[Purple Haize]

ISIS is pure evil. There's no getting around that. We have to do what we can to eliminate evil and protect our people. I'll celebrate the eradication of evil but I can't celebrate someone dying.

Which is a big difference between 'US' and 'THEM'

[Humble_Opinion]

I'm not against military action, for the record. I just despise the kind of mindset BJ spewed on here.

Which I then followed with this. I know it is easy to jump to conclusions when you're emotional about a topic but I am clearly not against action. There is just a huge difference between being responsible about it and whatever it is BJ wants us to do.

Yeah - I did see that later. I guess if it were me I would have criticized BJ's post and then stated my own support for some sort of action in the same response as opposed to doing it later. No big deal though. You're also right about DB's being a tough place to have these sorts of conversations.

The situation is complex and I don't know that full victory, the types espoused in works like On War, can be achieved here. We aren't fighting a government or a nation, and as much as Obama and the rest of the establishment in America wants to ignore it, the truth is we are fighting a theology. These peoples' theology is one of destruction and death, whether their enemies, or their own. Throughout the history of conflict, people or nations generally have fought up to the point where they are about to be fully disarmed, or killed. Once that threshold is reached, they then acquiesce to the demands of their enemy. In this case, I don't think that will not be possible, simply because of the fact that our enemies' worldview rewards them for death. Therefore, the only way to stop them for good is to utterly and completely destroy them.

[SuperJon]

One thing we need to remember is these aren't normal Muslims. They've distorted and perverted the Islamic faith to make it say whatever they want. They're attacking traditional Muslims just like they're attacking Christians. We need to call it what it is: evil. Not Muslim.

[ATrain]

One thing we need to remember is these aren't normal Muslims. They've distorted and perverted the Islamic faith to make it say whatever they want. They're attacking traditional Muslims just like they're attacking Christians. We need to call it what it is: evil. Not Muslim.

How about evil Islamic extremists? B/c that is the very definition of what they are.

[SuperJon]

If you can say all of that every time, yes.

A lot of people are just calling them Muslims and that's a knock at traditional Muslims.

[Humble_Opinion]

One thing we need to remember is these aren't normal Muslims. They've distorted and perverted the Islamic faith to make it say whatever they want. They're attacking traditional Muslims just like they're attacking Christians. We need to call it what it is: evil. Not Muslim.

Notice that I didn't say Islamic/Muslim in my statement. To a point, I agree with Obama that attaching this group to Islam is a mistake. However, from a strategic standpoint, I'd only be willing to do this as long as moderate Muslim nations (ie. Jordan and even Egypt to an extent) are willing to back-up their critiques with action like they have done up to this point.

[ATrain]

If you can say all of that every time, yes.

A lot of people are just calling them Muslims and that's a knock at traditional Muslims.

I've always used the adjectives "radical," and "extremists," as well as the word "Islamic," when describing ISIS and Al-Qaeda members.

[Humble_Opinion]

If you can say all of that every time, yes.

A lot of people are just calling them Muslims and that's a knock at traditional Muslims.

I've always used the adjectives "radical," and "extremists," as well as the word "Islamic," when describing ISIS and Al-Qaeda members.

The problem here is that the extremists side of Islam isn't limited to the different groups that live out the teachings they adhere to (Al Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.). These are just sectarian groups using their theological beliefs as a means to fund and organize actions that allow them to achieve their objectives. I would argue that most of the controlling interests in Iran could be ascribed as "extremists". If you know anything about the Mahdi, and what is necessary for his reign (according to all sects of Islam) then you should be able to see the correlations to current times and recognize the danger associated with a great deal more people than just the few groups we typically describe as "extremists."

[4everfsu]

First of all I do not like war. But then I do not like loss of freedom, slavery and then loss of my life or my loved ones because we have become too much a nation of pansies.

If you think you are going to level a town or area and tell the civilians to leave before the attack, what makes you think ISIS will let them leave. They ISIS will want to use them as human shield thinking that the cowardly Americans would not endanger the lives of the civilians. ISIS has already killed these people directly or indirectly, they are marked for death.

Countries are not afraid of America any longer because our words do not scare them, thus we are a nation of pansies.

Some of you are too young but when Iran took our hostages under Carter. Ronald Reagan ran on the promise if he was elected President he would free them with what ever might he had to use. He won the election, Iran crapped their pants and the hostages were immediately released. Why because other nations respected us and feared us based on our word.

What America needs to do is send a message to ISIS, any other terrorist organization and countries. Mess with America and you will be at Hell's gates.

Remember this you can pay me now or pay me later. Meaning take the actions over there where ISIS is or wait until ISIS is here.

[SuperJon]

One thing we need to remember is these aren't normal Muslims. They've distorted and perverted the Islamic faith to make it say whatever they want. They're attacking traditional Muslims just like they're attacking Christians. We need to call it what it is: evil. Not Muslim.

Notice that I didn't say Islamic/Muslim in my statement. To a point, I agree with Obama that attaching this group to Islam is a mistake. However, from a strategic standpoint, I'd only be willing to do this as long as moderate Muslim nations (ie. Jordan and even Egypt to an extent) are willing to back-up their critiques with action like they have done up to this point.

I didn't say you did. I said we - meaning the population as a whole.

[Humble_Opinion]

SJ- I wasn't saying you said I did. I only was affirming my stance on the topic as a lead-in to further discussion. Regardless, this issue is metastasizing. The Ron Paul types are going to have a hard time getting further buy-in for their positions in 2016 in my opinion.

[4everfsu]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/02/27 ... ry-trains/

[Humble_Opinion]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/02/27 ... ry-trains/

Amazing that a private contractor is doing this and not our government. I hope he obtains all the funding he needs and more.

[Sly Fox]

This hearkens back to World War I when the U.S. refused to engage and Americans rushed over to volunteer for the RAF.

[bluejacket]

[bluejacket]

[youtube]

[/youtube]

[youtube]

[/youtube]

[bluejacket]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/28/world ... -iran.html

[bluejacket]

"Putin has sent the feared Spetsnaz special forces into Syria to bail out Assad"
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news ... al-6579970

[Humble_Opinion]

"Putin has sent the feared Spetsnaz special forces into Syria to bail out Assad"
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news ... al-6579970

I notice you keep providing the latest updates in the happenings here - just curious as to what your thoughts on it are though?

It's obvious that Putin's PR spin about using his forces to fight ISIS was a ruse. For him, it's all about maintaining his network of strategic support.

[bballfan84]

are we seeing the stage being set for WW3?

[ATrain]

are we seeing the stage being set for WW3?

The parallels to WW2 are intriguing.

Leading up to WW2: Germany gains a new dictator (Hitler), and Britain, with Neville Chamberlain in power, is reluctant to stop him from "annexing" (conquering) new territory. Indeed, Chamberlain strikes a deal with that devil trumpeting "Peace in our time."

Currently: Russia has a dictator (Putin), dipping their toes into territorial expansion (Crimea, Eastern Ukraine, stated willingness to go anywhere Russian is the dominant language) w/ a reluctant United States to take a world leadership role with Barack Obama in the White House. Lets hope that if WW3 does break out, we can put in a Winston Churchill.

[thepostman]

Lets hope a WW3 doesn't happen is more like it.

[ATrain]

Lets hope a WW3 doesn't happen is more like it.

I assumed that was a given...

[bluejacket]

I notice you keep providing the latest updates in the happenings here - just curious as to what your thoughts on it are though?

It's obvious that Putin's PR spin about using his forces to fight ISIS was a ruse. For him, it's all about maintaining his network of strategic support.

I stand by what I said in Sept. 2014. Except that now, because we have delayed so long, Russia is openly involved in Syria and must be included in every scenario.

Russia has hit "American allies" in Syria, but they are also hitting IS. It isn't a "ruse."

[thepostman]

Lets hope a WW3 doesn't happen is more like it.

I assumed that was a given...

Some people get excited when talking about war like it is a giant game of risk so I just thought I point that out.