Beheaded by ISIS

badbrains said:

Maybe Israel wants this to happen so they can fight Hezbollah and not have them get their hands dirty. Maybe this is why Israel agreed to a cease fire, regroup for the next battle?

EdsonNascimento said:

badbrains said:

Maybe Israel wants this to happen so they can fight Hezbollah and not have them get their hands dirty. Maybe this is why Israel agreed to a cease fire, regroup for the next battle?

Israel does not need to regroup for anything. If they wanted to take over the entire Middle East they could do it by lunch tomorrow.

badbrains said:

And now Lebanon looks like it's getting ready to have IS spill over onto it's land:

https://news.vice.com/article/the-middle-easts-next-ticking-time-bomb-lebanon?utm_source=vicenewstwitter

dignin said:

Escaping Death in Northern Iraq
Video Feature: Surviving an ISIS Massacre [includes graphic images]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/04/world/middleeast/surviving-isis-massacre-iraq-video.html?_r=0

Drowned Out said:

rr165892 said:

I say this because there is no way they will allow IS to become a threat to their border regardless of the squabble on the other side..
And I do have the basics Drowned out, a Middle East expert or analyst I am not.

My point regarding the basics wasn't to belittle you (there's that word again)....only to make you question yourself as to whether you feel informed enough to be calling for military support. Do you think having 'the basics' is good enough to be volunteering your military to go to war again, and putting yourself at risk of blowback? People supporting war on 'the basics' is what allowed this entire mess to develop in the first place.
I feel like a broken record

the first paragraph....Israel has always had a hostile army on their northern border. So as far as border security goes (as in, an invading army), the IS is no threat to them...or at least is no greater threat than Hezbollah. Israel (and the US) have a history of cozying up to Sunni jihadis - its the Iran/Hezbollah/Assad connection they've wanted destroyed for decades now. They are the biggest benefactors in this entire mess..

EdsonNascimento said:

badbrains said:

Maybe Israel wants this to happen so they can fight Hezbollah and not have them get their hands dirty. Maybe this is why Israel agreed to a cease fire, regroup for the next battle?

Israel does not need to regroup for anything. If they wanted to take over the entire Middle East they could do it by lunch tomorrow.

Probably true, but you can overrun a military, bomb the shit out of country, and retain virtually no control over the population. Israel should know this better than anyone. As bb said - Israel always wins in number of murders bombs dropped, but have they ever broken the will of ANY of their enemies? Does any aggressor?

rr165892 said:

Drowned Out said:

rr165892 said:

I say this because there is no way they will allow IS to become a threat to their border regardless of the squabble on the other side..
And I do have the basics Drowned out, a Middle East expert or analyst I am not.

My point regarding the basics wasn't to belittle you (there's that word again)....only to make you question yourself as to whether you feel informed enough to be calling for military support. Do you think having 'the basics' is good enough to be volunteering your military to go to war again, and putting yourself at risk of blowback? People supporting war on 'the basics' is what allowed this entire mess to develop in the first place.
I feel like a broken record

the first paragraph....Israel has always had a hostile army on their northern border. So as far as border security goes (as in, an invading army), the IS is no threat to them...or at least is no greater threat than Hezbollah. Israel (and the US) have a history of cozying up to Sunni jihadis - its the Iran/Hezbollah/Assad connection they've wanted destroyed for decades now. They are the biggest benefactors in this entire mess..

EdsonNascimento said:

badbrains said:

Maybe Israel wants this to happen so they can fight Hezbollah and not have them get their hands dirty. Maybe this is why Israel agreed to a cease fire, regroup for the next battle?

Israel does not need to regroup for anything. If they wanted to take over the entire Middle East they could do it by lunch tomorrow.

Probably true, but you can overrun a military, bomb the shit out of country, and retain virtually no control over the population. Israel should know this better than anyone. As bb said - Israel always wins in number of murders bombs dropped, but have they ever broken the will of ANY of their enemies? Does any aggressor?

Drowned,I'm not thin skinned,I didn't take your comment as a shot.In fact I was going to break your balls about something silly,but I was tired and wrong thread,so no issue here.But yes I do think that the "basics" are enough for me to conclude in this here little cluster fuck,that the USA does need continued involvement in stopping the spread of IS.I might not be the authority on every nuanced detail but, I can tell this will only get a lot worse without our involvement.

fuck said:

benjs said:

rr165892 said:

Drowned Out said:

rr165892 said:

I say this because there is no way they will allow IS to become a threat to their border regardless of the squabble on the other side..
And I do have the basics Drowned out, a Middle East expert or analyst I am not.

My point regarding the basics wasn't to belittle you (there's that word again)....only to make you question yourself as to whether you feel informed enough to be calling for military support. Do you think having 'the basics' is good enough to be volunteering your military to go to war again, and putting yourself at risk of blowback? People supporting war on 'the basics' is what allowed this entire mess to develop in the first place.
I feel like a broken record

the first paragraph....Israel has always had a hostile army on their northern border. So as far as border security goes (as in, an invading army), the IS is no threat to them...or at least is no greater threat than Hezbollah. Israel (and the US) have a history of cozying up to Sunni jihadis - its the Iran/Hezbollah/Assad connection they've wanted destroyed for decades now. They are the biggest benefactors in this entire mess..

EdsonNascimento said:

badbrains said:

Maybe Israel wants this to happen so they can fight Hezbollah and not have them get their hands dirty. Maybe this is why Israel agreed to a cease fire, regroup for the next battle?

Israel does not need to regroup for anything. If they wanted to take over the entire Middle East they could do it by lunch tomorrow.

Probably true, but you can overrun a military, bomb the shit out of country, and retain virtually no control over the population. Israel should know this better than anyone. As bb said - Israel always wins in number of murders bombs dropped, but have they ever broken the will of ANY of their enemies? Does any aggressor?

Drowned,I'm not thin skinned,I didn't take your comment as a shot.In fact I was going to break your balls about something silly,but I was tired and wrong thread,so no issue here.But yes I do think that the "basics" are enough for me to conclude in this here little cluster fuck,that the USA does need continued involvement in stopping the spread of IS.I might not be the authority on every nuanced detail but, I can tell this will only get a lot worse without our involvement.

rr, would you rather the situation get a lot worse with US involvement, or get a lot worse without US involvement? From what I can see, Western intervention is akin to taking someone out of a burning building to put them into another one. Can someone with a more thorough understanding of UN policies, regulations, and power help me comprehend how a regulatory body supposedly in existence to govern complex global scenarios could allow the cycle of self-serving invasions under the guise of 'assistance' followed by regional instability used as pretext for more invasions to have occurred in the first place? Or how they've allowed it to continue if the problems have existed for longer than the UN?

Yes. Watch this: http://news.uchicago.edu/multimedia/life-liberty-and-pursuit-empire-humanitarian-intervention-and-neo-orientalism

rr165892 said:

fuck said:

benjs said:

rr165892 said:

Drowned Out said:

rr165892 said:

I say this because there is no way they will allow IS to become a threat to their border regardless of the squabble on the other side..
And I do have the basics Drowned out, a Middle East expert or analyst I am not.

My point regarding the basics wasn't to belittle you (there's that word again)....only to make you question yourself as to whether you feel informed enough to be calling for military support. Do you think having 'the basics' is good enough to be volunteering your military to go to war again, and putting yourself at risk of blowback? People supporting war on 'the basics' is what allowed this entire mess to develop in the first place.
I feel like a broken record

the first paragraph....Israel has always had a hostile army on their northern border. So as far as border security goes (as in, an invading army), the IS is no threat to them...or at least is no greater threat than Hezbollah. Israel (and the US) have a history of cozying up to Sunni jihadis - its the Iran/Hezbollah/Assad connection they've wanted destroyed for decades now. They are the biggest benefactors in this entire mess..

EdsonNascimento said:

badbrains said:

Maybe Israel wants this to happen so they can fight Hezbollah and not have them get their hands dirty. Maybe this is why Israel agreed to a cease fire, regroup for the next battle?

Israel does not need to regroup for anything. If they wanted to take over the entire Middle East they could do it by lunch tomorrow.

Probably true, but you can overrun a military, bomb the shit out of country, and retain virtually no control over the population. Israel should know this better than anyone. As bb said - Israel always wins in number of murders bombs dropped, but have they ever broken the will of ANY of their enemies? Does any aggressor?

Drowned,I'm not thin skinned,I didn't take your comment as a shot.In fact I was going to break your balls about something silly,but I was tired and wrong thread,so no issue here.But yes I do think that the "basics" are enough for me to conclude in this here little cluster fuck,that the USA does need continued involvement in stopping the spread of IS.I might not be the authority on every nuanced detail but, I can tell this will only get a lot worse without our involvement.

rr, would you rather the situation get a lot worse with US involvement, or get a lot worse without US involvement? From what I can see, Western intervention is akin to taking someone out of a burning building to put them into another one. Can someone with a more thorough understanding of UN policies, regulations, and power help me comprehend how a regulatory body supposedly in existence to govern complex global scenarios could allow the cycle of self-serving invasions under the guise of 'assistance' followed by regional instability used as pretext for more invasions to have occurred in the first place? Or how they've allowed it to continue if the problems have existed for longer than the UN?

Yes. Watch this: http://news.uchicago.edu/multimedia/life-liberty-and-pursuit-empire-humanitarian-intervention-and-neo-orientalism

I will watch this tonight.But to Bens question.I look at each situation on its own merit.And yes I support western involvement as I think this threat left alone would fester and grow,eventually become a real destabilizer in the Middle East and spread thru out Europe.

mickeyrat said:

interesting. Saw this link when I was reading another article related to Jack the Ripper being named via DNA evidence....

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/british-jihadists-want-to-come-home-after-regretting-going-to-fight-for-is-9713427.html


Mark Blunden

Published: 05 September 2014

Updated: 16:49, 06 September 2014

British jihadi fighters have contacted a London university to say they regret travelling to Syria and Iraq to join Islamist fundamentalists.

Professor Peter Neumann of King’s College said his department has been in contact with a number of British jihadists who want to come back to the UK but fear being jailed.

He said the Government should set up a “deradicalisation programme” for those willing former jihadis, echoing calls by Labour leader Ed Miliband who last month suggested a mandatory programme of deradicalisation for those involved on the fringes of Islamic State.

Professor Neumann, who works at the university’s International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence, told The Times: “The people we have been talking to … want to quit but feel trapped because all the Government is talking about is locking them up for 30 years.”

One jihadist, claiming to represent 30 others, has contacted the university in the past fortnight to say there is a feeling of disillusionment, as some who travelled to fight against President Assad’s regime in Syria are instead being forced to get involved in fighting among rebel groups.

He said: “It’s not what we came for but if we go back (to Britain) we will go to jail. Right now, we are being forced to fight – what option do we have?”


So, what do you guys think of this? Not something I had considered or thought about when news of western jihadis came to light. Not sure what I think yet.