forestdaledave
Well-Known Member
History of ISIS. Good read dispelling some fears about ISIS.
http://www.vox.com/2015/11/19/9760284/isis-history
http://www.vox.com/2015/11/19/9760284/isis-history
History of Isis
- Thread starter forestdaledave
- Start date
Help Support VMAX Forum:
Traumahawk
Well-Known Member
Well cant see what you posted....BTW...their name is DAESH now.
http://www.vox.com/2015/11/19/9760284/isis-history
I read it and the info contains sources that once vetted have a story which is believable and worthy of attention. In the end, the source of the movement is sectarian warfare against and among Islamic factions in Afghanistan. It also suggests class warfare between lower socioeconomic and less educated people and the better educated middle class militant Islamists w/a core of criminals liberated from prisons by ISIS. Mention is made of the possible independent action of militant Islamists acting on their own in attacks against 'soft targets' in the West as the Western coalition and Kurdish warriors are inflicting military damage to the former expansion in the Mideast by ISIS.
I read it and the info contains sources that once vetted have a story which is believable and worthy of attention. In the end, the source of the movement is sectarian warfare against and among Islamic factions in Afghanistan. It also suggests class warfare between lower socioeconomic and less educated people and the better educated middle class militant Islamists w/a core of criminals liberated from prisons by ISIS. Mention is made of the possible independent action of militant Islamists acting on their own in attacks against 'soft targets' in the West as the Western coalition and Kurdish warriors are inflicting military damage to the former expansion in the Mideast by ISIS.
MtnMax/Magniac
Well-Known Member
"dispelling some fears" Really, Dave? Did you actually read the article before posting that? They are worse than Al-quaeda, formed by people who are from poorer, less-educated backgrounds than Bin Laden and his ilk. They have never known any life but the violence they eschew. They should be feared more than Al-quaeda or any other terrorist organization.
Traumahawk
Well-Known Member
Wow....after everything that has happened....dispelling some fears...Thats low. All of this is a ploy to :stir pot:
Of course hopefully people realize that posting gives him a reason to post stuff like this. I believe that this will be my last post on his threads.
EDIT....hopefully people realize that Im speaking of Dave....not MtnMax.
What happens to a terrorist of their "home" organization becomes weak?
Do they stop being terrorists and revert to being "good Muslims"?
Does the name of a Terrorist organization really matter?
Bottom line is simple: war has been declared upon our country and too many of us can't be bothered.
Anyone else want to stick there head up their ... (oops! I mean "in the sand")...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Do they stop being terrorists and revert to being "good Muslims"?
Does the name of a Terrorist organization really matter?
Bottom line is simple: war has been declared upon our country and too many of us can't be bothered.
Anyone else want to stick there head up their ... (oops! I mean "in the sand")...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Gee thanks Dave....I feel much better now. We're bombing the shit out of the identifiable, not overly mobile, fighting core....the IS Army, if you will....and other than a couple, or perhaps many, lone wolf hunters and maybe a few, or perhaps many, groups of brutal, violent killer/terrorists it appears everything is under control. Oh....and now maybe some 'home grown' boys & girls are kicking up the dust in support of IS.............
Hell.....nothing to see here....move along!
Hell.....nothing to see here....move along!
wildweasel_pt
Well-Known Member
How many bored veterans does the US have spending their day on the porch drinking beer and watching the sunset (no pun intended of course) or even worse, how many of them are left to oblivion homeless on any given city? How many would be willing to go hunting if the government would lend them an AR-15 and gave them a ride to the area and declare hunting season is open?
Those creatures (ISIS) are the scum of the earth and deserve to be eradicated. Sharia law has some good points though. That is a fact. But they claim they want to impose the Sharia but only enforce the bad part of Sharia and not the social part. Its just like what happened during the Spanish Inquisition. There will never be a valid reason to kill in the name of any god as life is the ultimate good. Im an agnostic btw. The biggest problem is when ones find a way to have a twisted interpretation of their religions writings and guidance to justify the elimination of whoever is not following those principles.
These creatures should be eradicated not for being muslims but for what they are doing to impose their way. Like the US likes to claim the keywords are freedom and tolerance and im sure that anyone can live happily minding their own business, and when other groups try to enforce their way of living then its time for the organization (government) to take measurements and prevent or cancel those doings and if need be getting them out of the community, there are rules within a society and the members should follow those rules to live in harmony. When that is not happening then its time to act. And I think its the acting that has been failing lately and those disturbers of peace take advantage of that using the minority flag to justify all doings within the community...
Those creatures (ISIS) are the scum of the earth and deserve to be eradicated. Sharia law has some good points though. That is a fact. But they claim they want to impose the Sharia but only enforce the bad part of Sharia and not the social part. Its just like what happened during the Spanish Inquisition. There will never be a valid reason to kill in the name of any god as life is the ultimate good. Im an agnostic btw. The biggest problem is when ones find a way to have a twisted interpretation of their religions writings and guidance to justify the elimination of whoever is not following those principles.
These creatures should be eradicated not for being muslims but for what they are doing to impose their way. Like the US likes to claim the keywords are freedom and tolerance and im sure that anyone can live happily minding their own business, and when other groups try to enforce their way of living then its time for the organization (government) to take measurements and prevent or cancel those doings and if need be getting them out of the community, there are rules within a society and the members should follow those rules to live in harmony. When that is not happening then its time to act. And I think its the acting that has been failing lately and those disturbers of peace take advantage of that using the minority flag to justify all doings within the community...
MtnMax/Magniac
Well-Known Member
How ISIS Got So Strong - So Fast
Ricochet News
November 19, 2015
By Herbert E Meyer
Decades ago in London, a rising English journalist named Paul Johnson was interviewing Prime Minister Harold Macmillan about the upcoming election. Assuming that Macmillan wanted to talk about one of his party’s central campaign issues — how to revive Britain’s struggling economy and the new Tory healthcare plan — Johnson asked one of those bland questions that give politicians the elbow room to blather on about whatever they want: “Prime Minister, what worries you the most?”
Macmillan’s reply, “Events, dear boy. Events!” was so unexpected, and so clever, that decades later, Johnson, who by this time had become one of Britain’s greatest historians, would recount it gleefully to anyone who had the good sense and the good fortune (including me) to spend an evening with him. Well, an event just changed the course of history.
Until last week, “ISIS” was a minor political issue that only a few of the more hawkish GOP candidates for president wanted to talk about. Now, after the attacks in Paris, “ISIS” may well emerge as the dominant issue of the 2016 presidential election.
Before we all start arguing over what to do about ISIS, let’s take some time to try and understand how it got so strong, so fast. How did a terrorist group that barely existed five years ago pull off an obviously well-planned and coordinated attack in Paris, bring down a Russian jetliner over Egypt and, most importantly, take over vast swaths of territory in the Mideast and create what amounts to a twenty-first century Caliphate?
I can give you the correct answer in two words — Barack Obama — but that’s a sound bite rather than an explanation. Since our survival depends on getting this right, I’m going to take a bit more time and space than usual to illuminate ISIS’s path to power. Please be patient, and when you start squirming in your chair, remind yourself of that wonderful story about the day Richard Feynman, one of the twentieth century’s greatest physicists, was awarded the Nobel prize. A young reporter called him and said: “Please explain to me in thirty seconds what you did to win the Nobel prize.” Feynman replied: “Kid, if I could explain it in thirty seconds, it wouldn’t be worth a Nobel prize.”
Why We Didn’t Bring the Boys Home in 1945
When World War II ended in 1945, all we wanted to do was bring home our troops. We’re Americans, after all, so bringing the boys home was at the top of our national agenda. But we didn’t. The people who led our country then — Democratic President Harry Truman, Republican members of the Senate — understood that the war wasn’t over just because the bullets had stopped flying. It takes a long time for things to become stable — in the same sense that after a forest fire is extinguished, rangers stay on patrol for days, or even weeks, just in case there’s a flare-up long after the fire seemed to be out. Moreover, the post-war leaders of Japan and Germany, such as the great Konrad Adenauer, asked us to stay. Very quietly, without any public acknowledgement of what they were doing, they told our leaders they were afraid that if we pulled out the lunatics might return.
So we kept tens of thousands of troops in Germany and Japan. They’re still there, and it’s been more than 70 years since the war ended. No one knows how to calculate the cost; it’s probably hundreds of trillions of dollars. And there’s no way to know for sure what would have happened if we’d have brought our troops home in 1945. But it doesn’t take much effort to imagine what might have happened. If a mob of Nazis had hit Munich in 1946, or a battalion of fascist military officers had attacked Osaka or Tokyo in 1946 or 1947, the newly-formed governments of these countries wouldn’t have been able to cope. They were still too shell-shocked, too disorganized, too distrustful of one another, too busy clearing rubble off the streets.
That’s why the decision by the US and our allies to keep our troops in place when World War II ended will go down as one of history’s very greatest decisions. We kept things stable, we kept the lunatics from coming back and causing chaos, we gave the fragile new governments of Germany and Japan the time and breathing space they needed to get a grip on things and learn to become modern, successful members of the world community of nations.
Now let’s look at Iraq. Whether you think our 2003 invasion of Iraq was a good idea or a ghastly mistake — we can argue about this another time — the invasion happened and in the real world, there’s no rewind button. We made huge mistakes, as always happens in combat, but by the end of 2008 our troops had won the war. Iraq was stable, intact, at peace — surely you watched those extraordinary videos of millions of Iraqis voting in elections and proudly holding up their purple thumbs — and some measure of normal, modern life was starting to emerge. Electricity was back on, oil production was rising, restaurants were open and packed with customers every evening, and I even remember reading that the Baghdad Philharmonic, or whatever the orchestra was called, had announced a concert schedule for the upcoming season. In short, the Armed Forces of the United States had — once again, bless them — done a great job and won an incredible victory.
Then we elected Barack Obama as our president, and he pulled out the troops. He and the leaders of those countries that had fought along side us did in Iraq precisely what President Truman and his counterparts in England, France, Canada and elsewhere, didn’t do in 1945. Truman and his fellow leaders stood up to public opinion, and stayed. Obama and his counterparts pandered to public opinion, and pulled out.
Of course the lunatics came back. Of course the new leaders of Iraq were too new to power, too shell-shocked, too busy fighting among themselves, to stop them. It was obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense, a basic grasp of history, and one iota of political courage — in other words, none of the over-educated idiots in Washington — that this was going to happen. It’s a classic example of the old saying that the first lesson of history is that we don’t learn the lessons of history.
It’s Obama’s Blunder, Not Bush’s
Reader, there is no possibility that ISIS would even exist today — let alone be powerful enough to cause havoc throughout the world — had President Obama kept our troops in place in Iraq. And it was his decision to pull out, not President Bush’s decision to invade, that will go down as one of history’s greatest blunders. Yes, I know this is a controversial point, and that half of you reading the previous sentence are about to explode. But before you do, bear with me a bit longer while we conduct what scientists call a thought-experiment:
Imagine that we’d pulled our troops out of Germany in 1945 and then, in 1946, a mob of armed Nazis re-surfaced and threw the Bonn government, and Western Europe itself, into chaos. Can’t you just picture the scorn and abuse that would have been hurled at President Truman by his political enemies for throwing away the victory his predecessor had fought and won?
President Obama isn’t likely to acknowledge that his decision to pull our troops out of Iraq has been a catastrophic failure. He’ll find a way, yet again, to blame it all on President Bush. And while he’ll make some cosmetic changes to our military strategy designed to show he’s tough, he probably won’t unleash our armed forces so they could actually eliminate the threat from ISIS. He’ll leave that to his successor.
I said earlier, the first lesson of history is that we never learn the lessons of history. Perhaps I overstated it just a bit. Sometimes we do learn from experience, and if the experience of the last century is any guide, the lessons some of us have learned are these:
First, the world can never be safe, but the world is safer when the US plays a leading role. Second, diplomacy is important, but sometimes there’s just no substitute for military power. You cannot contain thugs, or negotiate with them. You must obliterate them, and not lose sleep over collateral damage. As of right now, our nation is showing no signs of having learned either of these lessons.
That’s why the question every candidate for president now must answer is: What will you do about ISIS? The election will depend on whichever candidate comes up with the best answer. So will our lives.
Ricochet News
November 19, 2015
By Herbert E Meyer
Decades ago in London, a rising English journalist named Paul Johnson was interviewing Prime Minister Harold Macmillan about the upcoming election. Assuming that Macmillan wanted to talk about one of his party’s central campaign issues — how to revive Britain’s struggling economy and the new Tory healthcare plan — Johnson asked one of those bland questions that give politicians the elbow room to blather on about whatever they want: “Prime Minister, what worries you the most?”
Macmillan’s reply, “Events, dear boy. Events!” was so unexpected, and so clever, that decades later, Johnson, who by this time had become one of Britain’s greatest historians, would recount it gleefully to anyone who had the good sense and the good fortune (including me) to spend an evening with him. Well, an event just changed the course of history.
Until last week, “ISIS” was a minor political issue that only a few of the more hawkish GOP candidates for president wanted to talk about. Now, after the attacks in Paris, “ISIS” may well emerge as the dominant issue of the 2016 presidential election.
Before we all start arguing over what to do about ISIS, let’s take some time to try and understand how it got so strong, so fast. How did a terrorist group that barely existed five years ago pull off an obviously well-planned and coordinated attack in Paris, bring down a Russian jetliner over Egypt and, most importantly, take over vast swaths of territory in the Mideast and create what amounts to a twenty-first century Caliphate?
I can give you the correct answer in two words — Barack Obama — but that’s a sound bite rather than an explanation. Since our survival depends on getting this right, I’m going to take a bit more time and space than usual to illuminate ISIS’s path to power. Please be patient, and when you start squirming in your chair, remind yourself of that wonderful story about the day Richard Feynman, one of the twentieth century’s greatest physicists, was awarded the Nobel prize. A young reporter called him and said: “Please explain to me in thirty seconds what you did to win the Nobel prize.” Feynman replied: “Kid, if I could explain it in thirty seconds, it wouldn’t be worth a Nobel prize.”
Why We Didn’t Bring the Boys Home in 1945
When World War II ended in 1945, all we wanted to do was bring home our troops. We’re Americans, after all, so bringing the boys home was at the top of our national agenda. But we didn’t. The people who led our country then — Democratic President Harry Truman, Republican members of the Senate — understood that the war wasn’t over just because the bullets had stopped flying. It takes a long time for things to become stable — in the same sense that after a forest fire is extinguished, rangers stay on patrol for days, or even weeks, just in case there’s a flare-up long after the fire seemed to be out. Moreover, the post-war leaders of Japan and Germany, such as the great Konrad Adenauer, asked us to stay. Very quietly, without any public acknowledgement of what they were doing, they told our leaders they were afraid that if we pulled out the lunatics might return.
So we kept tens of thousands of troops in Germany and Japan. They’re still there, and it’s been more than 70 years since the war ended. No one knows how to calculate the cost; it’s probably hundreds of trillions of dollars. And there’s no way to know for sure what would have happened if we’d have brought our troops home in 1945. But it doesn’t take much effort to imagine what might have happened. If a mob of Nazis had hit Munich in 1946, or a battalion of fascist military officers had attacked Osaka or Tokyo in 1946 or 1947, the newly-formed governments of these countries wouldn’t have been able to cope. They were still too shell-shocked, too disorganized, too distrustful of one another, too busy clearing rubble off the streets.
That’s why the decision by the US and our allies to keep our troops in place when World War II ended will go down as one of history’s very greatest decisions. We kept things stable, we kept the lunatics from coming back and causing chaos, we gave the fragile new governments of Germany and Japan the time and breathing space they needed to get a grip on things and learn to become modern, successful members of the world community of nations.
Now let’s look at Iraq. Whether you think our 2003 invasion of Iraq was a good idea or a ghastly mistake — we can argue about this another time — the invasion happened and in the real world, there’s no rewind button. We made huge mistakes, as always happens in combat, but by the end of 2008 our troops had won the war. Iraq was stable, intact, at peace — surely you watched those extraordinary videos of millions of Iraqis voting in elections and proudly holding up their purple thumbs — and some measure of normal, modern life was starting to emerge. Electricity was back on, oil production was rising, restaurants were open and packed with customers every evening, and I even remember reading that the Baghdad Philharmonic, or whatever the orchestra was called, had announced a concert schedule for the upcoming season. In short, the Armed Forces of the United States had — once again, bless them — done a great job and won an incredible victory.
Then we elected Barack Obama as our president, and he pulled out the troops. He and the leaders of those countries that had fought along side us did in Iraq precisely what President Truman and his counterparts in England, France, Canada and elsewhere, didn’t do in 1945. Truman and his fellow leaders stood up to public opinion, and stayed. Obama and his counterparts pandered to public opinion, and pulled out.
Of course the lunatics came back. Of course the new leaders of Iraq were too new to power, too shell-shocked, too busy fighting among themselves, to stop them. It was obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense, a basic grasp of history, and one iota of political courage — in other words, none of the over-educated idiots in Washington — that this was going to happen. It’s a classic example of the old saying that the first lesson of history is that we don’t learn the lessons of history.
It’s Obama’s Blunder, Not Bush’s
Reader, there is no possibility that ISIS would even exist today — let alone be powerful enough to cause havoc throughout the world — had President Obama kept our troops in place in Iraq. And it was his decision to pull out, not President Bush’s decision to invade, that will go down as one of history’s greatest blunders. Yes, I know this is a controversial point, and that half of you reading the previous sentence are about to explode. But before you do, bear with me a bit longer while we conduct what scientists call a thought-experiment:
Imagine that we’d pulled our troops out of Germany in 1945 and then, in 1946, a mob of armed Nazis re-surfaced and threw the Bonn government, and Western Europe itself, into chaos. Can’t you just picture the scorn and abuse that would have been hurled at President Truman by his political enemies for throwing away the victory his predecessor had fought and won?
President Obama isn’t likely to acknowledge that his decision to pull our troops out of Iraq has been a catastrophic failure. He’ll find a way, yet again, to blame it all on President Bush. And while he’ll make some cosmetic changes to our military strategy designed to show he’s tough, he probably won’t unleash our armed forces so they could actually eliminate the threat from ISIS. He’ll leave that to his successor.
I said earlier, the first lesson of history is that we never learn the lessons of history. Perhaps I overstated it just a bit. Sometimes we do learn from experience, and if the experience of the last century is any guide, the lessons some of us have learned are these:
First, the world can never be safe, but the world is safer when the US plays a leading role. Second, diplomacy is important, but sometimes there’s just no substitute for military power. You cannot contain thugs, or negotiate with them. You must obliterate them, and not lose sleep over collateral damage. As of right now, our nation is showing no signs of having learned either of these lessons.
That’s why the question every candidate for president now must answer is: What will you do about ISIS? The election will depend on whichever candidate comes up with the best answer. So will our lives.
Similar threads
