What to do about ISIS

[blah the Prussian]

@Phoenix: The problem is that ISIS is not a terrorist organization anymore, it is, in terms of a capacity to make war, a country. The hope is that intervention would bump it back to a terrorist organization.

@Chiki: First, They are winning because they have not yet run out of manpower. They are, however, fighting a war of attrition at this point. A war of attrition that their fighting style cannot support. Learn military strategy.

Second, why is this so hard? A person is not obligated to protect themselves over others, a leader is obligated to protect their people over other country's people. It's that simple.

[Magical CC]

So, ISIS acquired 2300 armor vehicles. I wont be surprised if they manage to get their hand on Syria's bio weapons.

As a side note, I wonder how this period will be talked about in history books? I'm thinking "Great Middle Eastern War".

WWIII. I have seen enough awesome things in history class to know that a small trivial snowball can create a surprise avalanche and even a ragtag army still have a chance to score a sleeper hit.

Edited June 11, 2015 by Magical CC

[blah the Prussian]

So, ISIS acquired 2300 armor vehicles. I wont be surprised if they manage to get their hand on Syria's bio weapons.

WWIII. I have seen enough awesome things in history class to know that a small trivial snowball can create a surprise avalanche and even a ragtag army still have a chance to score a sleeper hit.

Well, its not all that surprising. ISIS does, after all, have the industrial capacity to produce tanks. If, incidentally, they do get their hands on Syrian chemical weapons (highly unlikely, but I suppose possible, given the right amount of incompetence) then that would be the time for a US military intervention. Incidentally, there is no way whatsoever that this will evolve into WWIII. NO ONE likes ISIS, not even North Korea, and thats saying something.

[Magical CC]

NO ONE likes ISIS, not even North Korea, and thats saying something.

Fat Un is just being tsundere, as usual.

[blah the Prussian]

Fat Un is just being tsundere, as usual.

*sigh*

[Magical CC]

*sigh*

Sigh...ok, I will speak in normal tone. There is no reason for Un to hate ISIS, no reason. Religion? No. Land? No. Civil rights? No. ISIS mocks Un's epic double chin? No. Money? Actually, yes, who do you selling their weapons to ISIS? If it's not Un, then it is someone with the same interest. Actually, with America tied down with ISIS, Un should be amongst the happiest ones. Have you heard anything about NK in recent world events even when both sides of Korea are preparing weapons along the border? When it comes to war, it's all about benefits. You simply cant believe what you heard...oh wait, did I post in wrong topic...Sometimes, I cant even take people serious and change my tone.

Edited June 11, 2015 by Magical CC

[blah the Prussian]

There is no reason for Un to hate ISIS, no reason.

You know, thats an interesting opinion to have. Lets break your thought process down.

Land? No.

Except that ISIS has loudly announced that it plans to conquer a good deal of land belonging to a number of UN member states.

Civil rights? No.

Except that practically everything ISIS has ever done violates the UN universal declaration of human rights.

Money? Actually, yes, who do you selling their weapons to ISIS? If it's not Un, then it is someone with the same interest. Actually, with America tied down with ISIS, Un should be amongst the happiest ones.

Okay, this line of thinking really fascinates me. Lets break it down: You believe that the UN is selling weapons to ISIS. This is outright idiotic. Why would they sell weapons to ISIS? Ah well, whatever half assed argument you come up with won't matter, as there is pretty conclusive evidence that Qatar is the culprit. Moving on, apparently, the UN should be happy with the US tied down by ISIS. Why exactly might that be? The US is a permanent member of the UN security council, and UN headquarters is in New York City. Good god. I honestly have no idea what could possibly be going through your head to make you come to these conclusions.

Have you heard anything about NK in recent world events even when both sides of Korea are preparing weapons along the border? When it comes to war, it's all about benefits. You simply cant believe what you heard...oh wait, did I post in wrong topic...Sometimes, I cant even take people serious and change my tone.

You know, I find self wondering as I read this part: where exactly did this come from? What the hell does North Korea have to do with ISIS? In any case, North and South Korea are technically still at war, and have always had a massively militarized border. That that border continues to be heavily guarded does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that the Korean War is about to restart.

So, there you have it. I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or not, but that was completely incoherent. Stop spouting groundless conspiracy theories.

[Blaze The Great]

Blah I think he was talking about Un as in Kim Jong, not the United Nations. Besides that, you are right on every base. Every post I have seen him make has been ridiculous and incomprehensible nonsense.

Edited June 11, 2015 by Blaze The Great

[blah the Prussian]

Blah I think he was talking about Un as in Kim Jong, not the United Nations. Besides that, you are right on every base. Every post I have seen him make has been ridiculous and incomprehensible nonsense.

Oh. Well, even then it's still wrong. Kim Jong Un is a Communist, Communism is opposed to religion, ISIS is a religious fundamentalist group, perfect reason right there.

[Magical CC]

Oh. Well, even then it's still wrong. Kim Jong Un is a Communist, Communism is opposed to religion, ISIS is a religious fundamentalist group, perfect reason right there.

How childish...

Being a communist and hating religion are two different things. Most communist regimes hate religion, especially Christianity, simply because it can and will clash with the interest of the ruling class. Joseph Stalin revived the Russian Orthodox Church to intensify patriotic support for the war effort. As I said, when it come to war, it's all about benefits. Stalin easily ignored his earlier religion surpress campaign for the obvious benefits. When it comes to world politic, you can be sure that everything will be decided based on the benefits. You think Russia and China have always been best friend ever? No, kiddos. The reason while they seem to be so closed in the last 10 years is because of the EU and US's constant threat to Russia and Putin, a smart man, knows that he cant fight against the western world alone. In Vietnam, Christianity is not well like by the government because of historical events. You cant work for the government if you are a Christian. The first thing they ask before the interview will be "What is your religion?". Anything is fine, except Christianity. The government totally approves Buddhism, the religion that has always been supporting the current government. In fact, the government has always been promoting Buddhism all of these years.

And no, about the Korea part, while both sides are still at war, sometimes, they are more thrilled than usual. Remember the last time they traded fire and some got killed? And when both sides are more thrilled than usual, someone has to open their mouth and critic Un about it (mostly America). If you actually care about world politics then you will know about this. And I cant comprehend how come you can misread UN and Un.

And dont let me get on the fact that it's up to debate if Un is really a communist or not. Because, in theory...oh well...who care.

[blah the Prussian]

How childish...

Being a communist and hating religion are two different things. Most communist regimes hate religion, especially Christianity, simply because it can and will clash with the interest of the ruling class. Joseph Stalin revived the Russian Orthodox Church to intensify patriotic support for the war effort. As I said, when it come to war, it's all about benefits. Stalin easily ignored his earlier religion surpress campaign for the obvious benefits. When it comes to world politic, you can be sure that everything will be decided based on the benefits. You think Russia and China have always been best friend ever? No, kiddos. The reason while they seem to be so closed in the last 10 years is because of the EU and US's constant threat to Russia and Putin, a smart man, knows that he cant fight against the western world alone. In Vietnam, Christianity is not well like by the government because of historical events. You cant work for the government if you are a Christian. The first thing they ask before the interview will be "What is your religion?". Anything is fine, except Christianity. The government totally approves Buddhism, the religion that has always been supporting the current government. In fact, the government has always been promoting Buddhism all of these years.

And no, about the Korea part, while both sides are still at war, sometimes, they are more thrilled than usual. Remember the last time they traded fire and some got killed? And when both sides are more thrilled than usual, someone has to open their mouth and critic Un about it (mostly America). If you actually care about world politics then you will know about this. And I cant comprehend how come you can misread UN and Un.

And dont let me get on the fact that it's up to debate if Un is really a communist or not. Because, in theory...oh well...who care.

Well, only a tiny amount of that was relevant. It seems like the only thing even a tiny bit relevant to ISIS that you put forth was that North Korea and ISIS will have an alliance of convenience. Now, what I want to know is, what does North Korea gain from an ISIS victory? While some US aligned states will fall, Iran, who is indirectly North Korea's ally, is also on ISIS's hit list. I myself would rather have the strongest army in the Middle East as my ally, rather than a bunch of untrained fanatics, I don't know about you. As I've said before, STOP WITH THE CONSPIRACY THEORIES.

[Snowy_One]

Blah I think he was talking about Un as in Kim Jong, not the United Nations. Besides that, you are right on every base. Every post I have seen him make has been ridiculous and incomprehensible nonsense.

Should probably make it clear by referring to Kim Jong Un as 'Kimmy' instead of 'Un'. Easy to miss a caps after-all.

Oh. Well, even then it's still wrong. Kim Jong Un is a Communist, Communism is opposed to religion, ISIS is a religious fundamentalist group, perfect reason right there.

I don't think North Korea can really be an example of anything religiously beyond how it's possible to develop a complete personality cult that engulfs a nation. Sure, communism and religion tend to be at odds; especially since most religions adhere to a being or cause higher than the government, but they aren't enemies of necessity (many communist... what would you call them? 'cults'? Communes? Have managed a society of equality with religion). NK has a complete personality cult to the point where it, effectively, is a religion in-of itself. In fact religion, WHEN USED PROPERLY, is a great way to enforce communism on the masses.

The problem with communism is something very basic though. People are not equal. I don't mean that in a 'every person is unique' way, but rather that something as simple as geographical location can alter a persons needs drastically. Not to mention that there has to be bureaucracy if only to make sure everything stays organized and you can bet for certain that the people at the DMV will have more sway than a baker in a society where bakers are a dime-a-dozen.

IF I had to create a communist nation I'd make it near-impossible for a person to change where they live without government approval. Enforce a state religion so that people could be controlled and manipulated without the need for direct military intervention. Push a caste system to reduce the chances of a person changing jobs, and so-forth. Basically try and strip away knowledge and individuality so that people would have no choice but to accept what they are informed about the world. This is basically what happens in NK and it's basically what works.

[blah the Prussian]

@Snowy: Yeah, I'd say that North Korea honestly created stable totalitarianism. The problem with Communism, however, is the same problem that practically every ideology except for pure egalitarianism has, that being that it decries people based on something out of their control. In Communisms case, it discriminates against the upper and middle classes, and that can mean they can lose out on a lot of stuff that can come from having educated people run your country. Look at Stalin's purges for an example of this policy biting Communism in the ass.

[Magical CC]

Well, only a tiny amount of that was relevant. It seems like the only thing even a tiny bit relevant to ISIS that you put forth was that North Korea and ISIS will have an alliance of convenience. Now, what I want to know is, what does North Korea gain from an ISIS victory? While some US aligned states will fall, Iran, who is indirectly North Korea's ally, is also on ISIS's hit list. I myself would rather have the strongest army in the Middle East as my ally, rather than a bunch of untrained fanatics, I don't know about you. As I've said before, STOP WITH THE CONSPIRACY THEORIES.

Iran, in the eyes of Un, has the same value of a concubine. While Iran does provide good entertain for now, if ISIS does destroy Iran, Un will just establish new connection with ISIS in place of Iran. As I said, when it comes to war, it's all about benefits, conspiracy theories have nothing to do here. You judge things base on their values, from the current value to the potential value. Un has no special link with Iran from race ethnics, religions to cultures thus he has no lost if Iran was to be destroyed as long as the one who replace Iran shares the same interests with Un. You dont go sentimental when it comes to politics, I have never seen one in modern era. Btw, thanks to ISIS, Us seems to lose interest in Iran and Israel matters currently.

But, if ISIS has enough power to destroy Iran (it's almost impossible for them currently), they will become a serious threat to not only the surround areas but to US as well. Such a powerful group of psycho will certainly more valuable than Iran. They will need more things because the change of warfare. They will no longer a group of terrorists, they will need better strategic logistics, a more stable economy. Their army will be stretched to all over the places. Un can provides them weapons, training experts and more. However, ISIS will not last long. More powerful "freedom fighters" groups had been disbanded here and there, ISIS will not escape its obvious fate.

But the Arabian Peninsula has always managed to surprise people again and again so who know?

[blah the Prussian]

Iran, in the eyes of Un, has the same value of a concubine. While Iran does provide good entertain for now, if ISIS does destroy Iran, Un will just establish new connection with ISIS in place of Iran. As I said, when it comes to war, it's all about benefits, conspiracy theories have nothing to do here. You judge things base on their values, from the current value to the potential value. Un has no special link with Iran from race ethnics, religions to cultures thus he has no lost if Iran was to be destroyed as long as the one who replace Iran shares the same interests with Un. You dont go sentimental when it comes to politics, I have never seen one in modern era. Btw, thanks to ISIS, Us seems to lose interest in Iran and Israel matters currently.

But, if ISIS has enough power to destroy Iran (it's almost impossible for them currently), they will become a serious threat to not only the surround areas but to US as well. Such a powerful group of psycho will certainly more valuable than Iran. They will need more things because the change of warfare. They will no longer a group of terrorists, they will need better strategic logistics, a more stable economy. Their army will be stretched to all over the places. Un can provides them weapons, training experts and more. However, ISIS will not last long. More powerful "freedom fighters" groups had been disbanded here and there, ISIS will not escape its obvious fate.

But the Arabian Peninsula has always managed to surprise people again and again so who know?

Your knowledge of the mind of Kim Jong Un seems to be rather definitive for someone who has (hopefully) never met him. What proof do you have for this? What evidence do you have that ISIS will act in a manner beneficial to Kim Jong Un if they win? You can parrot the line about war and benefits, but ISIS has shown itself to be anything but a rational actor recently. The notion that North Korea is supplying ISIS is still a conspiracy theory because Qatar has already been proven to be the culprit. Start thinking rationally. Thank you.

[Snowy_One]

Yea. I don't think Kimmy would support ISIS anyways. North Korea is still having a bunch of troubles and probably couldn't do much beyond offer token support for ISIS. Not to mention that getting found out would almost certain piss off China, and possibly Russia as well, which is pretty much the only reason they're still around. I'm also PRETTY sure that ISIS would make it blatantly clear that, even if he DOES support them, he's just making North Korea one of the later targets in their eyes. This is a guy rumored to have turned down Russia's invite to the WWII celebration because Russia wouldn't treat him as 'better' than other national leaders. I seriously doubt he'd let himself be in as humiliating a position as having to deal with terrorists who would openly state that they want to kill him.

[blah the Prussian]

Yea. I don't think Kimmy would support ISIS anyways. North Korea is still having a bunch of troubles and probably couldn't do much beyond offer token support for ISIS. Not to mention that getting found out would almost certain piss off China, and possibly Russia as well, which is pretty much the only reason they're still around. I'm also PRETTY sure that ISIS would make it blatantly clear that, even if he DOES support them, he's just making North Korea one of the later targets in their eyes. This is a guy rumored to have turned down Russia's invite to the WWII celebration because Russia wouldn't treat him as 'better' than other national leaders. I seriously doubt he'd let himself be in as humiliating a position as having to deal with terrorists who would openly state that they want to kill him.

To be perfectly fair, North Korea is not one of ISIS's targets. The rest is all true, though. The Kim's have kept an iron grip on their personal fiefdom since it was given to them by Uncle Joe as a Christmas gift through, in my opinion, brilliance. Kim Jong Un would not risk his country to piss off America.

Edited June 13, 2015 by blah2127

[Magical CC]

Your knowledge of the mind of Kim Jong Un seems to be rather definitive for someone who has (hopefully) never met him. What proof do you have for this? What evidence do you have that ISIS will act in a manner beneficial to Kim Jong Un if they win? You can parrot the line about war and benefits, but ISIS has shown itself to be anything but a rational actor recently. The notion that North Korea is supplying ISIS is still a conspiracy theory because Qatar has already been proven to be the culprit. Start thinking rationally. Thank you.

From all of his previous actions, obviously. Have you ever been in Alaska? That place must be hot as hell despite all of the information I found say otherwise. What makes you think all of those snow mountains are cold when you havent touched snow before? Yeah, that is right. Since you have never been burned, dont stop your kids from touch fire with their bare hands! Let them experience the fire themselves so that they can proudly tell their friends "I have touched it, it's hot! It's great!".

And I have never said that ISIS will surely act in a benefit manner to Un. But amongst all of their choices should they destroyIran, establishing a good relationship with Un will be their best choice. It's not even close to conspiracy theory, it's a prediction based on the most logical choice. And having more suppliers is always a good thing? No? It's all about logical conclusion. Now that Qatar is found out, getting supplies from Qatar shall be harder, no? But it's just prediction, everything can happen. For Un to decide to support ISIS or not, it's up to ISIS's value in the future. Currently, ISIS doesnt have anything that Un may want. Return to my original point, Un has no special link to Iran, they only share same interest and help each other for the sake of their own interest. Un shall not cry over Iran should Iran be destroyed by ISIS. Un also has no reason to hate ISIS which again, return to my original point, Un has no reason to not support them if they indeed has enough power to destroy Iran. And again, return to my original point, ISIS has no reason to do anything against NK which I have proved that I am right.

And dont give me the "they are psycho, they cant think straight". That is conspiracy theory with no logical evident to back up right there. As I said somewhere in this topic, their actions are not from a bunch of psycho but a cleverly decisions from their choice of motto, their choice of battlefield, their expanding strategy to their good adaptability. All of their actions so far proved that they are capable of thinking straight.

Btw, you still havent took your lesson. When it comes to war, it's all about benefits. Un has already against US's bombing campaign on ISIS. Un has already openly supported Iran. Un has already pissed off China here and there. Un has already shot missile to SK's side and killed some people. It's America who would not risk to piss off Un. What will America do if Un indeed support ISIS? Bomb NK? Invade NK? Stop sending foods? Send computer virus? Only for Un to make a fuss again and only for US to clam him down again and everything will be just like before? You think China will drop NK simply because some trivial things? With the current clash with US about the ADIZ, China will never drop its puppet state. NK is the last barrier that protects China. Putin went out of his way to protect Russia's barrier countries, so will China. As worst, the only thing Un risk is that China may overthrow him and establish an easier-to-control puppet. But consider how "well" support Un is by his people, it will not be easy. All of the previous purges of leading figures in NK had improved Un's position to the point of untouchable. Both Russia and China tried to dispose KJI before and failed, I dont see them succeed in near future. Return to my original point, there is no loss for Un if he indeed decides to supprt ISIS if indeed ISIS is powerful enough to destroy Iran.

North Korea is still having a bunch of troubles and probably couldn't do much beyond offer token support for ISIS

If there are anything NK has no shortage of, it's weapons, and military experts. Once or twice per years, weapon cargo from NK to Cuba, Syria, Iran, Iraq and some other countries got found out and stopped. Think about the amount of cargo that escaped the eyes of the world. NK once traded some of its submarines for 2 tons of rice from Vietnam. Let me tell you this, IRA, one of the most powerful "freedom fighter" groups in the world, sent their best men to NK to be trained.

Edited June 14, 2015 by Magical CC

[blah the Prussian]

From all of his previous actions, obviously. Have you ever been in Alaska? That place must be hot as hell despite all of the information I found say otherwise. What makes you think all of those snow mountains are cold when you havent touched snow before? Yeah, that is right. Since you have never been burned, dont stop your kids from touch fire with their bare hands! Let them experience the fire themselves so that they can proudly tell their friends "I have touched it, it's hot! It's great!".

Fine, then. Name one action Kim Jong Un has taken that proves that he is supplying ISIS. Go on, tell me. I'm interested to see what you can come up with.

And I have never said that ISIS will surely act in a benefit manner to Un. But amongst all of their choices should they destroyIran, establishing a good relationship with Un will be their best choice. It's not even close to conspiracy theory, it's a prediction based on the most logical choice. And having more suppliers is always a good thing? No? It's all about logical conclusion. Now that Qatar is found out, getting supplies from Qatar shall be harder, no? But it's just prediction, everything can happen. For Un to decide to support ISIS or not, it's up to ISIS's value in the future. Currently, ISIS doesnt have anything that Un may want. Return to my original point, Un has no special link to Iran, they only share same interest and help each other for the sake of their own interest. Un shall not cry over Iran should Iran be destroyed by ISIS. Un also has no reason to hate ISIS which again, return to my original point, Un has no reason to not support them if they indeed has enough power to destroy Iran. And again, return to my original point, ISIS has no reason to do anything against NK which I have proved that I am right.

North Korea's link to Iran comes from the fact that both are protected by China and Russia. If it was found out that North Korea was supplying ISIS with weapons, that would piss Russia off, and Kim doesn't want that. I also like how you provide no reason whatsoever as to why ISIS has anything to gain by allying with North Korea. This line of argument, really, is incoherent.

And dont give me the "they are psycho, they cant think straight". That is conspiracy theory with no logical evident to back up right there. As I said somewhere in this topic, their actions are not from a bunch of psycho but a cleverly decisions from their choice of motto, their choice of battlefield, their expanding strategy to their good adaptability. All of their actions so far proved that they are capable of thinking straight.

ISIS has acted so far in a manner that has served to completely alienate any possible allies they might have. Their military success comes from the incompetence of their opponents, not from the competence of they themselves. There's your logical evidence.

Btw, you still havent took your lesson. When it comes to war, it's all about benefits. Un has already against US's bombing campaign on ISIS. Un has already openly supported Iran. Un has already pissed off China here and there. Un has already shot missile to SK's side and killed some people. It's America who would not risk to piss off Un. What will America do if Un indeed support ISIS? Bomb NK? Invade NK? Stop sending foods? Send computer virus? Only for Un to make a fuss again and only for US to clam him down again and everything will be just like before? You think China will drop NK simply because some trivial things? With the current clash with US about the ADIZ, China will never drop its puppet state. NK is the last barrier that protects China. Putin went out of his way to protect Russia's barrier countries, so will China. As worst, the only thing Un risk is that China may overthrow him and establish an easier-to-control puppet. But consider how "well" support Un is by his people, it will not be easy. All of the previous purges of leading figures in NK had improved Un's position to the point of untouchable. Both Russia and China tried to dispose KJI before and failed, I dont see them succeed in near future. Return to my original point, there is no loss for Un if he indeed decides to supprt ISIS if indeed ISIS is powerful enough to destroy Iran.

For fucks sake. If ISIS has no real hope of destroying Iran, so all North Korea gains if they support ISIS is making their allies pissed at them. Also, why is America afraid to piss off Kim? He already seems angered at them. Also, at this point China doesn't really need North Korea. They have an economic co dependence with the US, so neither of them have anything to gain from war. Stop with conjecture, and provide proof for your claim, if you can manage that that is. I am getting really fed up with teaching you about geopolitical realities.

[Blue Druid]

I wonder if secularization is that needed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Spain is a majorly catholic country which is very tolerant toward gay people and people of other faiths. It seems that it is Islam which needs to evolve.

Yes, secularization is ideal, however most Islamic nations would not be willing to adopt secularism, due to Islam being originally meant to be directly intertwined with goverment. Even Muslim-majority nations like Turkey and Azerbaijan that did become secular still kept Islamic political beliefs.

I don't think religion should be entirely blamed for the actions of ISIS (After all, are they not doing this for power?). Any man of any religion could become an intolerant extremist, it just so happens that Islam has historically been more encouraging of war for faith than any othet religion. Have Christians never started wars "in the name of the lord"? Not to mention that ISIS has killed other Muslims who are not Sunni, like Shia muslims. It goes deeper than Islam being flawed. It all just comes down to power.

What is this thread even doing in Serenes

[blah the Prussian]

What is this thread even doing in Serenes

We have Serious Discussion for a reason. This section is meant for threads like this.

Edited June 14, 2015 by blah2127

[Blue Druid]

We have Serious Discussion for a reason. This section is meant for threads like this.

Sorry. Let's not stray from the topic though.

[blah the Prussian]

Sorry. Let's not stray from the topic though.

Sadly, this thread has been derailed for about a page now. Magical CC is now trying to convince everyone this is all North Korea's fault.

[Phoenix Wright]

I don't expect you to do anything. All I think you should do is to admit that the US should send in troops (or do much more at least) to get rid of ISIS.

i think the us would be better off supporting the countries in the region by means other than troops (money, weapons, etc.).

[eclipse]

i think the us would be better off supporting the countries in the region by means other than troops (money, weapons, etc.).

. . .is giving weapons to the other Middle Eastern countries a good idea? We don't keep alliances forever. . .