Quote from: DAS FOTZEZERSTÖRER on December 02, 2015, 04:19:02 PM

Quote from: Septy on December 02, 2015, 04:16:12 PM

Quote from: DAS FOTZEZERSTÖRER on December 02, 2015, 04:15:39 PM

Quote from: Septy on December 02, 2015, 04:13:18 PM

Quote from: DAS FOTZEZERSTÖRER on December 02, 2015, 04:10:21 PM

Quote from: Winy on December 02, 2015, 04:06:37 PM

Doesn't matter either way, honestly.

It's a coordinated and well supplied attack between three suspects that scanners support and CNN reports as Muslim.

This opens implication of a tie to a middle-east based extremist organization.

If ties are found, this proves that we need to be doing more to combat these factions.

Warmongering doesn't help

And returning to isolationism only hurts everyone.

Who said anything about isolationism

You can ignore the middle east or you can pro-actively cripple terrorist organizations and instill pro-western democracies to aid in diminishing the threat
There are no other viable strategies for placating these people

Not invading the Middle East is not isolationism. We'd be giving them what they want if we invade.

>US invades Syria
>IS uses it as propaganda
>IS grows and spreads

Remember

It's not terrorism if they're white

Quote from: Septy on December 02, 2015, 04:22:10 PM

Not invading the Middle East is not isolationism. We'd be giving them what they want if we invade.

Never understood why people say this. No terrorist organization, whether an insurgency or a standing army, wants an invasion by a Western coalition.

Quote from: Christmas dinner = Murder on December 02, 2015, 04:24:30 PM

Quote from: Septy on December 02, 2015, 04:22:10 PM

Not invading the Middle East is not isolationism. We'd be giving them what they want if we invade.

Never understood why people say this. No terrorist organization, whether an insurgency or a standing army, wants an invasion by a Western coalition.

Their goal is to cause a great disruption to western culture and economy.

If we invade Syria, then they are getting what they want. They are creating a huge disruption to the general public and economy if we invade.

Quote from: DAS FOTZEZERSTÖRER on December 02, 2015, 04:19:02 PM

Quote from: Septy on December 02, 2015, 04:16:12 PM

Quote from: DAS FOTZEZERSTÖRER on December 02, 2015, 04:15:39 PM

Quote from: Septy on December 02, 2015, 04:13:18 PM

Quote from: DAS FOTZEZERSTÖRER on December 02, 2015, 04:10:21 PM

Quote from: Winy on December 02, 2015, 04:06:37 PM

Doesn't matter either way, honestly.

It's a coordinated and well supplied attack between three suspects that scanners support and CNN reports as Muslim.

This opens implication of a tie to a middle-east based extremist organization.

If ties are found, this proves that we need to be doing more to combat these factions.

Warmongering doesn't help

And returning to isolationism only hurts everyone.

Who said anything about isolationism

You can ignore the middle east or you can pro-actively cripple terrorist organizations and instill pro-western democracies to aid in diminishing the threat
There are no other viable strategies for placating these people

Yeah because that worked so well in Iraq when the government was just as bad as Saddam's minus the gas.

Quote from: Winy on December 02, 2015, 04:41:06 PM

These people are fucking insane; they blow themselves up constantly.

Yeah, the most devout and brainwashed of the footsoldiers who are mostly illiterate teens and twenty-somethings. Most insurgents don't explode. You can't hold ground when you're dead.

Leadership is scared shitless of actual boot-on-ground intervention for any superpower or coalition.

Traditional methods of war have been demonstrated to be largely inefficient. The very treatment of ISIS and other terrorist groups as legitimate threats also contributes to their ego and motivation to continue acts of violence. Even the declaration of war against terrorism, in and of itself, is counterproductive to the goal of stopping it. As stated in The Nation, and following François Hollande declaring war on the Islamic State, “Actual states should not grant such legitimacy to small bands of violent criminals, and the deployment of the language and techniques of war is the best way to lose a campaign against them.” It is explained that France’s efforts to bomb targets in Syria will only further depict it and other UN members as ignorant and unconcerned for civilians, which will then provide ample opportunities for Jihadists to recruit victims of the conflict in dire need of a purpose and revenge. They will be “Groomed as heroes, as soldiers saving their people” (Juan Cole). Force cannot be used in a manner that will result in the destruction of targets who pose no threat, as this creates more threats in the future. This type of solution will contribute little to the greater purpose of eliminating ISIS and its influence from the world.

The destruction of their legitimacy, not only their forces, will see greater contributions to the eventual removal of the Islamic State from world affairs. The governments united against the threat of extremism may eventually favor a type of social rejection of the threat in favor of direct confrontation, which directly contributes to what fuels the fire of militant Jihadists. As quoted in The New York Review of Books, an ISIS member directly stated that the organization wishes to “Expose the weakness of America’s centralized power by pushing it to abandon the media psychological war and war by proxy until it fights directly.” Some of the responses towards the group’s actions, both militarily and socially, have catered to these wishes (Blog, Scott Atran and Nafees Hamid). Media coverage, for example, only promotes the idea that ISIS is a legitimate state, and one whose threats citizens must be weary of. Terrorism is defined as “The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.” By removing the factors of intimidation and coercion, one can effectively kill the power associated with acts of terror— Ultimately, reactions of the public are what allow for ISIS to thrive. If the group is no longer formally recognized, and are seen as foolish or insignificant, then the supposedly glamorous caliphate that they declare will sunk further and further into illegitimacy, losing its appeal to potential recruits. The leaders of ISIS fear this perhaps more than any bombs that they can be killed by.

I'm gonna rip two paragraphs from my World Politics final essay, because one of the prompts was on whether or not conventional warfare tactics were effective against terrorism. The paper's eight pages long, but these two sections are some of the most relevant:

Quote

Traditional methods of war have been demonstrated to be largely inefficient. The very treatment of ISIS and other terrorist groups as legitimate threats also contributes to their ego and motivation to continue acts of violence. Even the declaration of war against terrorism, in and of itself, is counterproductive to the goal of stopping it. As stated in The Nation, and following François Hollande declaring war on the Islamic State, “Actual states should not grant such legitimacy to small bands of violent criminals, and the deployment of the language and techniques of war is the best way to lose a campaign against them.” It is explained that France’s efforts to bomb targets in Syria will only further depict it and other UN members as ignorant and unconcerned for civilians, which will then provide ample opportunities for Jihadists to recruit victims of the conflict in dire need of a purpose and revenge. They will be “Groomed as heroes, as soldiers saving their people” (Juan Cole). Force cannot be used in a manner that will result in the destruction of targets who pose no threat, as this creates more threats in the future. This type of solution will contribute little to the greater purpose of eliminating ISIS and its influence from the world.

The destruction of their legitimacy, not only their forces, will see greater contributions to the eventual removal of the Islamic State from world affairs. The governments united against the threat of extremism may eventually favor a type of social rejection of the threat in favor of direct confrontation, which directly contributes to what fuels the fire of militant Jihadists. As quoted in The New York Review of Books, an ISIS member directly stated that the organization wishes to “Expose the weakness of America’s centralized power by pushing it to abandon the media psychological war and war by proxy until it fights directly.” Some of the responses towards the group’s actions, both militarily and socially, have catered to these wishes (Blog, Scott Atran and Nafees Hamid). Media coverage, for example, only promotes the idea that ISIS is a legitimate state, and one whose threats citizens must be weary of. Terrorism is defined as “The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.” By removing the factors of intimidation and coercion, one can effectively kill the power associated with acts of terror— Ultimately, reactions of the public are what allow for ISIS to thrive. If the group is no longer formally recognized, and are seen as foolish or insignificant, then the supposedly glamorous caliphate that they declare will sunk further and further into illegitimacy, losing its appeal to potential recruits. The leaders of ISIS fear this perhaps more than any bombs that they can be killed by.

I'm gonna rip two paragraphs from my World Politics final essay, because one of the prompts was on whether or not conventional warfare tactics were effective against terrorism. The paper's eight pages long, but these two sections are some of the most relevant:

Quote

Traditional methods of war have been demonstrated to be largely inefficient. The very treatment of ISIS and other terrorist groups as legitimate threats also contributes to their ego and motivation to continue acts of violence. Even the declaration of war against terrorism, in and of itself, is counterproductive to the goal of stopping it. As stated in The Nation, and following François Hollande declaring war on the Islamic State, “Actual states should not grant such legitimacy to small bands of violent criminals, and the deployment of the language and techniques of war is the best way to lose a campaign against them.” It is explained that France’s efforts to bomb targets in Syria will only further depict it and other UN members as ignorant and unconcerned for civilians, which will then provide ample opportunities for Jihadists to recruit victims of the conflict in dire need of a purpose and revenge. They will be “Groomed as heroes, as soldiers saving their people” (Juan Cole). Force cannot be used in a manner that will result in the destruction of targets who pose no threat, as this creates more threats in the future. This type of solution will contribute little to the greater purpose of eliminating ISIS and its influence from the world.

The destruction of their legitimacy, not only their forces, will see greater contributions to the eventual removal of the Islamic State from world affairs. The governments united against the threat of extremism may eventually favor a type of social rejection of the threat in favor of direct confrontation, which directly contributes to what fuels the fire of militant Jihadists. As quoted in The New York Review of Books, an ISIS member directly stated that the organization wishes to “Expose the weakness of America’s centralized power by pushing it to abandon the media psychological war and war by proxy until it fights directly.” Some of the responses towards the group’s actions, both militarily and socially, have catered to these wishes (Blog, Scott Atran and Nafees Hamid). Media coverage, for example, only promotes the idea that ISIS is a legitimate state, and one whose threats citizens must be weary of. Terrorism is defined as “The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.” By removing the factors of intimidation and coercion, one can effectively kill the power associated with acts of terror— Ultimately, reactions of the public are what allow for ISIS to thrive. If the group is no longer formally recognized, and are seen as foolish or insignificant, then the supposedly glamorous caliphate that they declare will sunk further and further into illegitimacy, losing its appeal to potential recruits. The leaders of ISIS fear this perhaps more than any bombs that they can be killed by.

ISIS wants glory, and they want recognition; I'll go out on a limb here and draw parallels to what allows for fucked up kids to believe that shooting up a school is how they can remedy their lack of identity and depression. Take away the fear, take away their legitimacy, and the group will die out.