[Javan]

Originally posted by Witchpop

Regardless of the situation they're still recruiting and growing more and more powerful. If everyone stood back and ignored them do you think they're just going to magically disappear.

That's not what I said. Ever since Iraq, western countries particularly the US and the UK should have done more to improve their relationship with Middle Eastern countries. So much of the money invested in indiscriminate and ineffective drone and shelling over the decade could have been put towards helping communities build schools, sewage systems, gestures that show who the real enemy is. But the West act as if they are the enemy, even towards innocent civilians, ofc ISIS are going to recruit fast.

Pretty much everything that is being done is with the intention of making this war without end. War is now industry, and the powers that be are profiting.

[Caesar]

Actually the video is unconfirmed.

+

According to ISIS the sites they attacked were abandoned and there were no casualties apparently.

[Katy V.!]

People need to accept that innocent civilians will die.

The question for France (and any country threatened by ISIS) is, should I wait for my civilians to be killed or should I try to kill the terrorists? (and kill Syrian civilians by collateral damage).

These deads are on ISIS, don't let tumblr fool you.

[Caesar]

Originally posted by Javan

That's not what I said. Ever since Iraq, western countries particularly the US and the UK should have done more to improve their relationship with Middle Eastern countries. So much of the money invested in indiscriminate and ineffective drone and shelling over the decade could have been put towards helping communities build schools, sewage systems, gestures that show who the real enemy is. But the West act as if they are the enemy, even towards innocent civilians, ofc ISIS are going to recruit fast.

Pretty much everything that is being done is with the intention of making this war without end. War is now industry, and the powers that be are profiting.

I think they should do that after they defeat ISIS

[Javan]

Originally posted by GarageGlamorous

The responses in here, you'd think they just peppered the entire country with bombs indiscriminately.

As long as civilian casualties were minimal, I don't have an issue with this. I'm generally anti-war, but you can't say that a response like this was unjustified.

We have every reason to believe the attacks were indiscriminate/non-tactical.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...ikes-kill-1147

[Javan]

Originally posted by Caesar

I think they should do that after they defeat ISIS

Listen to me. They are not going to defeat ISIS with bombs.

[Witchpop]

Originally posted by Javan

That's not what I said. Ever since Iraq, western countries particularly the US and the UK should have done more to improve their relationship with Middle Eastern countries. So much of the money invested in indiscriminate and ineffective drone and shelling over the decade could have been put towards helping communities build schools, sewage systems, gestures that show who the real enemy is. But the West act as if they are the enemy, even towards innocent civilians, ofc ISIS are going to recruit fast.

Pretty much everything that is being done is with the intention of making this war without end. War is now industry, and the powers that be are profiting.

I agree, we should try to do that, it would help damper the spreading of recruitment, but it won't entirely eliminate it unfortunately, they'll just find a way to brainwash/demean what we've done and twist it into an evil.

[.:Allen:.]

Sounds good to me

[KyIe]

Originally posted by Javan

That's not what I said. Ever since Iraq, western countries particularly the US and the UK should have done more to improve their relationship with Middle Eastern countries. So much of the money invested in indiscriminate and ineffective drone and shelling over the decade could have been put towards helping communities build schools, sewage systems, gestures that show who the real enemy is. But the West act as if they are the enemy, even towards innocent civilians, ofc ISIS are going to recruit fast.

Pretty much everything that is being done is with the intention of making this war without end. War is now industry, and the powers that be are profiting.

omg are you NUTS. So Western money should go to build MIDDLE EASTERN infrastructure. You must be insane. Let America and the West use their money to help their own people instead of random countries where the money will never even trickle down to the citizens. The entire reason any of the NATO countries are involved is because these terrorist groups pose a significant threat to national security. Otherwise there would be no money spent there at all.

[Airhead]

The cycle will never end.

[Javan]

Originally posted by Witchpop

I agree, we should try to do that, it would help damper the spreading of recruitment, but it won't entirely eliminate it unfortunately, they'll just find a way to brainwash/demean what we've done and twist it into an evil.

Ok. But try to apply logic. Bombings energise the recruitment process. What I proposed to your own admission "dampers" the recruitment. So why are you justifying/advocating the former?

[Repo]

Originally posted by Javan

ISIS are real life Hydra of Lerna. These bombings only help them recruit exponentially. They are killing brothers, mothers, sons etc, breeding lust for revenge/"justice" its so much easier to indoctrinate victims when you're under fire.

As was asked, what would you suggest doing to stop Isis. It's a simple question. Sitting there and doing nothing certainly won't work, so if France shouldn't bomb Isis facilities, what should be done?

[Javan]

Originally posted by KyIe

omg are you NUTS. So Western money should go to build MIDDLE EASTERN infrastructure. You must be insane. Let America and the West use their money to help their own people instead of random countries where the money will never even trickle down to the citizens. The entire reason any of the NATO countries are involved is because these terrorist groups pose a significant threat to national security. Otherwise there would be no money spent there at all.

Right? Silly me! All this time I thought Israel was the Middle East?

[Repo]

Originally posted by Caesar

According to ISIS the sites they attacked were abandoned and there were no casualties apparently.

They're lying

[Repo]

Originally posted by GarageGlamorous

The responses in here, you'd think they just peppered the entire country with bombs indiscriminately.

As long as civilian casualties were minimal, I don't have an issue with this. I'm generally anti-war, but you can't say that a response like this was unjustified.

This is pretty much how I feel

[KyIe]

Originally posted by Javan

Right? Silly me! All this time I thought Israel was the Middle East?

Please honey, Israel isn't run by leaders who support chants calling death to America and death to infidels. Nice try though. Plus I don't even agree with America gifting vast quantities of money to ANY country unless they're in immediate need of it.

Edit: love how you made the assumption that I had a double standard when it came to "middle eastern" countries. America has no place in the region besides oil and they really should remove ALL involvement from the region except to make sure Israel and or other peaceful middle eastern countries(i.e. Jordan) aren't wiped off the face of the map.

[IBeMe]

Originally posted by KyIe

omg are you NUTS. So Western money should go to build MIDDLE EASTERN infrastructure. You must be insane. Let America and the West use their money to help their own people instead of random countries where the money will never even trickle down to the citizens. The entire reason any of the NATO countries are involved is because these terrorist groups pose a significant threat to national security. Otherwise there would be no money spent there at all.

that's not what he said . he said RIGHT after the Iraq war (which was a mistake altogether) they should have focused on strengthening ties to the ME to sort of reconcile after the mess the US caused in Iraq....over supposed weapons of mass destruction which were not present in Iraq AT ALL.
that way the extremist terrorist in the middle east wouldn't have been as successful in radicalizing the citizens. instead the west kept acting and treating middle eastern nations as enemies...which helped in the recruiting of frustrated ppl.
this is what he said

[IamCY]

[KyIe]

Originally posted by IBeMe

that's not what he said . he said RIGHT after the Iraq war (which was a mistake altogether) they should have focused on strengthening ties to the ME to sort of reconcile after the mess the US caused in Iraq....over supposed weapons of mass destruction which were not present in Iraq AT ALL.
that way the extremist terrorist in the middle east wouldn't have been as successful in radicalizing the citizens. instead the west kept acting and treating middle eastern nations as enemies...which helped in the recruiting of frustrated ppl.
this is what he said

You're kind of missing the part where America was OUTRAGED over the 9/11 attacks. You think the American people would have supported just gifting money to these countries where the terrorist organizations were supposedly hiding? Yes its easy to realize the mistakes looking back but at the time is was a whole different scenario in which ISIS didn't exist. Nobody could have predicted the Arab Spring and the upheaval it caused.

Edit: I understand what he was saying, its just way to idealized and would never practically work. I could say lets all get along and sing kumbaya for days but there is just too much hatred right now.

[Elusive Chanteuse]

Originally posted by Javan

Listen to me. They are not going to defeat ISIS with bombs.

So how will they?