ISIS Atrocity Tipping Point

[Hans de Vries]

Whatever. Values 40 or 50 years ago were not massively different than now. Just as today we had:

- individualism

- democracy

- freedom of speech, religion, conscience

- right to live, work, education, a just trial

- equality of gender, religion, race, ethnicity

 

However, I'm sure that economic progress (which is lagging in that part of the world) will not lead on it's own to the adoption of western value system. Look at UAE for example - in UAE money literally flows from the ground and native population lives in luxury. They have free healthcare, education (including scholarships at elite western unis), many don't have to wotk (women don't work at all) because everything gets done by migrant labor from South Asia (and Western specialists) who outnumver the native population 4:1. Yet social- and politically-wise UAE is a very conservative sharia-ruled state and has even produced several high ranking terrorists. So well, a really huge political upheaval would be needed to transform ME.

 

EDIT imatfaal, I don't suggest that ISIS members should adopt our values. I said that Middle Eastern people (and their descendants in Europe) should dump their appreciation for antiquated (actually early medieval) values and adopt western values as a part of their identity. ISIS enjoys quite a lot of support in the Muslim world and beyond - why did you think did thousands of young people from EU go to fight in their ranks?

Edited February 6, 2015 by Hans de Vries

[StringJunky]

 

..What is it about our value system that transcends subjectivity and makes it objectively better?

I would say the better system is the one that is the most self-governing, the most inclusive and requiring the least amount of force to preserve it.

[tar]

Hans de Vries

 

Imatfaal expressed nicely the sentiments I have and would leave it at that, as well said, except the point about not being able to come upon a value system that is objectively superior to another is an important one to explore...and talk about...and find agreement of "story", even with daesh followers. What I mean is that since 9-11 America and my way of life have been challenged and I have been demonized and equated, as an American, with the Devil. I am actually not the devil, and as far as Allah, or the creator of the universe, or the universe itself, or all the inhabitants of the universe are concerned I am just as equal a member of the place as anybody else. If I have enemies that wish to kill me and destroy my way of life, however, I need to kill them back.

 

Along with the humanist point of view, I would have to say we need to come up with a story that can be lived by a young Muslim man in Syria or an old Shaman in the mountians, or a young Chinese girl near Mongolia, or a redneck in Alabama. It can not be just that our values as Westerners need to be adopted because they are Western values, it should be those aspects of our laws and practices that work, and are compatible with the laws and practice of other societies that work, should be merged, by agreeement and with understanding and "unbigoted" compassion for others, into a workable story that any human, of any age, of any background, could live, with pride, and happiness, and say "yes, I judge this way of life to be good."

 

Your suggestion that Daesh needs to take on Western values is, after all, in and of itself a bigoted statement.

We need to take on the workable values of Islam, and Islam needs to take on the workable values of Europe, and China needs to take one the workable values of the people in Tokyo, and we all need to learn something from the natives of South America...or whatever.

 

As an unbigoted humanist, one should not be bigoted, nor call any large portion of the human race misguided...as if you know how to be, and everybody else has something to learn.

 

Yes we have changed a lot, in the West in a short time. We had slaves in America 250 years ago. Earlier in my life it was only 200 years ago that we fought the war between the states. We had the crusades and Christians and Muslims were at war. We fought the Nazis in WWII and may have to bind together to fight daesh in a similar fashion, but hatred of the enemies of goodness is a sword that cuts both ways, and its good to remember that. Germany is currently the rock that holds Europe together, where it used to be the evilest snake around. Japan has spread quality control and technology and wealth around the planet, where it once was an Imperialist nightmare, and needed to be defeated, for peace and freedom to reign in the world.

 

Things change, people change, Nations change. Horrors remain horrors, and evil only prevails, when good men do nothing.

 

But being good is not a Western value alone. Its what good humans do. Whatever they believe, whatever nation they call their own.

 

And I am sure, that good will win, in the end.

 

Regards, TAR

Wait. What am I talking about. The civil war was in 1865 and I was born in 1953, that is less than 100 years. I knew someone who was 100 1982. The world has changed alot just in my lifetime.

[CharonY]

 

Wait. What am I talking about. The civil war was in 1865 and I was born in 1953, that is less than 100 years. I knew someone who was 100 1982. The world has changed alot just in my lifetime.

 

That perspective is important IMO. Many aspects such as equality are a fixed item in Western countries. As such, it is easy to think of them as some core element that has been around forever. "Value" is sometimes understood as something inherent, immovable and unchanging.

 

Yet, many of the values we grew up with, were radically different a mere one or two generations ago.

Equality of gender, for example. Women's suffrage was instituted in many European countries after WWII, and in some cases quite some time after that. Also racial discrimination was for the longest time tolerated. In many ways, WWI and II as well as their aftermath have shaped Europe to a large degree and with it, the culture and values of the people. Heck, a number of European democracies were only formed after WWII although they were, in other aspects already modernized and developed.

 

In that context it is important to remember that many middle Eastern countries as nations are incredibly young. Sure, Persia was an ancient civilization, but Iran with its current constitution only existed since the late 70s. Others have also formed sometime after WWII, and were in many ways less modernized than many of their European counterparts.

And it is noteworthy that a number of predominantly Islamic countries have implemented constitutions that share similar values of democracy, sovereignty of the people and even secularism.

Edited February 6, 2015 by CharonY

[Hans de Vries]

I do think western value system is superior to any other value system that exists in this world and anyone who claims otherwise is foolish. How can value system that orders killing apostates and homosexuals, forces women to wear layers of black, baggy clothing (lest they arouse sexual feelings in men) and systemiatically persecutes religious minorities be equal to the value system that has given birth to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Most Islamic countries did not even adopt that declaration and instead they adopted their own declaration of "Islamic" human rights (the Cairo Declaration on Human RIghts in Islam) which has nothing to do with human rights and in fact is their antithesis.

 

Moreover, as a proponent of the philosophy of natural law, I consider human rights to be eternal and unchangeable, They aren't simply a privileage given by some political elite. Discriminating against anyone on any baisis (religion, ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation) has always been wrong and will always remain wrong no matter what people think about it. And nobody can change that - no organization, no politician (even the most powerful one), not even God.

Edited February 6, 2015 by Hans de Vries

[Ten oz]

OK but the theological validity of their ideology is a different issue altogether. It does not belong to this topic. I simply wanted to highlight that Middle Easterners must adopt Western values. It does not matter whether they do this by creating a westernized Islam, adopting atheism, Christianity, Buddhism, Nordic Paganism or whatever mix of religions they choose.

 

It's the result that matters - the Middle East shall turn from a poor, backward, intolerant place plagued by constant wars into a flourishing region with democracy, freedom of speech, religion, equality of men and women and a highly developed rule of law.

When you say the Middle East who specifically are you referencing? Because many countries in the Middle East do not fit your description of "poor and backward". Qatar, UAE, Jordan, Bahrian, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, etc are wealthy nations that have a close relationships with Western Countries. In your opinion did those countries adopted "Westernized Islam, atheism, Christianity, Buddhism, Nordic Paganism"?

As for the constant war part is it only a plague if it is happening inside your own boarders? Because in my country (United States) we fight in a lot of Wars. Sometimes a couple wars at once while campaigning politically to get into some others. So while I agree that certian countries in the Middle East have serious problems that must be addressed I don't feel you have thus far properly outlined who those players are. You also haven't provided a real solution of any sorts. Just board generalizations of the whole region that actually only fit a handful of places.

 

Wait. What am I talking about. The civil war was in 1865 and I was born in 1953, that is less than 100 years. I knew someone who was 100 1982. The world has changed alot just in my lifetime.

Segregation in the South States did not happen until the 1960's. There are plenty of people alive today that grew up during a time when people were forced to sit separately at restaurants, use different bathrooms, attend different schools, weren't allowed to wed, and etc interiorly based on skin color. Anyone over the age of around 55yrs old lived during those days. Even more resently Apartheid in South Africa just ended in the late 80's.

A person living in a Westernized country doesn't need to be in triple digits to have lived through major change.

[Hans de Vries]

 

When you say the Middle East who specifically are you referencing? Because many countries in the Middle East do not fit your description of "poor and backward". Qatar, UAE, Jordan, Bahrian, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, etc are wealthy nations that have a close relationships with Western Countries. In your opinion did those countries adopted "Westernized Islam, atheism, Christianity, Buddhism, Nordic Paganism"?

And what's your point exactly? That oil makes people rich? Read my post once again:

 

"It's the result that matters - the Middle East shall turn from a poor, backward, intolerant place plagued by constant wars into a flourishing region with democracy, freedom of speech, religion, equality of men and women and a highly developed rule of law."

 

Do the countries listed by you have any of these? Do they have democracy? Do they uphold equality of men and women? Do they let missionaries from other religions preach freely to Muslims? Do they allow Muslims to convert to other religions without fear of having their heads chopped off? Are they welcoming of any criticism towards Islam (or the way it's interpreted) or the ruling elite? No - none of the countries listed above has any of these. Besides maybe Turkey, none has. Even in more secular ME countries (Egypt, Jordan, Iraq etc.) there is widespread violence against ex-Muslims and institutionalized discrimination against religious minorities. So we may say with certainity that even if you have the most noble values enshrined in your constitution, they simply aren't going to work unless the mentality of society as a whole changes.

Edited February 6, 2015 by Hans de Vries

[CharonY]

Well, technically religious freedom (of sorts) was less permissible for the longest time in the Western world. This has resulted in massive religious wars (although they were obviously also tied with political ambitions). Especially the conflicts following reformation were long and bloody, and I was always wondering whether that was the root for religious freedom in the West. The middle Eastern powers (and then, the Ottoman Empire) required a level of tolerance as trading was an important economic source. In the West, religious freedom was often seen as the freedom to any Christian flavor of religion, at least initially.

 

And again, if change of mentality is the goal, it has to be due to societal changes. That, in turn requires different paths for different societies. Democracy in various European countries has developed differently from each other (and from the US) and even after respective constitutions have been created that e.g. state equality as a base premise, it took decades (or, in some cases centuries) before the society caught up with that ideal.

It is very unrealistic to expect a whole society to adopt to certain values all in one go, and even in modern, Western societies archaic beliefs still exist (though are not enforceable by law).

 

However, it is wrong to assume that the middle eastern societies are not undergoing change. Especially among educated parts of the population the mentality for equality is already there (you just need to talk to some female grad students from Saudi Arabia and their desire to return and make an impact on society). It will take a while (same as it took here) to pervade society. And there will be pushback from those in power that may see their interest threatened (same as here). A major issue are destabilizing elements in that region that make modernization very difficult, but one has to admire the people who still try despite all the real dangers.

Edited February 6, 2015 by CharonY

[DimaMazin]

 

 

History and logic has taught us they will never be sufficient.

 

 

 

 

Why not?

Because I don't want to be the feet. And remember Japan. I don't offer to use nuclear weapon, but we should improve our weapon.

[swansont]

And remember Japan.

 

That's about as an extremely inappropriate example as you can get, since the premise here is minimizing civilian casualties. There has been absolutely no hint of using nuclear weapons here. I assumed that rational people would understand that it's not an option.

[DimaMazin]

 

That's about as an extremely inappropriate example as you can get, since the premise here is minimizing civilian casualties. There has been absolutely no hint of using nuclear weapons here. I assumed that rational people would understand that it's not an option.

No. That's brilliant example when physicists create necessary weapon.

[dimreepr]

No. That's brilliant example when physicists create necessary weapon.

 

 

So your answer is to kill everyone? That would stop the war and, of course, further atrocities; but I’d be very nervous if I was your neighbour and you had a rat infestation.

Edited February 6, 2015 by dimreepr

[KenBrace]

Your vision is a bit simplistic, guys.

 

ISIS is not some small destructive cult that will collapse entirely once it's charismatic leader is dead. It's an expression of a powerful, ambitious religious-political movement that transgresses all borders and enjoys support of dozens if millions in the Arab world and hundreds of millions in the Muslim world. It constantly invents new tactics, constantly produces new leaders and has an almost unlimited supply of manpower in form of young men willing to die in combat and receive their celestial virgins.. It's like a hydra - you cut off one head and the next one grows immediately. Against Islamists sheer firepower will be ineffective. It did not work in Afghanistan under the Soviets, it did not work in Afghanistan under NATO, it did not work in Iraq once and it will not work this time either.

 

For islamism to be destroyed, mentality of the entire Middle East must change. Unless they understend en masse that Sharia law is a road to nowhere, and decide to build a modern society based on western values, the bloodshed will not stop.

 

This war will not become easier. OVer time it will only get harder. Jordan and UAE are already out of coalition, other Arab states may follow them if they start feeling threatened.

 

This is why I hate religious fundamentalism and the indoctrination of children mentality that it incorporates. The middle east needs more atheists.

[DimaMazin]

 

 

So your answer is to kill everyone? That would stop the war and, of course, further atrocities; but I’d be very nervous if I was your neighbour and you had a rat infestation.

Then did you define that a necessary weapon should kill everyone?I only told that physicists should create necessary weapon.

[Ten oz]

And what's your point exactly? That oil makes people rich? Read my post once again:

 

"It's the result that matters - the Middle East shall turn from a poor, backward, intolerant place plagued by constant wars into a flourishing region with democracy, freedom of speech, religion, equality of men and women and a highly developed rule of law."

 

Do the countries listed by you have any of these? Do they have democracy? Do they uphold equality of men and women? Do they let missionaries from other religions preach freely to Muslims? Do they allow Muslims to convert to other religions without fear of having their heads chopped off? Are they welcoming of any criticism towards Islam (or the way it's interpreted) or the ruling elite? No - none of the countries listed above has any of these. Besides maybe Turkey, none has. Even in more secular ME countries (Egypt, Jordan, Iraq etc.) there is widespread violence against ex-Muslims and institutionalized discrimination against religious minorities. So we may say with certainity that even if you have the most noble values enshrined in your constitution, they simply aren't going to work unless the mentality of society as a whole changes.

My point is that you are making very board remarks and generalizing the entire region incorrectly. Your comments starts by calling the whole Middle East "poor, backward, and intolerant" and then you proceed to list Western society traits you'd like to see adopted. There is nothing "poor" or "backwards" about the opulent western allies in the Middle East I listed. As for intolerance that varies significantly from country to country. In the UAE women have more protections and freedom than in Afghanistan for examples. And many of the wealthy countries are changing their ways in response to capitalistic pressure. Rather than just labeling all of them as poor, backwards, and intolerant I think it is important to acknowledge allies vs foes, progress vs worsening states, and etc. While the countries in the Middle East have majority Muslim populations the region is no more a singular place that can be lumped all together than are the majority Christian Americas.

Does or should every country in the todays world be a democracy? Isn't trying to make the whole world in their example one of the historical failures of world powers? Is it possible for a place like Qatar to stay a monarchy while at the same time continue to improve their record on human rights? Can their be peace and equality without a complete cultural bowing to modern western values?

Well, technically religious freedom (of sorts) was less permissible for the longest time in the Western world. This has resulted in massive religious wars (although they were obviously also tied with political ambitions). Especially the conflicts following reformation were long and bloody, and I was always wondering whether that was the root for religious freedom in the West. The middle Eastern powers (and then, the Ottoman Empire) required a level of tolerance as trading was an important economic source. In the West, religious freedom was often seen as the freedom to any Christian flavor of religion, at least initially.

 

The religious intolerance of the Middle East in general is a bit over stated in my opinion. There are more Christians living in the Middle East than there are Muslims living in all the Americas for example.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/05/19/middle-easts-christian-population-in-flux-as-pope-francis-visits-holy-land/

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/07/worlds-muslim-population-more-widespread-than-you-might-think/

[dimreepr]

Then did you define that a necessary weapon should kill everyone?I only told that physicists should create necessary weapon.

 

 

I’m sorry, my bad, how could I know you were privy to the magic bomb physicists have recently developed that kill only bad guys?

[MigL]

All the trouble spots in the middle east are ruled by religious leaders or have a disproportionally large religious influence in their governance. Religion is open to interpretation by fanatics.

The problems will only stop when secularism and democratic processes are adopted, OR when they are shown that we have the resolve to protect what is important to us ( as Truman did ).

 

Remember when the pope was the effective ruler of the empires of Europe ? How many people were burned at the stake in the late middle ages ? How many were stoned to death ? You could be killed with impunity for looking at an aristocrat/prince/emperor the wrong way..

This is where a lot of the middle east is today.

[DimaMazin]

 

 

I’m sorry, my bad, how could I know you were privy to the magic bomb physicists have recently developed that kill only bad guys?

Any discovery is magic. Of course we don't know abilities of scientists. For example bomb which can detonate weapon.When you have no weapon then it is safe for you.

[tar]

Hans de Vries,

 

The things you say make Western culture superior to Middle Eastern culture are the same ones I think make the difference. But as CharonY points out, much of the difference has to do with inequality between the sexes, and tolerence for peoples other than you.

 

Some of the strides and positive changes that we recognize as having occurred in Western societies have a lot to do with human rights, and this in turn has to do with gender equality and race equality. In terms of this discussion, looking at such things with the back drop of the Old Testament holding sway in the Jewish, Christian and Moslem traditions, and considering the historical value of the Protestant movement's effect on Western Cultural developement, two recent sentiments raised by CharonY and KenBrace seem central to sorting out the differences between the "stories" of Daesh, and the "stories" on the streets of Berlin and Chicago. CharonY sees things getting better as women graduates affect change in Saudi Arabia, and KenBrace thinks the Middle East would benefit from several more Atheists.

 

Perhaps it is the "story" that we need to somehow make more modern. We need, in some solid and long lasting way to take the sexism and slavery aspects, out of the Old Testament. And we have to take the killing the infidels part out of the Koran.

 

My suggestion is to embrace the stories of the old testament and the new testament and the Koran as indeed the word of God, but not think of Moses or Jesus or Mohammed as representatives of some creature with particular wants and desires and foibles and preferences, but think of Moses and Jesus and Mohammed as bringing to their followers (us) some workable rules, a workable story that we can "go by" to exist with each other, and address our relationship with the cosmos, and consider the basis upon which our lives and behaviors will be judged.

 

In this way the good, meaningful workable parts of the Abrahamic religions can be maintained. The tithing, the taking care of the poor and infirmed, the honoring of parents, the non coveting of others wifes and goods, the doing of no mischief, and all the other important and valuable societal goodies that the "good" book has infused into Western and Middle Eastern Culture.

 

Having a few more women at the helm will not hurt our culture. Having a few more slaves at the helm will not hurt our culture. And having a few more infidels at the helm will not hurt our culture.

 

Daesh is getting a whole lot wrong, in terms of what it takes to govern man. It is absolutely not the way most of us want to do it. We absolutely need to fight them and win the fight. Not many of us wish to live under a Mullah. But it is not Islam we need to fight as much as it is that Moslems need to reform Islam. It is 800 years old, and no longer works in modern civilization. Gabriel was a symbol, a vehical, a figurative thing, bringing workable reform to the Old testament and the New, allowing Mohammed to bind together the idol worshipping tribes of Arabia. It worked. But Allah is still the judge, not Mohammed. Not Moses. Not Jesus. And certainly not Daesh. They can not decide who the apostates are.

 

But we can. The rest of the world can. The Christians and the atheists, the Humanists and the Buddists. The Shinto and the South American Native can still know absolutely the difference between good and evil. Life and creating things is still better than death and destruction. Freedom and love is still better than oppression.and hate.

 

Regards, TAR

I made a big mistake. I said the non coveting of others wifes and goods. Wifes are not chattle. This mistake I just made is evidence that we each need to look closely and deeply at our own values. Just to see where we got them, and what we mean by them, and to understand that sometimes when we find fault with others we should remember the biblically based admonishion that people that live in glass houses should not throw stones.

P.S.

 

In looking back in on this post I saw the "and how it relates to science" part of the Politics subforum discription, and I realized I had started to tie it back but did not complete the thought. Science and the scientific method provides a way for man to understand the world, the life and the cosmos in common terms. Terms not constrained by language or race or religion or nationality. 2 and 2 is still 4. The circumference of a circle is still pi D and people that don't eat or drink will die, and bombs that blow up, will not discriminate between good and bad intentions.

 

Here the Atheist part of KenBrace's proscription becomes valid. What is the right thing to do, considering it is us who in all objective senses ARE the ones doing the judging.

In the battle of ideas that has been and still is going on it the world...communism, capitalism, and what God or rationality should govern the institutions, laws and behavior of men(women), Daesh's ideas have reached the tipping point and their lies about the Jordanian pilot being alive, and the barbaric manner in which they killed him, have tipped the world's judgement against them. They now have solidified their idea, in the minds and judgements of the world, as a BAD idea.

Lady Justice, with the scales in her hand, and the blindfold on, has felt the balance tip.

Here is a quote from Kayla Jean Mueller a humanitarian aide worker recently held hostage by Daesh and announced by Daesh to have been killed in a Jordanian airstrike, while home in Arizona, at a Kiwana's club telling of her work with Syrian refugees.

 

"This story is not rare in Syria," Mueller told the crowd. "This is the reality for Syrians two and a half years on. When Syrians hear I'm an American, they ask, 'Where is the world?' All I can do is cry with them, because I don't know."

Where is the world? (with tears in my eyes)

Now that Jordan is "all in", I hope the rest of the world shows up. Daesh can not stand against the will of the world. We have too many good hearts, too many expert project planners, too many manufacturing facilities, too many planes and bombs and bullets, too many soldiers and MVs and tanks, too much grain and cloth to let this crap go on any longer.

[dimreepr]

Any discovery is magic.

 

 

No, anything undiscovered is magic, the discovered is knowledge.

 

 

P.S. knowledge doesn’t equal understanding.

Edited February 7, 2015 by dimreepr

[Ten oz]

Now that Jordan is "all in", I hope the rest of the world shows up. Daesh can not stand against the will of the world. We have too many good hearts, too many expert project planners, too many manufacturing facilities, too many planes and bombs and bullets, too many soldiers and MVs and tanks, too much grain and cloth to let this crap go on any longer.

Now that Jordan is all in I hope we (western powers) allow ISIS to be handled regionally. Outside intervention has not shown to quiet radicalism in the past. If this becomes a fight between various competing Muslim monarchs I think that will be better for the rest of the world. Pushing back against the foriegn non-Muslim superpowers from the west is the best bit of recruiting groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda have. Take that away and I think these groups lose a lot of steam.

[DimaMazin]

 

 

No, anything undiscovered is magic, the discovered is knowledge.

 

 

P.S. knowledge doesn’t equal understanding.

No knowledge and no understanding in the case. Therefore they are equal in your case.

[tar]

Ten oz,

 

You are probably right. I would be better if the Jordanians and the Saudis put Daesh down. Better certainly than if the Israelis did it, or U.S. cruise missles did it. But it would work out if everybody did it together, as well. We can use everybody's wealth, and everybodies blood in this encounter.

 

Years ago, we, the U.S. urged Shites in Southern Iraq to stand against Saddam, and then we all of a sudden were not there to prevent Saddam from killing Shites in Southern Iraq that stood against him. And Saddam took Kuwait.

 

Today we have a king in Syria that is being revolted against. We in the West had something to do with instigating the revolt. Some of the instigators were web instigators fostering an Arab Spring. Much from the hearts of Arab youth, and some from Western thought leaders, private and public. While we might want to see a kingship replaced by a democracy, we do not want to see the kingship replaced by a Caliphate. In your suggestion, we let the kings fight it out. Where then is our support for the people standing against the King of Syria. And more importantly, who is there to govern and watch over the economy of the Syrian people? If the choices are Daesh or the King of Syria, I would pick the King of Syria...except we have already publically announced we would prefer to back rebels than back the throne. We did not back our choices solidly enough and in many cases they were overcome by Daesh forces. So I am not sure that having the West keeping themselves out of the mix and letting it get solved locally will neccesarily have wonderful outcomes.

 

Turkey is local, and I remember hearing that while Daesh was attacking a Sryrian town near the Turkish border, Turkish tanks, enough to subdue the Daesh forces were lined up on the border, but did not engage. And the Turkish leader verbally backed the Paris attackers and verbally questioned Israel's intentions. The local landscape is very complicated, with the Russians backing the king and the U.S. backing the Kurds and so on. Turning our backs and keeping out of it so Daesh won't recruit anyone is probably not very helpful to the cause of defeating Daesh.

 

Daesh gets its money by stealing oil and land and kidnapping folk and holding them for ransom. This is the way pirates operate, not governments. Any land held by Daesh is not the land of a soveriegn government. By all rights we should help the King of Syria regain control of such land...except we don't want the King of Syria to have control of his own land...we want the rebels to have control, only not if the rebels are Daesh. So...either we back somebody or another all the way, or we get out, or we allow the king of Syria with Russian backing to regain the control...or something. But turning our backs at this point, does not seem to me to be a very smart idea. We certainly can not count on Daesh to make it right. We don't want to count on the Syrian king to make it right, because we didn't think his way was right in the first place and the Iraqi military is mush without Saddam or the U.S.involved, and the leaders have been known to flee as Daesh approaches, leaving the army without command and control, and probably without the keys to the armory.

 

So which local kings do you figure would win, if the world turned its back on the region?

 

Regards, TAR

[Airbrush]

 

 

Ah, "common sense". Funny thing how sometimes common sense crumbles in the face of reality.

 

Perhaps you have not heard of unmanned vehicles? They can act as forward observers (who don't generally don't infiltrate organizations, BTW, just territory)

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/246620721.html

 

The US has eliminated quite a few terrorist leaders without infiltration (or announcing it, anyway).

 

The kind of forward observer I'm thinking of is one who recognizes facial features. We don't have drones that can spot "leaders" in a crowd. The only way to target leaders is by human intelligence on the ground. Best would be a MEMBER of the terrorists who knows who the leaders are or can tell the outside when the leaders will be somewhere.

 

There are basically 2 kinds of terrorists, the shepherds and the sheep. The sheep are helpless without guidance from the shepherds. The way to locate leaders is to get a spy inside who is good at playing the role of leader. After a year or so of trustworthy performance, they are given more security clearance, until they can tell the outside world when and where the next meeting of leaders will be, so you can take them all out with one bomb.

 

Maybe they should have a cyanide cap somewhere handy in case they are caught.

[tar]

Airbrush,

 

You obviously did not hear what SwansonT responded to your suggestion in the first place.

 

Covert means you don't know about it.

 

Regards, TAR

or are you volunteering for the job? Be sure to post your picture before you go.

rats airbrush,

 

Now the Daesh leader is going to have to cut off all his sub leaders' heads for fear they are you.