The Ugly Truth: Defeating ISIS Will Take Decades

[jet57]

L-M, who is the primary contractor on the Orion Space Vehicle? The same L-M that is advancing the use of carbon nanotubes? The same L-M that is the main leader in IT and Logistic support for commerical airports?

I bet most had no idea that their most profitable areas are in the field of IT. L-M provides computer services to thousands of companies and government agencies, from the DoS and BLM to McDonalds and USPS.

And really, Xe? You know they have been gone for 5 years now, right?

Yea, shut down all the Capitolist businesses,. Like Montgomery-Ward and Circuit City.

I'm talking abut the military industrial complex. Dwight Eisenhower warned US about those guys, and here we are: up to our eyeballs in never ending war with the complex making billions.

 

[eohrnberger]

This war has been going on for over 50 years, and will likely continue for another 50 or more.

However, the worst thing you can do is to simply stop fighting it. That lets them gain a foothold and expand their forces, allowing them to make bigger and bloodier attacks.

We saw that in the 1980's. Several countries gave them safehavens, and they expanded their attacks to other areas with larger attacks. Then in the mid 1980's, several attacks against these state sponsors caused most of them to back off their support, and they were forced to go underground again.

Until the 1990's, when the turmoil and lack of attention in post-Soviet Afghanistan allowed them to regroup and enlarge their forces. So long as they kept their attacks inside Afghanistan, the world largely left them alone.

After 2001 they were fractured and broken for the next decade. Small attacks here and there, not much of consequence. But because of ISIS, they once again have a "country" they can operate out of, and gain new recruits.

Likely, we will never really eliminate them. However, we can keep them fractured and on the defensive, with no place to call home and build up supporters and fighters.

As dark and grim and costly as all that sounds, it sure beats any alternative that allows ISIS and other militant Islamic extremists to grow in land mass and control.

 

[jet57]

As dark and grim and costly as all that sounds, it sure beats any alternative that allows ISIS and other militant Islamic extremists to grow in land mass and control.

I don't think that it take long at all to get rid of ISIS. If they'll get on the ball and choke off the money by grabbing the people financing them, it'll be easy to make it go away.

 

[Oozlefinch]

I'm talking abut the military industrial complex. Dwight Eisenhower warned US about those guys, and here we are: up to our eyeballs in never ending war with the complex making billions.

Actually, he did not warn us about "those guys". I love how people constantly take what he said out of context and use it for their own agenda.

Here, here is what he actually said:

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction...

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.

His actual threat was against the unrestrained influence of power in a single segment of our nation, which could then lead the country into wars. And when he said that, he was thinking specifically of Nazi Germany and Showa era Japan. He was not talking of the corporations and military itself, which he also stated is "(a) vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment". He had been using such phrases since at least 1947, in recognition of how Germany had bound Military, Politics, and Industry in order to support it's expansionistic and war goals. He was saying we should not do the same, not against the companies themselves as a block.

Like so many people, you grab something that you think supports your point, and then rip it completely out of context. It was not the "MIC" itself he was warning us about, but a militant expansionistic mindset.

 

[eohrnberger]

I don't think that it take long at all to get rid of ISIS. If they'll get on the ball and choke off the money by grabbing the people financing them, it'll be easy to make it go away.

I'm all for it. Don't care if it's the rich Saudi's, or whomever. Yes, I perceive radical Islamic extremists as that much of a threat.

 

[Jack Hays]

I don't think that it take long at all to get rid of ISIS. If they'll get on the ball and choke off the money by grabbing the people financing them, it'll be easy to make it go away.

I'm all for it. Don't care if it's the rich Saudi's, or whomever. Yes, I perceive radical Islamic extremists as that much of a threat.

[h=3]Financing Terror: Where Does the Islamic State Group Get ...[/h]www.usnews.com/.../financing-terror-where-...


U.S. News & World Report


Nov 23, 2015 - The Islamic State [group] is primarily financed through a variety of ... to be called ISIS and before that the Islamic State in Iraq, al-Qaeda in Iraq, ...

 

[Port & Starboard]

ISIS has already won. Even if the main force (as we call it) is beaten down, they will continue on with the splinter groups and lone wolf wannabe's.

It's a whole new world folks.

 

[eohrnberger]

ISIS has already won. Even if the main force (as we call it) is beaten down, they will continue on with the splinter groups and lone wolf wannabe's.

It's a whole new world folks.

What of the claim from some that once ISIS doesn't have any land mass, that their legitimacy at claiming themselves a Caliphate evaporates?
And their legitimacy along with it.

 

[Jack Hays]

ISIS has already won. Even if the main force (as we call it) is beaten down, they will continue on with the splinter groups and lone wolf wannabe's.

It's a whole new world folks.

That's why it's The Long War.

 

[Oozlefinch]

As dark and grim and costly as all that sounds, it sure beats any alternative that allows ISIS and other militant Islamic extremists to grow in land mass and control.

ISIS is primarily an insurgency that has done something most can only dream of. It has actually been able to lock down some land and gain legitimacy.

And putting it down will take decades. As it has with any other insurgency. But with the loss of their power base, the majority will likely fold in short order.

I don't think that it take long at all to get rid of ISIS. If they'll get on the ball and choke off the money by grabbing the people financing them, it'll be easy to make it go away.

Oh really?

Tell me, how is the effort to get rid of FARC going? The KKK? EZLN? The Red Brigades? MNLF? MILF?

The list simply goes on and on and on. Such groups almost never simply "go away", they simply change names and leaders.

Heck, even after the IRA and PIRA stopped their struggle, you had the "Real IRA" pop up, conducting attacks in Ireland and England.

You are living in a fantasy if you think this is something that is so easily done. Hell, we still have Nazi organizations operating in Germany for goodness sakes.

 

[Port & Starboard]

What of the claim from some that once ISIS doesn't have any land mass, that their legitimacy at claiming themselves a Caliphate evaporates?
And their legitimacy along with it.

19 hijackers took down the WTC without needing a land base.

 

[Oozlefinch]

What of the claim from some that once ISIS doesn't have any land mass, that their legitimacy at claiming themselves a Caliphate evaporates?
And their legitimacy along with it.

It will not evaporate, but it will loose most of it's support.

To run an insurgency, you need 3 things. Money and supplies, recruits, and a base to operate out of.

The first is the easiest to gain. There are people that will donate money and supplies to almost anything. The harder is to gain safe bases and recruits. But the more success an organization has, the more will go to support them, thinking that they will solve all the problems in the world.

Remember, the NAZI movement in Germany largely started by dissatisfied veterans. After an attempted coup it was almost destroyed and it's leaders put in jail. A decade later it was the party in control of the government.

 

[Port & Starboard]

It will not evaporate, but it will loose most of it's support.

To run an insurgency, you need 3 things. Money and supplies, recruits, and a base to operate out of.

The first is the easiest to gain. There are people that will donate money and supplies to almost anything. The harder is to gain safe bases and recruits. But the more success an organization has, the more will go to support them, thinking that they will solve all the problems in the world.

Remember, the NAZI movement in Germany largely started by dissatisfied veterans. After an attempted coup it was almost destroyed and it's leaders put in jail. A decade later it was the party in control of the government.

There will always be money available. They do not need land bases due to modern communication.

 

[Oozlefinch]

19 hijackers took down the WTC without needing a land base.

ISIS is not al-Qaeda. Conducting a terrorist attack is not the same thing as trying to conquer a nation.

Remember, al-Qaeda was never an "army" as most people think of it. They never tried to gain land, or enlarge past a controllable size. It was a "revolutionary army" that worked to support other organizations that actually held the power. OBL was more then happy to try to live "in the shadows", knowing that doing so left him largely invisible to the rest of the world.

Even with all of the attacks he did prior to September 2001, only a small percentage of people had ever heard of him or his organization.

 

[Oozlefinch]

There will always be money available. They do not need land bases due to modern communication.

They do if they want to do anything other then small attacks here and there.

And remember, those modern communications come at a price. It makes it easier for them to communicate. It also makes it easier to intercept messages, and to hunt them down and kill them.

Ironically, it is that very "modern communication" that makes them highly vulnerable.

 

[eohrnberger]

19 hijackers took down the WTC without needing a land base.

True, that.

 

[jet57]

I'm all for it. Don't care if it's the rich Saudi's, or whomever. Yes, I perceive radical Islamic extremists as that much of a threat.

Well said. The Saudis are not our friends.

 

[Port & Starboard]

ISIS is not al-Qaeda. Conducting a terrorist attack is not the same thing as trying to conquer a nation.

Remember, al-Qaeda was never an "army" as most people think of it. They never tried to gain land, or enlarge past a controllable size. It was a "revolutionary army" that worked to support other organizations that actually held the power. OBL was more then happy to try to live "in the shadows", knowing that doing so left him largely invisible to the rest of the world.

Even with all of the attacks he did prior to September 2001, only a small percentage of people had ever heard of him or his organization.

You missed the point....and probably should have considering my lack of input. What I mean is........the mindset is already out there with a 10-20 million idiots who have the radical sense of righteousness. It doesn't have to be a ISIS, or al-Qaeda group by itself. It's not going away in our kids lifetime, or probably their kids either.

 

[jet57]

Actually, he did not warn us about "those guys". I love how people constantly take what he said out of context and use it for their own agenda.

Here, here is what he actually said:



His actual threat was against the unrestrained influence of power in a single segment of our nation, which could then lead the country into wars. And when he said that, he was thinking specifically of Nazi Germany and Showa era Japan. He was not talking of the corporations and military itself, which he also stated is "(a) vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment". He had been using such phrases since at least 1947, in recognition of how Germany had bound Military, Politics, and Industry in order to support it's expansionistic and war goals. He was saying we should not do the same, not against the companies themselves as a block.

Like so many people, you grab something that you think supports your point, and then rip it completely out of context. It was not the "MIC" itself he was warning us about, but a militant expansionistic mindset.

Uh, no. Eisenhower DID warn US:

, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.

He warns us about them in the same sentence and then says that such "influence" will persist, and he was exactly right.

So, I'm afraid you're wrong on that.

 

[Port & Starboard]

They do if they want to do anything other then small attacks here and there.

And remember, those modern communications come at a price. It makes it easier for them to communicate. It also makes it easier to intercept messages, and to hunt them down and kill them.

Ironically, it is that very "modern communication" that makes them highly vulnerable.

Did we catch the guy at Fort Hood?

The couple in San Bernadino?

The WTC?

France?

England subways?

They will filter through regardless. Either in a lone wolf situation, or well planned organizations.

 

[jet57]

[h=3]Financing Terror: Where Does the Islamic State Group Get ...[/h]www.usnews.com/.../financing-terror-where-...


U.S. News & World Report


Nov 23, 2015 - The Islamic State [group] is primarily financed through a variety of ... to be called ISIS and before that the Islamic State in Iraq, al-Qaeda in Iraq, ...

Right. People are buying their oil and they do receive financing from rich interests. Dry that up, and they go away real easy. All we have to do is push them. I don't know why we're not.

 

[Oozlefinch]

You missed the point....and probably should have considering my lack of input. What I mean is........the mindset is already out there with a 10-20 million idiots who have the radical sense of righteousness. It doesn't have to be a ISIS, or al-Qaeda group by itself. It's not going away in our kids lifetime, or probably their kids either.

But how effective were they without such bases?

Yes, AQ killed some people. Hundreds of them. That is nothing when compared to the tens of thousands killed by ISIS.

And I agree it is not going away, we have been fighting such groups for over half a century. The best we can do is keep them small and on the run, to keep down the effects of their attacks.

Uh, no. Eisenhower DID warn US:

He warns us about them in the same sentence and then says that such "influence" will persist, and he was exactly right.

So, I'm afraid you're wrong on that.

So you think his "unawarranted influence" is a call for the destruction of the organizations?

And you claim to be a "centrist"? Sorry, I do not take radicals seriously. Especially radicals who try to claim they are mainstream.

Did we catch the guy at Fort Hood?

The couple in San Bernadino?

The WTC?

France?

England subways?

They will filter through regardless. Either in a lone wolf situation, or well planned organizations.

You are lumping a great many attacks together, which does not apply.

WTC, 15 years ago from a small organization not connected to ISIS.

The 2005 London attacks. 4 attackers, also backed by AQ. Not an "organized army", a pure terrorist attack.

San Bernadino? 2 individuals with as yet no real connection to ISIS, but who thought they might help create a similar movement here in the US (not all that unlike the SLA really).

France is the only one you listed that was something else, yet still primarily a terrorist attack. Not an attempt to directly spread a movement.

 

[Port & Starboard]

Vietnam taught us nothing.

We continue into wars without understanding the mindset of the people we are going up against.

People and cultures that are willing to sacrifice their own children are just as powerful as a any army.

Vietnam is almost kids school compared to what we are facing now. I'm not trying to be being disrespectful to my "Nam" brethren, but the conflict there was contained within a geographical area. We are now fighting a righteous ideology spread across the globe.

 

[Port & Starboard]

But how effective were they without such bases?

Yes, AQ killed some people. Hundreds of them. That is nothing when compared to the tens of thousands killed by ISIS.

And I agree it is not going away, we have been fighting such groups for over half a century. The best we can do is keep them small and on the run, to keep down the effects of their attacks.



So you think his "unawarranted influence" is a call for the destruction of the organizations?

And you claim to be a "centrist"? Sorry, I do not take radicals seriously. Especially radicals who try to claim they are mainstream.



You are lumping a great many attacks together, which does not apply.

WTC, 15 years ago from a small organization not connected to ISIS.

The 2005 London attacks. 4 attackers, also backed by AQ. Not an "organized army", a pure terrorist attack.

San Bernadino? 2 individuals with as yet no real connection to ISIS, but who thought they might help create a similar movement here in the US (not all that unlike the SLA really).

France is the only one you listed that was something else, yet still primarily a terrorist attack. Not an attempt to directly spread a movement.

That's exactly what I am trying to impress. We are fighting a ideology....................not a army.

 

[Oozlefinch]

That's exactly what I am trying to impress. We are fighting a ideology....................not a army.

Now, we are fighting an army.

The Taliban was an army, al-Qaeda was an organization.

Remove the WTC, and the Taliban puts the death count of AQ to shame.

AQ was never able to go into villiages and round everybody up, and kill those who refused to join them. AQ never rounded up those who followed a different religion and slaughtered them wholesale. They did attacks for political purposes, they never tried to gain land or "converts".

Now the ideology can take many forms. The same ideology that is behind ISIS and the Taliban is also behind those in Indonesia and the Philippines. In some it is small groups doing attacks. In others, they are trying to create what they think of as a perfect government by overthrowing the current one. In some, they are the government itself through violence.

It is not as simple as you are making it out to be. The Philippines is a perfect example, it has been going on there for over 150 years.