ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

Originally Posted by Fragony:
Cooldown time. IS is already done for, they aren't there to stay. They are just incredibly cruel.

Don't know what you mean by 'cooldown time', but the rest is spot on. IS only gained ground because the Iraqi army is about as organized as a waste dump. Where they have encountered proper resistance(Assad, Kurds), they have crumbled. Further, the very nature of ISIS means its life expectancy is thankfully brief. They are rife with internal divisions, and their nature have isolated them from basically everyone else. Such a 'state' cannot exist for long before imploding or get rolled over by someone.

The only question is how to get rid of them with as few casaulties as possible. I am not sure what will cause the fewest deaths; crushing them militarily or waiting for them to implode.

Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Don't know what you mean by 'cooldown time', but the rest is spot on. IS only gained ground because the Iraqi army is about as organized as a waste dump. Where they have encountered proper resistance(Assad, Kurds), they have crumbled. Further, the very nature of ISIS means its life expectancy is thankfully brief. They are rife with internal divisions, and their nature have isolated them from basically everyone else. Such a 'state' cannot exist for long before imploding or get rolled over by someone.

The only question is how to get rid of them with as few casaulties as possible. I am not sure what will cause the fewest deaths; crushing them militarily or waiting for them to implode.

Cooldown is people not getting all that upset by beheadings and othther pretty mind-numbling acts of pure sadism, rather odd thing to get used to. We are still getting married if you don't mind I ordered the flowers.

Originally Posted by HoreTore:
The revolution devours its own, nothing new here.

Revolutions tend to fail spectacularly, but that's no reason not to have them. I'd say that the most influential and important revolution in Europe was 1848, but none of those revolutions ended in anythign other than bloodshed and renewed oppression.

The arabian revolution may end in little other than bloodshed and renewed oppression, but that doesn't mean it's a negative.

OTOH, Britain went through these revolutionary times without a revolution of its own, and hasn't done badly.

Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Don't know what you mean by 'cooldown time', but the rest is spot on. IS only gained ground because the Iraqi army is about as organized as a waste dump. Where they have encountered proper resistance(Assad, Kurds), they have crumbled. Further, the very nature of ISIS means its life expectancy is thankfully brief. They are rife with internal divisions, and their nature have isolated them from basically everyone else. Such a 'state' cannot exist for long before imploding or get rolled over by someone.

The only question is how to get rid of them with as few casaulties as possible. I am not sure what will cause the fewest deaths; crushing them militarily or waiting for them to implode.

I agree with you on that.
What I'm mainly concerned about is that people from countries like the US, UK, France, Netherlands, Germany, etc. joined ISIS. There could be more ISIS sympathizers in these countries. ISIS has already threatened to attack the American homeland. Remember what just two people were capable of doing at the Boston Marathon.

Originally Posted by Shaka_Khan:
I agree with you on that.
What I'm mainly concerned about is that people from countries like the US, UK, France, Netherlands, Germany, etc. joined ISIS. There could be more ISIS sympathizers in these countries. ISIS has already threatened to attack the American homeland. Remember what just two people were capable of doing at the Boston Marathon.

Positive note, Dutch muslims are really fed up with Isis support. These Isis supporters aren't even allowed to enter any mosque. Not that there is no danger but I get what I always wanted, support from normal muslim's who aren't violent but just want to live here in peace. That is hard for them and probably dangerous, I respect that greatly.

We have several Swedish ISIS...

But it's no problem, one of their fathers has clearly stated that his son is a nice person who went down only to help women and children... :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV:
We have several Swedish ISIS...

But it's no problem, one of their fathers has clearly stated that his son is a nice person who went down only to help women and children... :rolleyes:

Plenty of Swedish border at the shore no, just kick them out of the country there. Sweden is insane.

Originally Posted by HoreTore:
The arabian revolution may end in little other than bloodshed and renewed oppression, but that doesn't mean it's a negative.

That's a really weird way of looking at it - if I dedicate time and effort to find a new solution to a problem, and that solution turns out to be worse than the previous one, didn't I fail?

Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
That's a really weird way of looking at it - if I dedicate time and effort to find a new solution to a problem, and that solution turns out to be worse than the previous one, didn't I fail?

1848 failed.

1848 created the foundation for both organized labour and universal suffrage, two of the most important components in a fair and civilized world.

1848 was a complete failure and a huge success.

Originally Posted by HoreTore:
1848 failed.

1848 created the foundation for both organized labour and universal suffrage, two of the most important components in a fair and civilized world.

1848 was a complete failure and a huge success.

Here in the UK, the suffrage was advanced by two parties looking to expand the franchise and endear themselves to the newly franchised. I can't remember what the roots of the Labour movement were, but I'd have thought they rested on the foundation of the proto-Liberal Christian campaigners. From the perspective sitting here, I'm not convinced revolution was necessary to bring about these changes.

In 1848 naivity failed

Originally Posted by HoreTore:
1848 failed.

1848 created the foundation for both organized labour and universal suffrage, two of the most important components in a fair and civilized world.

1848 was a complete failure and a huge success.

Not sure I would go with huge success, though it is clear that a number of improvements resulted from that series of ad hoc revolutions including some growth in trade unionism. I would point to the aftermath of the Commune in 1871 -- it strikes me that more efforts at reform legislation (to undercut another such worker's revolution) were enacted in many places following this episode.

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
Not sure I would go with huge success, though it is clear that a number of improvements resulted from that series of ad hoc revolutions including some growth in trade unionism. I would point to the aftermath of the Commune in 1871 -- it strikes me that more efforts at reform legislation (to undercut another such worker's revolution) were enacted in many places following this episode.

The most important contribution of 1848 was that the revolution of 1789 could not be contained. European rulers would forever have to bear in mind the possibility that their populations would not play along - and if one revolution occurred, the ruler might not be able to count on outside help, as they were likely to have a revolution on their hands as well.

The end of 1848 saw brutal repressions, but the long term effects by the above laid the foundation for our democratic system.

Further, it caused a huge uproar among the intellectuals of the working classes, creating a huge debate on how to bring about change. The commune was a direct result of these debates.

Originally Posted by HoreTore:
The most important contribution of 1848 was that the revolution of 1789 could not be contained. European rulers would forever have to bear in mind the possibility that their populations would not play along - and if one revolution occurred, the ruler might not be able to count on outside help, as they were likely to have a revolution on their hands as well.

The end of 1848 saw brutal repressions, but the long term effects by the above laid the foundation for our democratic system.

Further, it caused a huge uproar among the intellectuals of the working classes, creating a huge debate on how to bring about change. The commune was a direct result of these debates.

Would you say that the British history of gradual change was unrealistic for mainland Europeans? If so, what was the difference?

Originally Posted by Pannonian:
Would you say that the British history of gradual change was unrealistic for mainland Europeans? If so, what was the difference?

British leaders also had to keep in mind that their population might overthrow them.

As you yourself noted, british policy was made out of fear of what might happen as well as genuine good will. 1848 created that fear.

Further, gradual change is exactly what happened in Europe. Apart from the russkies, all mainland revolutions failed. Spectacularly.

Originally Posted by Pannonian:
So you reckon we should be paying for them to undergo the transitioning process. I'd rather we keep out of it until they sort out a liberal-ish democracy for themselves. The end results are more stable, we get less of the fall-out, and we save money. Better all-round for us, except we don't get to feel good about how pro-freedom we are. Having seen what that entails, I can do without that sense of satisfaction.

Thinking about it, have we yet seen a dictatorship that we've overthrown, that has gone through the religiosi stage, and successfully transitioned into a liberal democracy friendly to us?

I reckon that, as a minimum, we should not intentionally help Assad's regime survive the Syrian war just because of the IS bogeyman.

I don't get why the US can't have opposition without painting them out to be Cobra from G.I. Joe...

It's basically ill educated people with fundamentalist brainwashing, equipped with tech that was barely cool in the cold war days (unintentional pun :drummer:).

Stop trying to make a big scare off of it.

Originally Posted by Viking:
I reckon that, as a minimum, we should not intentionally help Assad's regime survive the Syrian war just because of the IS bogeyman.

True enough, as Assad's proper opponents(Free Syrian Army) are also fighting against IS. If we're going to have one of them fight our war for us, it should be the FSA and not Assad.

Anyway, there was a huge anti-IS(and muslim extremism in general) rally in Oslo today. Tens of thousands participated(for comparison, it was about the size of the gaza demo). It was held by local muslim organizations.

I'm sure the counterjihad cranks are going to paint it as an example of taqiyya, though.

Originally Posted by HoreTore:
British leaders also had to keep in mind that their population might overthrow them.

As you yourself noted, british policy was made out of fear of what might happen as well as genuine good will. 1848 created that fear.

It is an interesting quirk of history that what you said actually holds true way further back than 1848. The British establishment has always had to fear its population in a way that rulers on the continent have not. One consequence of the widespread adoptation of the longbow was that the 'middling sorts' (yeomen farmers and the like) had the firepower to seriously challenge the elite heavy cavalry of the nobility. IIRC the French banned the longbow for this reason - it would have been dangerous in their own strict feudal order to give peasants the capacity to defeat their rulers in battle. Again, IIRC, such considerations played a part in the Papal ban on the use of the crossbow.

Originally Posted by :
such considerations played a part in the Papal ban on the use of the crossbow.

Basically, part of the fact of that was that a knight, the most important part of a medieval European army, and who required wealth to be trained and equipped, could be dropped by a peasant with just a few hours of crossbow training. After all, not everybody could use a longbow, it was a skill acquired from a lifetime of use of the weapon. It was a crossbow that took down King Richard the Lion-Hearted, after all.

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
It is an interesting quirk of history that what you said actually holds true way further back than 1848. The British establishment has always had to fear its population in a way that rulers on the continent have not. One consequence of the widespread adoptation of the longbow was that the 'middling sorts' (yeomen farmers and the like) had the firepower to seriously challenge the elite heavy cavalry of the nobility. IIRC the French banned the longbow for this reason - it would have been dangerous in their own strict feudal order to give peasants the capacity to defeat their rulers in battle. Again, IIRC, such considerations played a part in the Papal ban on the use of the crossbow.

True enough.

Things never happen in isolation, and finding a "first cause" is always problematic due to the inevitability of prior important events. But even though there are events prior to 1848. England has their history, Germany(+east) had their peasant wars, the Low Countries had their republic, the French revolution, etc etc...

Still, I regard 1848 as higher than all of those because of the international nature of the revolution. All of the above were confined to a particular area(even if it drew in other powers). 1848 happened basically everywhere, all at once. To me, that is very significant.

Originally Posted by HoreTore:
British leaders also had to keep in mind that their population might overthrow them.

As you yourself noted, british policy was made out of fear of what might happen as well as genuine good will. 1848 created that fear.

Further, gradual change is exactly what happened in Europe. Apart from the russkies, all mainland revolutions failed. Spectacularly.

Actually, Britain is somewhat of an exception by this point. We already had a monarchy constrained by an assembly, and by 1832 the franchise to most property holders (not just owners). The later reform acts were really an extension of the process of extending and regularising the franchise.

If Britain had a particular impetus for Reform it would probably be the Revolutionary War which lost us the 13 Colonies, a war which itself sparked war in France. Both those revolutions succeeded, and I would argue that 1848 was a symptom of the groundswell that created rather than a major cause of change in itself.

Maybe less bombing would be more effective:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...cant-crush-it/

A political solution? Is it even possible?

Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny:
Maybe less bombing would be more effective:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...cant-crush-it/

A political solution? Is it even possible?

The article definitely raises some points, though his use of David Swanson is laughable.

Originally Posted by :
left sectarian division

No, it has always been there, Saddamn was just crushing it with an iron boot. No amount of US intervention (or lack thereof) can mend the Sunni-Shia divide.

And Swanson's solution to the IS problem is pathetically naive.

Yeah, because apologizing is really gonna make those IS guys just put down their arms and co-exist peacefully with everyone!

Originally Posted by :
Send journalists, aid workers, peaceworkers, human shields, and negotiators into crisis zones, understanding that this means risking lives, but fewer lives than further militarization risks.

Because IS clearly values innocent lives. What an utter moron.

Meanwhile the german government has decided that a good "recycling" solution for old weapon stockpiles would be to just gift the old stuff to the Kurds.

As such the Kurdish fighters will receive G3 and G36 rifles, MG3 machineguns and some old Panzerfaust launchers and Milan ATGMs.
Additionally they will get the P1 pistols, 10k of which were already given to Afghani policemen. And of course a few million rounds of ammunition for the rifles and ammunition for the rocket/missile launchers.

Now you may say the G36 is a relatively new rifle, but some production models were found to melt if fired a bit too often as they were made using inferior plastic. "But the good old P1 pistol that serves the Afghani police will save them!" you say, well, maybe, but it was known to be horribly inaccurate and is by now completely phased out of army service.

The G3 rifles may actually be useful though, word is they were used by the army in Afghanistan again because of their superior firepower and longer range/accuracy (let's hope Vuk won't read this).
The Milan and Panzerfaust are probably good enough to crack the few tanks and armored cars that ISIS use.

I heard the USA/Iraqi army provided a lot of the gear ISIS uses right now for free, so what are other countries giving to increase the fun? Didn't the UK want to send some packages to the Kurds as well? Will they also send old cold war stuff for the vintage fun?

And what are the further implications? IF the Kurdish warriors win this for everyone else, will it help establish a free Kurdistan or will we then give more guns to the Iraqi army to beat down the Kurds?

Originally Posted by Husar:
And what are the further implications? IF the Kurdish warriors win this for everyone else, will it help establish a free Kurdistan or will we then give more guns to the Iraqi army to beat down the Kurds?

Seems like the aftermath could be spared a lot more bloodshed if the US backed a multi-state solution....

Originally Posted by Husar:
Meanwhile the german government has decided that a good "recycling" solution for old weapon stockpiles would be to just gift the old stuff to the Kurds.

As such the Kurdish fighters will receive G3 and G36 rifles, MG3 machineguns and some old Panzerfaust launchers and Milan ATGMs.
Additionally they will get the P1 pistols, 10k of which were already given to Afghani policemen. And of course a few million rounds of ammunition for the rifles and ammunition for the rocket/missile launchers.

Now you may say the G36 is a relatively new rifle, but some production models were found to melt if fired a bit too often as they were made using inferior plastic. "But the good old P1 pistol that serves the Afghani police will save them!" you say, well, maybe, but it was known to be horribly inaccurate and is by now completely phased out of army service.

The G3 rifles may actually be useful though, word is they were used by the army in Afghanistan again because of their superior firepower and longer range/accuracy (let's hope Vuk won't read this).
The Milan and Panzerfaust are probably good enough to crack the few tanks and armored cars that ISIS use.

I heard the USA/Iraqi army provided a lot of the gear ISIS uses right now for free, so what are other countries giving to increase the fun? Didn't the UK want to send some packages to the Kurds as well? Will they also send old cold war stuff for the vintage fun?

And what are the further implications? IF the Kurdish warriors win this for everyone else, will it help establish a free Kurdistan or will we then give more guns to the Iraqi army to beat down the Kurds?

I would imagine that right about now weapons that have problems is better than fighing with strong words.

And it does seem to be sensible to use older stockpiles to help one's puppets in killing one's enemies (including traitors who have left to fight for Her Majesty's enemies). Countries should give small tranches at a time to as far as possible ensure that weaponry is used rather than stockpiled (as if bad persons are struggling to get hold of guns...)

~:smoking:

Second US journalist murdered by IS.

I thought that SA article was a little too sunny.
It seems it would require participants on all sides as dedicated to peace, as they are presently dedicated to killing each other.
Long time before we get to that stage :(

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
I would imagine that right about now weapons that have problems is better than fighing with strong words.

Do the French have any Chauchats left?

Originally Posted by Pannonian:
Do the French have any Chauchats left?

The wiki piece suggests that -- aside from museum collections etc. -- the French were VERY thorough in getting rid of that "piéce d' excrément."

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
The wiki piece suggests that -- aside from museum collections etc. -- the French were VERY thorough in getting rid of that "piéce d' excrément."

I'd imagine a Chauchat could come in handy. If you get in close enough, you could swing the Chauchat and club the enemy to death with a 20lb lump of metal. Also, if you have a rifle grenade attachment, you could toss a grenade up and use the Chauchat as a cricket bat to propel the grenade a fair distance. In fact, you wouldn't even need the rifle grenade attachment to use the Chauchat for that purpose, which just proves how inherently versatile it is.

Originally Posted by Hooahguy:
And Swanson's solution to the IS problem is pathetically naive.

I would have said criminally naive. Even the site's name makes me want to smack my head.

There's so much wrong with that article...I don't know where to start, or when I would end.

What teh que? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...b-9705120.html

Have they lost their mind?

Originally Posted by Husar:
Meanwhile the german government has decided that a good "recycling" solution for old weapon stockpiles would be to just gift the old stuff to the Kurds.

As such the Kurdish fighters will receive G3 and G36 rifles, MG3 machineguns and some old Panzerfaust launchers and Milan ATGMs.
Additionally they will get the P1 pistols, 10k of which were already given to Afghani policemen. And of course a few million rounds of ammunition for the rifles and ammunition for the rocket/missile launchers.

Now you may say the G36 is a relatively new rifle, but some production models were found to melt if fired a bit too often as they were made using inferior plastic. "But the good old P1 pistol that serves the Afghani police will save them!" you say, well, maybe, but it was known to be horribly inaccurate and is by now completely phased out of army service.

The G3 rifles may actually be useful though, word is they were used by the army in Afghanistan again because of their superior firepower and longer range/accuracy (let's hope Vuk won't read this).
The Milan and Panzerfaust are probably good enough to crack the few tanks and armored cars that ISIS use.

I heard the USA/Iraqi army provided a lot of the gear ISIS uses right now for free, so what are other countries giving to increase the fun? Didn't the UK want to send some packages to the Kurds as well? Will they also send old cold war stuff for the vintage fun?

And what are the further implications? IF the Kurdish warriors win this for everyone else, will it help establish a free Kurdistan or will we then give more guns to the Iraqi army to beat down the Kurds?

The AG3 is a hilarious weapon. In a positive way. Smaller calibres are for girls.

The reason it's been phased out in Europe is because it's not an assault rifle. It's designed to blam the russkies from afar(200m), not sneak around in buildings. As European wars are now more urban in nature, we needed a gun to enter houses with.

I'm sure the guns will suit the Kurds fighting ISIS. My impression of the conflict is that most of the fighting takes place on the outskirts of town, and then the winner strolls into town unopposed. The AG3 has long range with decent accuracy and rate of fire, and it's quite comfortable to walk around with. The magazines are horrible to carry around if you have more than 5(100 shots) though.

EDIT: Also, the *fomp* launcher is hilarious. Well worth the extra weight!

Do we care simply because one of the malita groups has gelled into a semi Coherent force? This has been going on for a decade, bands of men kidnap, ransom, and behead Westerners. Why should I care now? Why are all my facebook friends suddenly clamoring for us to get re involved in Iraq?

Who gives a god damn? Seriously, Let them fuck little boys and stone women for wearing anklets. Have a couple of them teach at your universities and beg you to see their side of things, all the while making excuses for blatant oppression. I'm so over caring, give the whole thing back to the Turks and let the Israelis satisfy their barbarous blood lust.

Slap a brand name on these assholes and suddenly they are more dangerous. Fuck that and fuck the bullshit media suddenly giving a shit about peoples heads being lopped off and fuck the people who suddenly care because the Yazidi look white and have blue eyes.

If you'll go excuse me I have more to debt to accumulate in my right to work (lolololololol) state.

We didn't slap the brand name on them, however in saying that you bring up an important point... ISIS has only been able to do what it has done because it has given itself such a recognizable brand identity. There is no little irony in the fact that it is a thoroughly modern caliphate - very capitalistic and tech-savvy. On the former point, that is probably due to their origins in Al-Qaeda - I remember coming across an article where it was described how Bin Laden used his business experience in the West to run Al-Qaeda like a sort of corporation - everything right down to the group's grocery shopping had to be inventoried. As for their tech-savvyness, that is the real secret to their success. Their use of social media, viral videos and 'shock' tactics to make the headlines in Western media is what has fuelled their recruitment drive for Muslims all over the world - the coverage they get is so prolific and dramatic that it lends them a sort of credibility as a fighting force. It has also earned them a lot of cheap battlefield victories - their vicious image is what is thought to have caused the Iraqi army to flee before them.

ISIS should be nothing - they are a tiny fighting force, only around 15-20k men. But they are punching above their weight because they are using all the latest technology at their disposal to give off the image of a more substantial organisation. That's also why people in the West are talking about them, even though they are really just the latest in a long line of petty, sectarian terrorist groups.

Many of my colleagues were crying yesterday. The journalist chap who was killed was a graduate of our Journalism program.


I don't think the West, separately or collectively, is prepared to deal with the Middle East. I predict we shall, separately and collectively, "keep on keepin' on" with our existing mélange of policies, over-reactions, and outraged sensibilities. This will, of course, engender the same current level of success we enjoy in the region.


The Middle East has a rich history and the cultures raised in that region have long-standing rules for settling grievances. These are imprinted on their youth as a part of identity establishment and have the same degree of identity connection that social stoicism has for an upper class Brit or "alles in ordnung" has for the educated German. It is not simply a component of how they interact with others but of WHO they are. With that level of entrenched mind set, our options for real "change" are limited.

We can keep on what doing more or less what we are doing an thereby generate the same joyous results we have enjoyed to date.

We can withdraw from the region more or less entirely, trading for oil with whatever potentate currently controls it but accepting that we have no way to insure stability of production or delivery. All of the local forces who oppose Western (usually USA) efforts in the region would be the victors in this instance.

We can back a local proxy or three and let them fight by local rules while supporting them lavishly, funding their efforts, and ignoring their gross violations of human rights and freedoms. This would allow us to put boots on necks by proxy, though it would not change the "meta" of the area.

We can go in collectively using 90+% of our combined military capability under orthodox rules of engagement. This would be followed by a period of occupation during which new cultural values would be inculcated and local institutions allowed to mature to make that culture shift permanent. This would involve at least 20 years of occupation, the first decade of which would closely resemble the experience of US forces in Iraq after Gulf II.

We can go in collectively using 90+% of our combined military capability under local rules of engagement (active use of war crime tactics). This would be followed by a period of occupation of not less than 20 years to allow for the same changes noted in the previous option. Casualties during the initial decade would be substantially lower among occupying forces but much higher among the civilian population. The die-off would actually work to bring cultural change faster, though the likelihood of backlash may undercut the change effort.

I would like to see option two. I will see option one.

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
I don't think the West, separately or collectively, is prepared to deal with the Middle East.

Many more journalists have been whacked in Ukraine.

The brutality we see? Old news as well.

The Middle East isn't very special. It's just currently very hostile to the US.

Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Many more journalists have been whacked in Ukraine.

The brutality we see? Old news as well.

The Middle East isn't very special. It's just currently very hostile to the US.

Terms of negotiation in places like Ukraine are a bit closer to our western mindset though. That the rebels tried to cover up their involvement in the downing of the airliner is proof enough of this. If it happened in the middle east, you'd have had factions competing to claim credit.

Originally Posted by Pannonian:
Terms of negotiation in places like Ukraine are a bit closer to our western mindset though. That the rebels tried to cover up their involvement in the downing of the airliner is proof enough of this. If it happened in the middle east, you'd have had factions competing to claim credit.

Is that really a matter of differing mindsets?

The Ukrainians have everything to loose by taking credit, while groups in the mid-east can look to gain from it. If the Ukrainians could gain an advantage by taking credit - do you really think they wouldn't?

See: nationalist romanticizing of utterly brutal warcrimes during the Bosnian war.

Further, I don't see how ISIS would jump at the chance to take credit for the accidental shooting of a plane full of Sunni fundamentalist imams.

Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Is that really a matter of differing mindsets?

The Ukrainians have everything to loose by taking credit, while groups in the mid-east can look to gain from it. If the Ukrainians could gain an advantage by taking credit - do you really think they wouldn't?

See: nationalist romanticizing of utterly brutal warcrimes during the Bosnian war.

Further, I don't see how ISIS would jump at the chance to take credit for the accidental shooting of a plane full of Sunni fundamentalist imams.

One faction or another would. That's the point about Ukraine and other places like that. All sides work roughly in ways that are generally comprehensible to the west. Kill a load of civilians, and no-one will want to take credit for it, and if it involved foreign nationals, then they'll even change operational methods to avoid repeating that in the future (as far as they're able to). However, in the middle east, there will always be factions competing to be as outrageous as possible from our western perspective, so that there is always something to gain for someone to trump the others in alienating them and us. Little we can do in the middle east in our experience results in lasting credit; no matter what we do, there will always be someone looking to be as pointlessly destructive as possible (from our perspective) that will corresponding get them power (which is alien to our understanding of the world). In Ukraine, we can be fairly certain what works and what does not; it's just a matter of whether we're capable and willing.

And as I've said before, I count Israel in the list of middle eastern countries with their alien middle eastern perspectives. They're different mainly because of the influence of what Frag would call lefties: liberals and socialists. If they're ever marginalised or even disappear, Israel would be little different from the other middle eastern countries.

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
ISIS should be nothing - they are a tiny fighting force, only around 15-20k men. But they are punching above their weight because they are using all the latest technology at their disposal to give off the image of a more substantial organisation. That's also why people in the West are talking about them, even though they are really just the latest in a long line of petty, sectarian terrorist groups.

When did the latest technology become handheld cameras and bad photoshop?

We care because, for whatever reason, these stories are being latched onto. 2 vets under 30 a day commit suicide (BY THE GOVERNMENTS admission). They come home, get their hand shook by some gelatinous vietnam era draft dodger "thanking them for their service", and get a 10% discount at Luby's. Then they blow their brains out and everyone shakes their head and says "how sad". Then they turn on CNN and demand we send toops back. Pathetic.

Im over it. I wash my hands of it.

All we have to show for two wars is more debt and a bunch of dead young men. I wish I could tell you. Well, I wish I could say it was all part of some grander plan. At least that would satisfy my need for a bad guy. We are in there because people thought it looked good on a chess broad.

Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
When did the latest technology become handheld cameras and bad photoshop?

We care because, for whatever reason, these stories are being latched onto. 2 vets under 30 a day commit suicide (BY THE GOVERNMENTS admission). They come home, get their hand shook by some gelatinous vietnam era draft dodger "thanking them for their service", and get a 10% discount at Luby's. Then they blow their brains out and everyone shakes their head and says "how sad". Then they turn on CNN and demand we send toops back. Pathetic.

Im over it. I wash my hands of it.

All we have to show for two wars is more debt and a bunch of dead young men. I wish I could tell you. Well, I wish I could say it was all part of some grander plan. At least that would satisfy my need for a bad guy. We are in there because people thought it looked good on a chess broad.

Who is we, not me and you. You play football and live the dream judging from the looks of your really pretty girlfriend, and I am cashing in on my interests and won't have to work a day in my life. IS is so vile, it's too rediculous for me to understand from my comfortable bliss. It's so incredibly nasty what they are doing, they ought to be destroyed simply because they are so incrededibly cruel.

RIP to the two journalists.
I just read the news about the second one being murdered. I can't even begin to imagine what their families must be going through after seeing what was videotaped....It is terrible. Sickening. No innocent man deserves to go that way. And I cannot even begin to imagine what they must put their captives through to have them say stuff like that.
I'm certain there are hundreds of thousands of people all over the world who are glad that the USA is fighting against terror. I'm sure people are grateful. But like it's been mentioned the cost has been terrible. No one country should bear the brunt of the suffering.
Either way the only thing I can think of at the moment is how these :daisy: literally need to be bombed back to the stone age and then some more for a good measure.

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
:bow:

I am of two minds here. On one hand, I feel exactly like you just described. On the other, ISIS is just the worst kind of evil, and I (and many other vets) feel very invested in that part of the world these days. I'm literally torn right down the middle between thinking we should stay out of it, and showing up at the recruiter's office to beg for a chance to go back there and end that horrible group of extremists. Its heart-wrenching for all vets, and even worse for those still in the Army who have served in the war on terror.

I'm willing to let you and your mates go back if that is what we decide. I do have a couple of requirements though:

1. Congress has to Declare War formally and commit the country completely. Treat it as a "true" war upon which we feel our survival and fortune depends.

2. You and your mates get to write the rules of engagement.

Originally Posted by Pannonian:
Kill a load of civilians, and no-one will want to take credit for it

I suggest you read up on the Yugoslav war.

You will find plenty of nationalists celebrating the deaths of civilians. While you're at it, you could also look up groups like the RAF.

You still have not dealt with the issue of punishment, though. These middle eastern groups you talk about will face no consequences for their actions. Every western group will face harsh consequences. Until you've dealt with that problem, I can't see how you can conclude on mentality.

Further, I think you will find that Mid-Eastern regimes respond as anyone else to the use of force. Look at Fatah. What I think you're forgetting is the difference between the short and the long term, and the concept of loosing a battle to win a war(undoubtedly a mindset Hamas had in the recent trolling).

Still, you are completely correct that western leaders generally do not have a clue of how Arab leaders think(and the opposite is also true). The Bush administration had little clue as to what Saddam was thinking, and why he acted the way he did. But that could also be said of most of the Cold War. When did we ever know what the Russkies were really up to?

Originally Posted by HoreTore:
I suggest you read up on the Yugoslav war.

You will find plenty of nationalists celebrating the deaths of civilians. While you're at it, you could also look up groups like the RAF.

You still have not dealt with the issue of punishment, though. These middle eastern groups you talk about will face no consequences for their actions. Every western group will face harsh consequences. Until you've dealt with that problem, I can't see how you can conclude on mentality.

Further, I think you will find that Mid-Eastern regimes respond as anyone else to the use of force. Look at Fatah. What I think you're forgetting is the difference between the short and the long term, and the concept of loosing a battle to win a war(undoubtedly a mindset Hamas had in the recent trolling).

Still, you are completely correct that western leaders generally do not have a clue of how Arab leaders think(and the opposite is also true). The Bush administration had little clue as to what Saddam was thinking, and why he acted the way he did. But that could also be said of most of the Cold War. When did we ever know what the Russkies were really up to?

An important point about the Cold War, and why some old schoolers hanker for those days. The rules of engagement were mostly known to both sides, and where they were blurred, there was still a firm channel of communication between the two sides. Did we completely know what the Russians were thinking? Probably not, but we completely knew how to talk to them to reach some kind of settlement. Representatives of both sides talked, and they talked and talked. Do we have the same kind of confidence in dealing with the middle east? If we send a representative to talk with these loons, do we have any confidence that they'll return alive?

I'd like us to try recognising the IS on the conditions that they'll maintain a line of communication with us, and that they'll accept those members of our population who would rather be there than here.

Originally Posted by Pannonian:
An important point about the Cold War, and why some old schoolers hanker for those days. The rules of engagement were mostly known to both sides, and where they were blurred, there was still a firm channel of communication between the two sides. Did we completely know what the Russians were thinking? Probably not, but we completely knew how to talk to them to reach some kind of settlement.

Did we now?

I'll say the Cuban missile crisis showed very clearly that we had absolutely no clue of what they were up to, and neither did they.

Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Did we now?

I'll say the Cuban missile crisis showed very clearly that we had absolutely no clue of what they were up to, and neither did they.

And you keep missing my point. Whether we knew what they were up to, and they us, we both were in agreement on how we talked with each other. We maintained diplomatic relations with each other at all times, and there was no fear that our diplomats would end up dead just because they were our people. That's the bare minimum of understanding the other side. If you have that, there is scope for expanding from there. If you don't have that, nothing at all is possible. We don't have that with the middle eastern loons.

Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
When did the latest technology become handheld cameras and bad photoshop?

We care because, for whatever reason, these stories are being latched onto. 2 vets under 30 a day commit suicide (BY THE GOVERNMENTS admission). They come home, get their hand shook by some gelatinous vietnam era draft dodger "thanking them for their service", and get a 10% discount at Luby's. Then they blow their brains out and everyone shakes their head and says "how sad". Then they turn on CNN and demand we send toops back. Pathetic.

Im over it. I wash my hands of it.

All we have to show for two wars is more debt and a bunch of dead young men. I wish I could tell you. Well, I wish I could say it was all part of some grander plan. At least that would satisfy my need for a bad guy. We are in there because people thought it looked good on a chess broad.

You might be interested in this.

War is not a pleasant thing. You win wars by killing people. That is never pleasant. But I think of the saying "We make war that we may live in peace" and again "The object of war is peace". The problem we had in Iraq, the West tries to be nice in war now. That would never have defeated Hitler and Tojo. Can you imagine if you had had today's furor over civilian casualties back then? England would be speaking German. Human nature being what it is, we will never eliminate war. If anyone has heard of the Kellogg-Bryant pact, it supposedly outlawed war. Eleven years later, Germany invaded Poland. What did Sun Tzu say, "In peace, prepare for war. In war, prepare for peace." The way I look at this situation is, if we don't fight them in their home, we will eventually fight them in our homes. How many more lives will be lost before we go into Iraq again, or worse, how many American (European, African) lives will be lost at home because we don't act? ISIS needs to be wiped off the earth. There is no place on earth for groups like that.:rtwno: We should use them to colonize Jupiter.

Originally Posted by Vincent Butler:
War is not a pleasant thing. You win wars by killing people. That is never pleasant. But I think of the saying "We make war that we may live in peace" and again "The object of war is peace". The problem we had in Iraq, the West tries to be nice in war now. That would never have defeated Hitler and Tojo. Can you imagine if you had had today's furor over civilian casualties back then? England would be speaking German. Human nature being what it is, we will never eliminate war. If anyone has heard of the Kellogg-Bryant pact, it supposedly outlawed war. Eleven years later, Germany invaded Poland. What did Sun Tzu say, "In peace, prepare for war. In war, prepare for peace." The way I look at this situation is, if we don't fight them in their home, we will eventually fight them in our homes. How many more lives will be lost before we go into Iraq again, or worse, how many American (European, African) lives will be lost at home because we don't act? ISIS needs to be wiped off the earth. There is no place on earth for groups like that.:rtwno: We should use them to colonize Jupiter.

While IS should be wiped out, it seems they have enough enemies to do so. Aside from possibly Qatar, they don't have a single state ally in the world. Just about all their neighbors are at war with them. Already, Iraq is reclaiming some cities. I don't see why the US even needs to have any involvement beyond a few air strikes here and there.

Originally Posted by Pannonian:
And you keep missing my point. Whether we knew what they were up to, and they us, we both were in agreement on how we talked with each other. We maintained diplomatic relations with each other at all times, and there was no fear that our diplomats would end up dead just because they were our people. That's the bare minimum of understanding the other side. If you have that, there is scope for expanding from there. If you don't have that, nothing at all is possible. We don't have that with the middle eastern loons.

On the other hand, the middle eastern loons have no capacity to bomb us back to the stone age. At absolute worst, they might nuke a city which would be bad. However, the chances of that happening are slim to none and it still wouldn't be as bad as what Putin could do if he really wanted to do so.

Originally Posted by Noncommunist:
While IS should be wiped out, it seems they have enough enemies to do so. Aside from possibly Qatar, they don't have a single state ally in the world. Just about all their neighbors are at war with them. Already, Iraq is reclaiming some cities. I don't see why the US even needs to have any involvement beyond a few air strikes here and there.

It would be nice if we did not have to get involved again, though I never supported the troop withdrawal to begin with, not in the circumstances it was done in. As to the chances of them nuking us, maybe not a nuke, but as porous as our southern border is, they could get across and cause problems easily enough. I agree, bomb them back to the stone age, and then some more. But we also need to cut their supply lines, stop whoever is supplying them and punish them too.

Originally Posted by Noncommunist:
On the other hand, the middle eastern loons have no capacity to bomb us back to the stone age. At absolute worst, they might nuke a city which would be bad. However, the chances of that happening are slim to none and it still wouldn't be as bad as what Putin could do if he really wanted to do so.

The channel of communication was sufficient for us to bilaterally reduce nuclear threats and stockpiles. This bilateralism was possible because we had enough in common to make such agreement possible. Conflict was within mutually understood bounds. With the middle eastern lot, they operate by a drastically different set of values, and there is no scope for a similar bilateralism. The closest we had was when strongmen ruled these countries, putting down opposition inside their own borders whilst jockeying for international position. That we could deal with state to state. But we got too full of our own penchant for freedom and democracy, and overthrew these strongmen so that their populations could join us in the new democratic world. Well, this is the new democratic world, and the regimes being chosen aren't what we hoped for.

Parallel to this is the case of Turkey. We opposed the old Kemalist regime because we considered it anti-democratic. The Turkish people are now freer to choose the government they like, and it's one which is more alien to us than the old westernised Kemalist Turkey which we could broadly identify with. Sure, it's better than basket cases like Iraq, but perhaps secularism might have spread further in Turkey had we left them to their own devices for longer, rather than press them to conform to our democratic ideals. Sometimes, the general population of a country may be so foreign to us that their idea of what is good may work on a completely set of rules to what we consider to be the case.

We can keep fighting evil men on behalf of ungrateful bastards until we are all broke and have nothing to eat with except good intentions. Or we can realize that all of our attempts at turning a desert into glass will just spawn more evil men.

Let the middle east live under hell until the culture changes against religious fundamentalism. Geo-political white knights are just as dumb as real life white knights.

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
We can keep fighting evil men on behalf of ungrateful bastards until we are all broke and have nothing to eat with except good intentions. Or we can realize that all of our attempts at turning a desert into glass will just spawn more evil men.

Let the middle east live under hell until the culture changes against religious fundamentalism. Geo-political white knights are just as dumb as real life white knights.

The problem is, we are fighting an ideology that has as its goals the destruction of Israel and the West and the complete domination of the world through Islam. The war will not stay there. It will come here. Whereas I believe we should stay out of the Syria mess, and should have stayed out of the Libya affair, this will concern us. We are the enemies as much as Israel is.

Originally Posted by Vincent Butler:
The problem is, we are fighting an ideology that has as its goals the destruction of Israel and the West and the complete domination of the world through Islam. The war will not stay there. It will come here. Whereas I believe we should stay out of the Syria mess, and should have stayed out of the Libya affair, this will concern us. We are the enemies as much as Israel is.

I can make it my life mission to take over Somalia and become a warlord. But that doesn't mean anyone in Somalia will ever hear or see me. Also, that is not their goal anyway. They want to first destroy the kingdoms around them, which is a joke. If you think Saudi Arabia or Iran is going to follow anything resembling rules of engagement...

Originally Posted by Pannonian:
And you keep missing my point. Whether we knew what they were up to, and they us, we both were in agreement on how we talked with each other. We maintained diplomatic relations with each other at all times, and there was no fear that our diplomats would end up dead just because they were our people. That's the bare minimum of understanding the other side. If you have that, there is scope for expanding from there. If you don't have that, nothing at all is possible. We don't have that with the middle eastern loons.

What you're describing here is the difference between a state and a non-state organization. We were not able to hold the relations you're talking about with FARC either.

Originally Posted by Vincent Butler:
but as porous as our southern border is, they could get across and cause problems easily enough.

How many terrorists have entered the US through the southern border?

Originally Posted by HoreTore:
What you're describing here is the difference between a state and a non-state organization. We were not able to hold the relations you're talking about with FARC either.

Then we'll have to accept that countries in the middle east will have a tendency to fragment once the coalescing power is gone, followed by re-emerging in patterns that aren't likely to be friendly to us. Someone asked if this means we should be propping up dictators. I'd turn that question round, and ask why, if these dictators already exist without us having to lift a finger, why should we put an awful lot of effort into removing them so that these situations will come up? For liberalist ideals of freedom and democracy?

Originally Posted by Pannonian:
Then we'll have to accept that countries in the middle east will have a tendency to fragment once the coalescing power is gone, followed by re-emerging in patterns that aren't likely to be friendly to us. Someone asked if this means we should be propping up dictators. I'd turn that question round, and ask why, if these dictators already exist without us having to lift a finger, why should we put an awful lot of effort into removing them so that these situations will come up? For liberalist ideals of freedom and democracy?

And these dictators you're talking about, are they friendly...?

We actually do not have the power to do what we want in the world. We can affect certain things, sure, but we are far from being powerful enough to stop popular unrest in a foreign country.

The (current batch of) dictators are doomed anyway, whether or not we help them.

Oh for goodness' sake. Why do we keep talking about the Islamic world as if it is in some sort of permanent state of apocalyptic war, as if every guy on the street is strapped with C4 and runs around shouting "derka derka jihad a jihad!"?

Across most of the Islamic world right now, most people are living peaceful lives and are concerned only with getting their breakfast and getting to work on time.

Are we forgetting what Europe looked like within our grandparents' lifetimes? The massive wars that were waged continually for hundreds of years? The bloody revolutions? The ethnic cleansing? The suppressed revolts?

The Islamic world is just working through some things the same way we did in Europe. I've said before I think what is going on there is a sort of mixture of a Reformation/Counter-Reformation on the one hand, and 20th-Century style ideological wars on the other. It has went from being a land of goat herders to having a fairly substantial and well-educated middle-class - they are flirting with nationalism, ideology and populist religion in the exact same way the people of Europe did when they first became exposed to them. They will also move on from these things eventually, just like we did in Europe.

Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
When did the latest technology become handheld cameras and bad photoshop?

We care because, for whatever reason, these stories are being latched onto. 2 vets under 30 a day commit suicide (BY THE GOVERNMENTS admission). They come home, get their hand shook by some gelatinous vietnam era draft dodger "thanking them for their service", and get a 10% discount at Luby's. Then they blow their brains out and everyone shakes their head and says "how sad". Then they turn on CNN and demand we send toops back. Pathetic.

Im over it. I wash my hands of it.

All we have to show for two wars is more debt and a bunch of dead young men. I wish I could tell you. Well, I wish I could say it was all part of some grander plan. At least that would satisfy my need for a bad guy. We are in there because people thought it looked good on a chess broad.

I didn't say anything about whether or not we should be sending troops back again.

But on the technology point, I would say that the way that ISIS uses social media and the like to deliberately manipulate Western media and create a certain image for itself is unprecedented amongst similar groups. I suspect that the decision to have a man with a strong British accent carry out the recent beheadings was another of their propaganda ploys - they will have known that having a Briton do it would make it stand out above a regular Iraqi/Syrian Arab. Everything they do is about grabbing the headlines. That's why people are talking about them.

Originally Posted by HoreTore:
How many terrorists have entered the US through the southern border?

An unknown number, obviously. US authorities apparently are more concerned about the Canadian Border and old-fashioned fake passport fly right in regarding terrorism. The Southern border is a festering sore for other reasons.

The 'unknown number' is equal to zero.

No terrorist crosses the border illegally. You will not find terrorists among paperless immigrants.

The reason is simple: terrorists have valid documentation. They enter countries legally, and have no need to do so illegally.

Also, excellent analysis, Rhy!

Originally Posted by HoreTore:
The 'unknown number' is equal to zero.

No terrorist crosses the border illegally. You will not find terrorists among paperless immigrants.

The reason is simple: terrorists have valid documentation. They enter countries legally, and have no need to do so illegally.

Also, excellent analysis, Rhy!

I am a bit curious why there are concentration of Hezbollah in Mexico, despite what what you are saying is true I would be cautious. They could easily use the cartels to get abroad. Hasn't happened, but I am probably not the only one thinking it.

Originally Posted by HoreTore:
The 'unknown number' is equal to zero.

No terrorist crosses the border illegally. You will not find terrorists among paperless immigrants.

The reason is simple: terrorists have valid documentation. They enter countries legally, and have no need to do so illegally.

Also, excellent analysis, Rhy!

Zero is certainly possible, and I would agree strongly probable as well. Faked or valid credentials are a far safer way to make entry and are almost certainly both the prime choice and the preferred choice.

The "terrorists sneaking across our Southern Border" is a bête noir for some of our "close the border" crowd. While certainly a "possible" threat, ISIS operatives do not need to hire a coyote to get in.

Then can book a flight to Orlando with their Egyptian passport, answer "I'm going to Disney World" as move right on through.

Horrible but also good. Brave people who helped this guy, respect http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/04/wo...video.html?_r=

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
Zero is certainly possible, and I would agree strongly probable as well. Faked or valid credentials are a far safer way to make entry and are almost certainly both the prime choice and the preferred choice.

The "terrorists sneaking across our Southern Border" is a bête noir for some of our "close the border" crowd. While certainly a "possible" threat, ISIS operatives do not need to hire a coyote to get in.

Then can book a flight to Orlando with their Egyptian passport, answer "I'm going to Disney World" as move right on through.

The current number of terrorists who have entered the US is zero. You have had several attempts and some successful terrorists coming to the US.

None have tried to do so illegally. The same is true for every European country. Terrorists have always entered legally. With ten years of successfully entering our countries hassle free and legally, why on earth would they switch to the more risky option of going in illegally? That makes no sense.

The 'terrorists among the illegals' is plain nonsense. It is only stated by the clueless.

The reason why Hezbollah is in Mexico, Frags, is the same reason everyone else is there: to profit from the drug trade. A tried and tested method of funding a terrorist organization.

Originally Posted by HoreTore:
How many terrorists have entered the US through the southern border?

Well, can we really know? It might be zero, it might be ten, it might be more. The problem is that they have the opportunity, that is the point I am making.

Originally Posted by Vincent Butler:
Well, can we really know? It might be zero, it might be ten, it might be more. The problem is that they have the opportunity, that is the point I am making.

How we can know? By checking how terrorists have entered the US, perhaps? And throw in every other country in the world as well. They always enter legally. And when they can enter legally, why on earth is it a problem that they have the opportunity to enter illegally...? WHy would they go for anything but the best solution?

They could already be in the States. Look at the ISIS members who came from America. And it's not just the ISIS. Look at who did the Boston bombings.

Originally Posted by HoreTore:
How we can know? By checking how terrorists have entered the US, perhaps? And throw in every other country in the world as well. They always enter legally. And when they can enter legally, why on earth is it a problem that they have the opportunity to enter illegally...? WHy would they go for anything but the best solution?

Just because they enter legally, doesn't mean that others will do so illegally. I have heard reports, not rumors, that terrorists (not necessarily ISIS), have come across. True, word of mouth, I have not seen it, they supposedly have seen the reports. It doesn't matter, terrorists who enter legally or illegally need to be apprehended immediately. Anyway, our borders need to be secure regardless of the terror threat.

Originally Posted by Vincent Butler:
Just because they enter legally, doesn't mean that others will do so illegally.

You need to come up with a reason why they would choose to do so.

I ask again: when they have no problems entering the country legally, why would they waste their time in the Mexican deserts...?

Originally Posted by HoreTore:
You need to come up with a reason why they would choose to do so.

I ask again: when they have no problems entering the country legally, why would they waste their time in the Mexican deserts...?

I imagine it would be quicker, I don't know how long it would take to get a legal reason to stay. But that brings up another point. Overstayed visas. Many terrorists overstayed their visas. I just looked at a report given before a House of Representatives committee, and it mentions that, and also terrorists who have tried to sneak across both the northern and southern borders. One who tried to sneak across the Mexican border bribed a Mexican official in Beirut for a visa. I will attempt now to post the link here.

Originally Posted by Vincent Butler:
I imagine it would be quicker, I don't know how long it would take to get a legal reason to stay. But that brings up another point. Overstayed visas. Many terrorists overstayed their visas. I just looked at a report given before the House of Representatives, and it mentions that, and also terrorists who have tried to sneak across both the northern and southern borders. One who tried to sneak across the Mexican border bribed a Mexican official in Beirut for a visa. I will attempt now to post the link here.

He didn't "sneak across", he obtained a fake visa and thus entered legally. 'Closing the border' would not have affected him. Overstaying a visa is another example of entering the US legally. Again, closing the border won't help.

Crossing the border illegally will most certainly not be quicker, and time is not an issue to terrorists anyway. Try again.

You are proposing to blow money on measures against non-existent threats. This will take money away from measures against actual threats. This may lead to underfunded measures allowing a terrorist to slip through. If another terrorist attack strikes the US, enjoy being morally responsible for the event.

Originally Posted by HoreTore:
He didn't "sneak across", he obtained a fake visa and thus entered legally. 'Closing the border' would not have affected him. Overstaying a visa is another example of entering the US legally. Again, closing the border won't help.

Crossing the border illegally will most certainly not be quicker, and time is not an issue to terrorists anyway. Try again.

You are proposing to blow money on measures against non-existent threats. This will take money away from measures against actual threats. This may lead to underfunded measures allowing a terrorist to slip through. If another terrorist attack strikes the US, enjoy being morally responsible for the event.

The border needs to be closed anyway to prevent illegal immigration. And the report expressed concern over the possibility of terrorists infiltrating through the southern border. Morally responsible for another terror attack? How? Because this administration does not like to pursue them overseas, if they attack here, how are those who want closed borders morally responsible for it? Now we are fortunate not to have been attacked again. But part of that is because of failed attempts, look at the Underwear Bomber. TSA does not stop many threats, or at least they don't mention doing so, I suppose they might be doing so and not reporting it; they just implement new measures after an attempt. I think attacking the terrorists' base of operations and eliminating their ideology is a better prevention then anything else anyway. Here is a link where Janet Napolitano admits that terrorists enter through the southern border, as well as other mentions of it.

It didn't express concern over terrorists infiltrating over the border. It expresses concern that terrorists are crossing the normal borders, in the normal fashion(though sometimes with fake papers). "Securing the border" won't do squat.

You are morally responsible because you advocate measures that will not work, and which will take focus away from the stuff that works. Your stance will thus make it easier for terrorists to enter the US.

"Closing the borders!" amounts to a phantom solution.
The fact is undesirables find it so easy to enter legally, closing the border to illegals, solves virtually nothing.
Instead, if you devoted resources to finding and closing loopholes/mistakes that exist in the regular run of people entering, you would be further ahead.
That "illegals" are such a tiny fraction of the problem simply points to what a waste it would be to throw huge resources at it.

Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny:
"Closing the borders!" amounts to a phantom solution.
The fact is undesirables find it so easy to enter legally, closing the border to illegals, solves virtually nothing.
Instead, if you devoted resources to finding and closing loopholes/mistakes that exist in the regular run of people entering, you would be further ahead.
That "illegals" are such a tiny fraction of the problem simply points to what a waste it would be to throw huge resources at it.

Well, look at the crime committed by illegal immigrants. Here are some statistics, and the report does acknowledge that it may not be indicative of the country as a whole. And look at the jobs they take from Americans, and not just "the jobs that Americans won't do". Anyway, I agree that we need to close the loopholes that people use, but the illegals are a larger problem than you make them out to be. But for Pete's sake, entering illegally is against the law. They should be forced to leave, and then if they want to reenter, make them do it the legal way, at the back of the line. I have no problems with legal immigration, my own mother is a resident alien. Our country was built on immigration.