Link: ISIS' ("DAESH") underlying theology...

Jon said:

so that would mean that the second coming already happened?

OK, so what now?

Click to expand...

Tidewater said:

Geography does not help the west. The Damascus government hold the Mediterranean coast, and the Russians have used this area to set up their base at Latakia. (This may explain in part why the Russian bombing has been concentrated against the rebel area closest to Latakia.) The western-based rebels have no such luxury (unless someone wants to come in through the Golan or WN Jordan).
No fly areas won't help much. Daesh does not fly much anyway. The biggest purchases of Daesh oil is probably Turkey, so no embargo of buying oil from them will work unless the Turks are on board.

Click to expand...

bamaphd@una said:

I'm now reading some rather interesting things about the "immigrants" and the timing of the Paris events. Now, wherever these immigrants go, they will likely be confronted by hate and discrimination. This will, in turn, turn some of them into the mentality of ISIS. They will then be spread globally, with a hatred towards their host countries, and bond with the ideology of ISIS. This seems like a nightmare scenario....

Thoughts? Personally I'm just beyond spooked.....

Click to expand...

Gr8hope said:

Part of the plan by radical Islamists. They show up asking for handouts, having been told what they can expect from other countries. When they are disappointed, they get angry.

As far as trying to understand their religion, if you bring a tiger into your home you don't need to ask him why he wants to eat you. It is all he knows.

Click to expand...

bamaphd@una said:

I agree, we can't let them in. The only thing I disagree with, is that these people are not "radical". It is written in the Koran that they MUST do the things they are doing. Otherwise they are "infidels". They are "biblical" literalists, which defines muslims. Peace-loving, so called "muslims " know not of what their religion teaches. The "peace loving" muslims really have no respect for the very Koran wherein they pledge their allegiance.

Again, though, we should allow 0 "refugees" as their would surely be terrorists imbedded. Even 1 in a 1,000 would present major problems....

i actually agree to the far-sided reaction of nuking them back to the Stone Age....mostly...

Click to expand...

81usaf92 said:

For all these knee jerk reactions of nuking them, y'all aren't thinking real hard about it. Nuking Syria will change politics and trade agreements with the west even if it is limited only to Syria. That will most likely make the volgaland oil fields the biggest supplier of oil in for the western world and cripple the us economy because Putin will more than likely make the price sky high. So unless you want Russia as the lone super power I really think nuking Syria is way worse than boots on the ground.

Click to expand...

Tide1986 said:

It's not knee-jerk to make Raqqa an uninhabitable wasteland. Of course dropping a small nuke on Raqqa might cause oil prices to momentarily increase. However, the increase will have essentially nothing to do with oil production in Syria because Syria's contribution to the world's oil supply is negligible.

Click to expand...

81usaf92 said:

Saudi being hacked off is the main concern, they could cut us out and most likely would

Click to expand...

Tide1986 said:

I responded to this notion in the other thread.

Click to expand...

The ugly truth is that ISIS and its affiliates have been allowed to put down such deep roots that more attacks are inevitable. Here, too.

What can be done? The answer is easy to mouth — and unwelcome to those who conduct foreign policy by platitudes (such as “there’s no military solution”). The base line is that you can’t win by playing defense. You must take the war to the enemy — without restraint. If you’re not determined to win at any cost, you’ll lose.

Our military has the resources to shatter ISIS, but political correctness has penetrated so deep into the Pentagon that, even should a president issue the one-word order, “Win!,” our initial actions would be cautious and halting. We’ve bred a generation of military leaders afraid of being prosecuted by their own government for the kind of errors inevitable in wartime. Instead of “leaning forward in the foxhole,” our leaders lean on lawyers.

If lawyers had had to approve our World War II target lists, we couldn’t have won. War is never clean or easy, and the strictures imposed on our military today just protect our enemies. Collateral damage and civilian casualties are part of combat and always will be. The most humane approach is to pile on fast and win decisively — which results in far less suffering than the sort of protracted agony we see in Syria.

The generals who won World War II would start by leveling Raqqa, the ISIS caliphate’s capital. Civilians would die, but those remaining in Raqqa have embraced ISIS, as Germans did Hitler. The jihadis must be crushed. Start with their “Berlin.”

Kill ten thousand, save a million.

Unthinkable? Fine. We lose.

And the jihadis? They’ll always have Paris.

Click to expand...

TIDE-HSV said:

Muhammad wrote, or, rather, dictated, since he was illiterate, some very, very immoderate things. Sure, these guys are ignoring the centuries intervening of Muslim scholarship. They're taking it back to the seventh century...

Click to expand...

81usaf92 said:

My biggest issue with the quaran is that the word literally translates to "recitation " and you can see it in the suras. in one sura Mohammed will say all people of the book should die, and then the next one he will say that islamic people should not show any ill will to them but rather show them that Islam is the only true version of theology. So it is easy to cherry pick and interpret different ways to validate one's cause. And Im sure Jon is typing at this very moment to say "well the Torah and the Christian Bible..." lol

Click to expand...