The debate "ISIS looks to be getting stronger." was started by
March 23, 2016, 8:58 pm.
18 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 27 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Alex posted 25 arguments, oscar90000 posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
historybuff posted 13 arguments, Pugsly posted 1 argument, PsychDave posted 2 arguments, dalton7532 posted 1 argument, Nemiroff posted 4 arguments, Blue_ray posted 5 arguments to the disagreers part.
Alex, oscar90000, mike5193, dalton7532, Bman192837465, nooneneedstoknow, Zuhayr and 11 visitors agree.
ProudAmerican888, PsychDave, Maximus, liew9595, RyanWakefield, Pugsly, Nemiroff, bigB, jose4402, historybuff, Blue_ray and 16 visitors disagree.
yeah you are right.
Russia and America are enemies. largely because Russia wants it that way. they see themselves as a super power that rivals America.
they aren't a super power, but that doesn't stop them from thinking it. but that's nationalism for you.
russia and usa must be allied to combat the great plague of isis.
first of all, coalition forces have attached many oil targets. so saying they won't bomb them isn't true.
there are many good reasons why they might not be primary targets.
if you destroy all the infrastructure of s country then the post ISIS period will be even more terrible and desperate. this is a prime breeding ground for extremists. avoiding the infrastructure of lands you are liberating is generally a good idea.
the oil workers are civilians. if you open up on oil trucks and pumps you are going to kill a very large number of civilians. when trying to fight the idea that American are heartless murderers, heartlessly murdering probably isn't going to help.
why he wont bomb their oil?
that's not because of us. Obama won't let us bomb their oil, so they still have some oil.
isis is getting weak. they dont have oil to sell anymore.
or ISIS sees they can kill more people with less resources.
isis is getting weak. they do terror attacks which reminds me of kamikaze pilots of japan when japan was going to be defeated by the allied forces in ww2
I said that. because terror attacks take minimal effort, planning, and investment. compared to the great army seizing territory across the middle east, yes the terror attacks are a sign they are getting weaker.
you've said the increased number of terror atacks means ISIS is getting weaker.
you tried to link two very different debates to try to misinterpret things I have said.
"you don't say what the plan is but do say "record mass shootings! our plan is working!" that makes me wonder which part of the world your "whole world" plan helps, because it isn't america."
mass shootings happen every day in America. very few of them have anything to do with ISIS. they are American citizens murdering other american citizens. I didn't link the two. you tried to.
historybuff where did I say mass shootings?
is isis still capable of holding territory and still talking about establishing an official nation? no, cause they got beaten back and are losing power.
terrorist attacks take minimal effort. it's all they can do. it's the last step of every violent group. not that logic works on you.
how are mass shootings and a plan about ISIS related? the VAST majority of mass shootings have nothing to do with islamic terrorism.
arming, training and building up Muslim countries in the region to deal with their own problems (and ISIS is much more of a threat to them) is the much better plan. every time America kills a jihadi they are only making him a martyr to his cause and creating more anger towards America. when a Muslim country kills them they can't use it for PR. it is much more effective for combating them long term.
if all you want to do is a short term fix, then bombing them might help. it takes a little time to recruit and train more people. but in the long term you are just guaranteeing a never ending stream of recruits and support of terrorist organizations.
I'm sure France (part of the entire world) is loving the current plan.
1. we already repeated our opproach, which is working many times.
2. your approach has been shown to make things worse, and your only defense is "it's better than nothing." making things worse is not better than doing nothing.
your trolling aside, mass shootings aren't a terrorist thing, the only terrorist attack that was primarily guns was at the bataclan. most shootings in the US are psychos killing kids, right wing nuts killing black church goers and abortion clients, or ordinary citizens inspired by isis, but got their guns in a store, not from a terrorist connection, they have no terrorist connection.
it isn't a "kill ISIS and leave" plan. we invaded the middle east and it failed since we killed the bad guys, them before step #2, Obama tried to be a hero and took everyone out.
Step #2 is the most important step, and the hardest to accomplish. anyone can kill ISIS. turkey could kill ISIS. but what we need to do is turn the locals for us. your plan which apparently is the current plan is very strongly against that. you must stop encouraging and telling those locals it's okay to hate the west. you must stop telling them that If we invade it can only mean bad things. our country must not bow to the demands of other countries and appear weak.
turn that around, do good things for the local groups, help them, and protect them, they will come to like the US. then the plan was worked.
can you tell me anything about the current plan besides "it's complicated"?
actually many conservatives have given a plan. The "NATO should kill ISIS" plan I got was from what I heard from the conservative media.
you keep saying you and the world are doing a plan. you don't say what the plan is but do say "record mass shootings! our plan is working!" that makes me wonder which part of the world your "whole world" plan helps, because it isn't america.
you are the only one with a plan of attack the other side. the plan that the entire world has gone with is far more complicated. but actually has a chance of success.
your plan is just "let's invade and kill bad guys". even though America has done that before. it ends extremely badly. but for some reason you can't understand that.
that's not a plan. I don't know if you though it was a plan, but "attack the other side" isn't a plan, and is far from solution.
I'm the idiot for asking how you will accomplish your goal? but you refuse to answer my questions.
if we're not doing nothing tell me what we're doing!!!!
just because you are too stupid to understand a complicated issue does not mean nothing is being done.
trying to cause widespread change in leadership and culture in an entire region is not something that happens easily or quickly. international terrorism is not something you can bomb away. landing ground troops only causes more hatred and fuels more terrorism.
it's easy to say we should do something. but the things you are suggesting are just about the dumbest things we could do. and we have already explained why they are dumb. you are clearly either trolling us or are just an idiot.
how are you going to encourage locals without setting foot locally?
I saw encourage locals by defeating the group who kills the locals, and tell them it's to protect them.
I will stop saying your doing nothing when you give a plan besides "go locals, we will stay here"
Alex keeps going back to the doing nothing argument no matter how many times we say otherwise. good luck buff but I give up.
no.the plan is to support local, Muslim allies in defeating their own extremism.
we cannot bomb away an idea. especially when those bombs only convince more people.
your plan is to do nothing and say "not my problem" when thousands are killed
your plan to convince Muslims that you aren't at war with them is to invade their countries and bomb them. that is a shitty plan.
we do convince the good Muslems we aren't at war. then those muslems will let us crush ISIS
no. I'm saying invading a country where the people hate you and then occupying it is a bad plan.
during WWII Germany wasn't a big fan of us, but be invaded them. was that a bad plan?
why invade a country where people love you?
you say don't invade where people hate you. so your saying never invade.
if you want to stop an idea, you have to use ideas. you have to convince Muslims they are not at war with the west. bombing them is not accomplishing that.
you don't seem to understand. the west can't stop their ideology. the fact that we keep trying is what keeps fueling their ideology.
the extremists use our violent attempts to kill them as proof that Muslims have to kill us. this allows them to recruit more followers. these followers attack the west. we then attack them some more.
your idea is to follow the exact same plan that caused this mess in the first place.
How are we going to stop the terror threat in the middle east if we do not secure the ideology that makes this problem relevant and how are we going to stop if we do not secure the violent individuals that harness it? (You have to turn the wood chipper off before you stick your foot in there. That is how we solve it.) The reason ISIS is here now is because of instability in the Middle East due to us leaving Iraq. President Bush warned of creating a new threat if we left early, and President Obama left early so arrogantly so he can be seen as a hero.
no. I'm saying invading a country where the people hate you and then occupying it is a bad plan. this is what happened in Vietnam. this is what happened in countless European occupied colonies.
this is what you are proposing now. invading a country where everyone hates you to topple a regime with no exit strategy. you will get trapped in a vicious cycle of violence which will only fuel more hatred and death. there is no winning with that plan.
your saying invading a hostile country is bad.
I'm saying it isn't.
your saying "it was bad in country A" but invasion has worked in the past. but what isn't working is the current plan, just ask Turkey.
your argument is like saying "I shoved my hand into a wood chipper and it ended badly. but shoving my foot into it is completely different."
your plan is to make the exact same mistakes in a different location. there is no reason to think it would go any better.
if you go with plan A into situation 1 it's different then going plan A into situation 2.
one may work, one may not
because you are planning to invade a country with a hostile population the exact same way the Americans did in Vietnam.
the situation now is different from Vietnam. the situation you proposed is very similar to Vietnam. I'm not sure why that confuses you.
then if it isn't remotely the same tactic why are liberals telling me my plan to defeat ISIS with an army won't work just like it didn't work on Vietnam
and even if they had. it would be one tactic while they were being very successful at taking and holding territory. ISIS is losing ground almost daily. their leaders keep dying.
the Vietnamese didn't use suicide bombers. they used groups of soldiers ambushing military units. it isn't even remotely the same tactic.
didn't the Vietnam army do the same attack style? they where pretty strong.
the fact that they are resorting more and more to guerilla style terror attacks is proof they are loosing the ability to maintain a conventional conflict and hold territory. it's horrible, but it's the strategy of every dying terrorist group. it's usually a slow death, but the fast death of alquaeda is exactly what created the even more insane ISIS.
it's not isolated any more. 3 months ago it was, not any more
they are losing ground. their numbers are dwindling. they are getting weaker.
a few isolated acts of terrorism are not evidence of strength.
many if the acts of terror attributed to ISIS aren't even them. they are splinter groups or individuals who claim loyalty to Isis. the leaders of ISIS don't even know who that person is. but they'll gladly take credit.
"there is no way to know how many men they have. people have put it anywhere between 10,000 and 200,000. but the most recent analysis says it is like 20-25,000. they are increasingly relying on child soldiers as their trained soldiers desert. they are losing ground on multiple fronts.
they are by any measurable scale getting weaker."
historybuff 3 months ago.
yeah, ISIS is getting so much weaker, those child soldiers bombing airports and driving vans. come on, wake up.
Why does political party make a difference?
Republicans are needed in order to defeat them
Terrorism gains power by evoking fear in people. As long as the media airs it to be a fearful thing think they will gain "strength ". Strength is just perception though.
Liberals see 3-4 people carry out a terrorist attack and understand that this doesn't signify that their group is suddenly stronger. Conservatives look at a horrible event and think "my God! The world is ending and it's all Obama's fault!"
Seriously though we don't need to reinvent the wheel. We know that what we are doing is damaging ISIS in every way. We are slowly backing them into a corner. Them striking out with a handful of people isn't a show of strength, nor is it necessarily a sign of their death throes. It is a continuation of the tactics they have been using all along. They hope that by attacking the west they can scare us into giving up, and they have reason to think it's possible. The US gave up on Vietnam when the public lost faith that they could win. It is not the same, but it does show that if they make the conflict scary enough the US might give up.
It doesn't take much strength to carry out a terrorist attack. Lone individuals have done it throughout history. While the recent attacks are terrible, and we should certainly look at them to see if we can do something differently to prevent similar attacks in the future, they are not evidence that we are not winning or that ISIS is not losing strength.
liberals see the people die and say "yup, ISIS is getting weaker, let's keep doing the same thing! then less people will die"
I see the deaths and think "Allright how do we stop this from happening again"
that is not a sign of their strength. any weirdo can carry out an attack. that doesn't mean they are a huge threat. the fact is they are losing ground and manpower. they are definitely weaker than they were a few months ago.
my evidence is the facts that they are carrying out these attacks. also the fact they aren't training people anymore, but sending out trained people to do more attacks.
just because they occasionally carry out successful terrorist attacks is not a measure of strength. they are losing manpower and territory. as an organization they are getting weaker. you haven't presented any evidence that contradicts these facts.
No, ISIS has lost lots of support and resources. The only people now that fight for ISIS are racials and people that are forced to. You can see all the battles that they lost. That's why they make videos of the killings of many people.
I'd like to point out the debate says "ISIS LOOKS to be getting stronger" I agree because of the huge attacks lately they do look to be getting stronger. their goal is dead, or scared people. we've got more of those then ever.
but why is the US unable to tackle them on a large scale?
there is no way to know how many men they have. people have put it anywhere between 10,000 and 200,000. but the most recent analysis says it is like 20-25,000. they are increasingly relying on child soldiers as their trained soldiers desert. they are losing ground on multiple fronts.
they are by any measurable scale getting weaker.
ISIS is powerful buff, cause they hold territories equal to size of zordan . they have 30000-50000 jihadi fighters . they have abrams tank and t 90 tanks . they have all kinds of guns and rifles.
they have mi 24 helicopters and drones . they also have 3 migs . they have artilleries they have missiles. they have power equal to iraq lebanon and syria combined.
That is actually why I disagree. The terrorists are willing to expose themselves and act frequently because after trying to recruit people over the Internet and in foreign countries, at some point people will act for them. With not enough people succeeding at something large they had to switch over to direct contact and main forces. Their shoddily trained soldiers carry out an attack, and then are housed by supporters. If any potential recruits were on the fence, they'd be swayed to act.
Basically if they want a war, they eventually have to step out of the sidelines encouraging terror and start acting, or they will lose what they worked for. Now that they are on the offensive, they believe their supporters will allow them to make attacks and disappear like Batman in foreign countries. Unfortunately, a bit of that is right, but without more support than their expenditures they cannot succeed.
It's a poker face and a bluff. But from what we know they have less than they say, much less.
like when Obama called them a jv squad. if they have gotten weaker why does Obama see them now?
Look at how many they have killed, injured, frightened in the past 6 months, as opposed to their last year before that.
according to many sources ISIS has trained 400 special troops with a mission to kill. they were successful in Paris and yesterday.
I disagree with that, but even a dying rat has it's final throws. When Isis is certain they will not win, they will hope to inspire another group by making one last move. I do not fear Isis as a group that can take down countries, but a handful of individuals. They would not take their end lying down.
how could you possibly think that? they are losing ground and manpower every day. do you have any evidence to support your opinion?