike policy, kill the most dangerous, constantly disrupt them. That requires a lot of resources too, relies on intelligence that can never be perfect, and teaches entire cultures to be afraid of the dark AND be afraid of clear blue skies. It tends to lead to a hydra problem, where two more take the place of every one killed, due to impoverished cultures that hold the slain up as martyrs and blame the west for their problems.

I don't know the right answer, western governments are still trying their best to figure it out.

[Easo]

As far as I am aware, ISIS doesnt have stuff like tanks anymore, and kurds have pushed them back. So...
P.S.
Syria in those parts is mostly desert. Journalism xD

[Omgodzilla]

There are way too many psychopaths in this thread...

I propose instead of nuking the area

We VX gas bomb the entire country. Wait a week. Firebomb the country to clear the gas.

Repopulate said country with a less annoying populace.

- - - Updated - - -

Or perhaps we wall off the entire country and anybody who wants out is sterilized ie can't reproduce. Everyone else gets to stay in said country but not be associated with the rest of us.

Why stop there? Why not enslave the population while you're at it?

[arandomuser]

I see, the obvious solution is to double down and bomb them some more!

[Thekri]

I see, the obvious solution is to double down and bomb them some more!

Well, I suppose that depends on your tolerance to slaughter. We could kill the entire population, hunt down and kill every professing Muslim on the planet. After a generation or so Islamic extremism would be gone.

Such an act would be horrifically evil, it would destroy any semblance of morality we may claim to have, but it could be done.

Islamic Extremism is a pinprick to the west, it is nothing. The Media covers each attack with wall to wall coverage for weeks, but what does it actually do? Heart Disease kills thousands of times more than terrorism. Even such relatively rare things as drowning an electrocution kill many times what terrorist acts do, at least it the west. It in no way justifies mass slaughter of innocents.

It does justify tracking down and killing the terrorists that do it, but this isn't a culture/religious war on Islam yet, we could make it that way if enough people feel like you, and then billions will die.