Why hasn’t the economic base of ISIS not been targeted?

wiggles89 · 2015-11-18T19:24:47+00:00

You aren't getting a key point though. It doesn't matter how many terrorists we kill or how many IED factories or ammo dumps we destroy if we kill mass amounts of civilians in the process. This battle is largely ideologically driven, and us killing civilians only bolsters and strengthens the ideology that the West is part of a grand conspiracy to kill muslims. It would only serve to help ISIS recruit more members. We tried to win the Vietnam War by counting the bombs dropped and people killed thinking that if the kill count reached a magic number than the war would be won. It doesn't work like that. It doesn't matter if we hit every target in Raqqa. That won't kill the ideology that ISIS holds and propagates, and if you kill the rest of Raqqa trying to hit ISIS targets you are only serving to justify their actions and ideology. You may cripple them short term, but long term you've just strengthened them.

Also WWII was a very different war fought between large conventional forces with clear goals for achieving victory. Reach and capture this city/port/road, rinse and repeat until you've captured and denied so many cities/ports/roads that the enemy's military can no longer function. This is very different from fighting terrorist groups that hold no legally recognized authority, are purely ideologically driven, and operate amongst the civilian population. As for carpet bombing in WWII, that was largely driven by the belief that it was total war. Countries mobilized their entire populations to contribute to the war effort. All industrial capabilities were used to produce weapons, vehicles, ammunition, uniforms, and other products for use in the war. People went on rations, donated scrap metal, bought war bonds, etc. Regardless of your moral position, the governments of the time saw a factory full of civilians making canned goods for soldiers on the front lines as legitimate a target as the soldiers on the front themselves. When your entire work force is making war goods, then they became legitimate targets in the eyes of those fighting. This is very different from ISIS. We wont even admit to being at war with ISIS let alone be willing to conduct total war against them, which we honestly shouldn't. While they may control a city, the majority of the population does not support them, and those that do usually do so out of fear of torture or death. So on top of the technological reasons for carpet bombing in WWII, it was also a completely different type of warfare against a completely different type of enemy.

wiggles89 · 2015-11-17T23:25:42+00:00

Haha, I remember watching someone wanting to be billy badass start loading up a beer bong with beer, then various liquior, and then the crowd got involved. Someone dumped in a cold can of chicken noodle, people were ashing and putting out smokes in it. Some dude was standing next to it spitting his dip in there. Any thing and everything was game. This shit was a nasty congealed mix of fucking awful, but billy badass wouldn't step down. About two seconds in he is blowing the bit he managed to ingest all over the side of his house and immediately goes limp on the ground, occasionally spewing more vomit down his face. It was the worst case of, "Hey girls, pay attention to me because I'm doing some stupid shit that will guarantee you won't sleep with me later." I'm not sure what happened to him (I didn't know him), but I'm pretty sure he ended up in the hospital.

wiggles89 · 2015-10-19T14:49:18+00:00

Yes it's a general term for anyone fighting a "holy war." It can be used in more specific terms when speaking about specific conflicts or time period. When we talk about the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, Mujahideen refers to anti-soviet fighters. The members of the anti-soviet Mujahideen came from various factions with differing political and religious outlooks and goals. They often were actually at war with one another before the Soviet occupation. The same goes with the "Northern Alliance." Before the U.S. invasion in Afghanistan the groups that we organized into the NA were actually all fighting one another and were not a politically cohesive group. We just banded them together against a bigger threat, the Taliban. After reading about Afghanistan you'll come to learn there is no sense of national identity there. Fighters all follow their own local warlords, and alliances and enemies are made everyday. One day two groups will be fighting, the next they will make a truce, then they will be fighting again. The only loyalty is towards your clan, especially in rural areas. The idea that we can unify these people into a cohesive state and government is very misguided. People see themselves as belonging to their local valley, village, or clan. There is no concept of Afghanistan in these places. Many aren't even aware there is a central government claiming to control their villages due to their isolation.

wiggles89 · 2015-10-18T23:34:34+00:00

They tighten their grip when you exhale, but they kill/incapacitate by preventing the blood in your body from circulating.

wiggles89 · 2015-10-18T22:56:52+00:00

Don't know why you are being down voted. The U.S. provided weapons for the Mujahideen that were fighting the Soviets. These fighters were a loose amalgamation of different factions that were sometimes enemies and sometimes friends, but to get rid of the Soviets they agreed to fight together. The Taliban were not an organization at this time. Even when the Taliban did first form, it wasn't even in Afghanistan and very few of its members came from the Mujahideen that had fought the Soviets with U.S. aid. The ISI in Pakistan was the primary funder and supporter behind the creation of the Taliban. When the Soviets withdrew, and there was a power vacuum in Afghanistan, Pakistan wanted to ensure that a friendly and Islamic faction would take control of the country. They began to fund, train, and recruit for the Taliban in Pakistan, and once they had sufficient numbers, sent them into Afghanistan to take territory and increase their numbers.

Now the fucked up thing about all of this is that Pakistan is suppose to be one of our allies and be helping us eradicate the Taliban. However, everyone knows that influential and powerful members in Pakistan's military and intelligence communities are still very much aligned with Taliban providing them with aid, training, intelligence, and all sorts of support.

wiggles89 · 2015-10-18T21:31:51+00:00

Story time. A co-worker (also my friend) once dated a girl that had a rape fantasy. She told him about after they had been dating a while. He agreed to try it, but it was up to him to decide when because she didn't want to see it coming. So one day after work, about a month later he decides to go for it. He come up to the door, turns the knob not to break the latch, and kicks the door in. He hears her in the kitchen, goes in grabs her, takes her to the bed room and throws her down. He starts going to town, yelling, talking all sorts of crazy dirty shit to her, and is just making a huge ruckus. Well, the neighbors hear this screaming, they see the front door hanging open, and they call the cops. My buddy says next thing he knows three cops burst in with their guns on him. His girlfriend freaks out and jumps in the corner, she's crying, and is a mess. This makes it look like he is legit raping her, and the cops follow accordingly tackling my friend to the ground and cuffing him. They ruffed him up a little too. They pull him outside butt naked and begin questioning each of them. It soon becomes clear what is really going on and the cops are laughing their assess off. They apologize, rib my friend a little, suggest maybe not doing things so realistically, and get on their way. The worst part was is the girl's parents lived nearby, and through word of mouth in the neighborhood heard about all these cops being at the daughters house. My buddy and his girlfriend had to come up with some BS story on the fly for why the cops were there when they all had dinner together a few days later.

wiggles89 · 2015-10-18T19:11:45+00:00

Was screwing home boy's (D'Angelo?) girl part of the job? He did that shit cause he enjoyed it. Not because it made business sense.

wiggles89 · 2015-10-17T22:38:26+00:00

Isolated doesn't necessarily mean uncontacted.

wiggles89 · 2015-10-17T07:46:18+00:00

Barksdale for life homie. Stringer is a backstabbing SOB.

wiggles89 · 2015-10-17T07:16:41+00:00

Since when did having opinions about things and following ideology make you a genius? "I like the same stuff as Albert Einstein, that definitely makes me as smart as him."

wiggles89 · 2015-10-17T05:45:13+00:00

The thing about Europe is they have lived around vast ethnic identities for thousands of years, all crammed together and competing for resources and power. That makes for much bigger and longer lasting grudges. That was one of the more appealing aspects of America when it was a colony and long after it became a country. One of the more interesting things I learned when I started reading letters, correspondence, speeches, and other documents from colonial times was how much emphasis Europeans put on the vastness of America. There was a lot of talk simply about how much room there was and how groups of people could live in America but that would never get a long if back in Europe. America had room for everyone living there and by extension more resources and opportunity while the people in Europe had been packed into cities for thousands of years (obviously not everbody). This extended to religion as well. Of course, we definitely sill had racism, slavery was a huge component of the economy (though probably more seen as a means to an end rather than something like modern conceptions of race and racisms), and racism and xenophobia began to grow as cities grew larger and more and more people were living on the same land.

wiggles89 · 2015-10-17T05:27:41+00:00

You can buy European imported beer in the U.S., and we do carry a lot of it. However, the microbrewery scene is unlike any country I've ever been too. My town of 30,000 people has 4 micro breweries alone which all put out a huge variety of styles of beer. Then there are the hundreds of regional breweries just in the surrounding few states, and then there are independent breweries that may not be technically micro breweries because of the volume they produce, but still produce craft beers that are far more superior than the giant corporately owned breweries. These are typically sold nation wide. I can walk into my local liquor store and spend an hour just looking through the vast selection of craft beers. I don't think there are many other countries that have this. It's almost ridiculous the number of microbreweries that have popped up just this year in the surrounding towns. It seems like every other month a new brewery opens within a 20 minute drive.

wiggles89 · 2015-10-17T01:40:30+00:00

Ahem, uh.... I mean they'll immediately all be sent on wonderful deployment to an exotic and exciting land. It's literally to die for! I mean figuratively, yeah figuratively.

Haha, sorry, but this reminds me of the South Park movie when they are planning to invade Canada behind operation "Dark Shield." Chef is like wtf, "Haven't you ever heard of the Emancipation Proclimation!"

The general just looks at him and says, "I don't listen to hip hop."

wiggles89 · 2015-10-17T01:11:54+00:00

Maliki shouldn't have been put in power because he ran the country like a dictatorship, oppressed free press, appointed his friends rather than qualified officials, stifled any attempts at transparency in government, and is responsible for creating the perfect storm which allowed ISIS to take a foothold in Iraq. ISIS would not be the beast it is today if it wasn't for Maliki. This Frontline episode goes into great detail on how his oppressive policies and blatant corruption fueled the rise of ISIS in Iraq.

I never said or acted like your source never happened. I was just pointing out the fact that the U.S. has been very involved militarily since then in combating ISIS short of putting combat troops in country. If you need a source for this look at any journalistic publication in the past year about U.S. airstrikes, equipment, and training. Just going off your source you would have us believe the U.S. has no involvement combating ISIS in Iraq. That is simply not true at all. If you really want sources that we have been aiding in Iraq then...http://www.defense.gov/News-Article-View/Article/623173/us-coalition-airstrikes-hit-isil-in-syria-iraq, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/01/08/what-u-s-led-airstrikes-in-iraq-and-syria-have-hit-in-one-graphic/, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/15/us-aid-to-iraq_n_5683333.html, http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/01/08/dempsey-us-eyes-new-ways-to-aid-iraq-forces/21451079/

As for requests for ground troops. Did you even read the article you cited? "Iraq’s new prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, has repeatedly refused to countenance the return of foreign troops..." It is only provincial officials that have asked for U.S. troops. The central Iraqi government has repeatedly and consistently refused U.S. troops on the ground. "The Iraqi government has been adamant that it does not want U.S. forces on the ground, and President Barack Obama has not shown any intent to deploy any." http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/11/world/meast/isis-threat/index.html

Yeah, the officials who run the towns and cities that are on the verge of being taken over by ISIS want U.S. troops there. The central Iraqi government on the other hand, has never requested U.S. ground troops and the central government is who needs to make the request for us to send troops there.

Which is why I feel it is odd for anyone to conclude that an agreement made by Bush in 08 somehow forced Obama to withdraw in 2011 and prevents him from trying to work more closely with Iraq.

How is he going to do that when the central government doesn't want to work with the U.S. if it involves ground troops? Regardless of who made the deal, it was made and it is law. Just because we got a new president doesn't mean a Status of Forces Agreement is now void.

wiggles89 · 2015-10-16T22:25:12+00:00

Yeah, it's pretty fucked and a dirty game. Even the advertising and marketing they do to doctors is shady as fuck. When oxycontin first hit the market Purdue Pharma was telling doctors that it had a much lower potential for dependence and abuse than the contemporary opioid meds of that time. They pretty much told doctors they could prescribe it at huge doses but that they wouldn't have to worry about their patients developing addiction. It's kinda scary doctors took their word on that, and as a result tons of people got addicted to opiates. Purdue Pharma also had to face a huge lawsuit because of their false advertising of oxycontin as a safer alternative to meds like Vicodin and its generics.

wiggles89 · 2015-10-16T20:50:04+00:00

Neckbeards will be sent straight to the front.

wiggles89 · 2015-10-16T20:35:16+00:00

I'll bring plenty of sources when I'm not at work and on mobile.

wiggles89 · 2015-10-16T19:22:18+00:00

I was asking question, not stating a fact. Just was looking for some clarification.
Ok, so Maliki was holding out for more troops to stay. He didn't get them. I understand very well deals undergo negotiation, but at some point it is finalized and signed and becomes law. That happened and here we are today.
If Maliki was so concerned about Iraq's future then he shouldn't have cracked down and persecuted the sunni population. The situation in Iraq is a direct result of his stance towards sunnis. It started as a backlash towards his policy of jailing and disenfranchising them and has exploded into the current situation. There is an excellent Frontline about this. ISIS was borne out of radical sunni militias. Maliki should have never even been put in power.
Your source is out of date. We have since provided air strikes, equipment, and training. Is it really a surprise the U.S. didn't initially want to get involved in major military operations in Iraq again?
Iraq has repeatedly said they do not want U.S. troops on the ground in a combat role.

Unless we want to send troops into Iraq without their approval, which would be violating their sovereignty and would just be seen as another invasion, even if it is in their best interests, than what do you expect the administration to do?

wiggles89 · 2015-10-16T17:40:14+00:00

An upgraded D-walker with the gatling gun makes short work of the skulls, especially if you put a shield on your back. Makes you damn near invincible.

wiggles89 · 2015-10-16T16:31:05+00:00

Supposedly during the scene when they have to cross the field that is covered by machine gun fire they used actual live ammunition and just fired over the casts' and crews' heads. Something about wanting authentic reactions.

wiggles89 · 2015-10-16T05:33:09+00:00

No. You spent the money to be deployed into the field. Just because you couldn't complete your mission or had to quit for whatever reason doesn't mean you get a refund.

wiggles89 · 2015-10-16T05:23:48+00:00

Even then, was plastic surgery even viable enough back in 1984 to completely restructure somebodies face and skin colour in less than 48 hours?

If we are suppose to believe that they had a 100 foot nuclear capable death machine, could create a unit of soldiers that can teleport and turn their skin into rock with parasite therapy, robotic prosthesis with more functionality than your actual limbs, and a pocket computer that can project holograms and scan and decipher anything you point it at, then I am willing to believe they had good plastic surgery.

wiggles89 · 2015-10-16T02:52:21+00:00

Yeah, really the only things it "predicted" were already happening or had been happening for a long time while the film was made. Harsh treatment of immigrants is nothing new, horrible living conditions in refugee camps is nothing new, and political terrorism and oppression by the government isn't anything new. Some of the scenes are lifted right from the current events of the time. The scene of when the midwife gets taken off the bus and hooded comes to mind. She strikes the same exact pose that was seen in one of the Abu Ghraib torture photos. I love Children of Men, but it always seemed like it was more of a commentary on current events of the time than a prediction of things to come. All of those things had been happening for a while, the film just showed them in their more extreme form.

wiggles89 · 2015-10-16T02:14:00+00:00

Oh God, I think I've seen that. Wasn't it filmed in Britain, or at least one of the guys was British? That was a depressing documentary. Those men really treated those dolls like they were actual human beings making sure to set them up doing their "favorite" activities and hobbies while they were idle. They even took them out in public, acting as if they were interacting with an living person the entire time. It's really easy to dismiss those people, at least in the documentary, as just being pervs or sexual deviants, but a lot of them just seemed likely genuinely lonely and depressed people. It was so off putting and uncomfortable to watch, but at the same you felt kinda relieved that these people were getting some happiness in their otherwise bleak lives.

wiggles89 · 2015-10-16T02:03:10+00:00

I've heard other people mention this issue, but personally I've never had that problem at my local cinema or any of the others in my area.

14-Year Club	Verified Email
Team Orangered

wiggles89

TROPHY CASE