Destroying ISIS, [et all terrorist groups]

[Velocity]

@up_the_junction

Sorry, but I have no interest after the word “terrorism”. Good luck with that.

Freedom fighters, eh.

[up_the_junction]

It’s their countries, the USA fucked it all up, and percentage-wise probably probably killed family members.

You don’t get to decide what they are.

[Human_Action]

@chappachula

See chihuahua’s comment in post #7:
“The claim that terrorism is a reaction to US aggression and bombing is straight-up nonsense. If terrorists wanted revenge on America, they would attack America. Instead, they attack other Muslims.”

I don’t know about that. For one, there have been attacks on America, Nidal Hasan referred to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as part of the motive for his attack on Ft. Hood. Recall also the attack on the ‘Draw Muhammad’ event in Texas.

For two, lack of opportunity isn’t the same as lack of desire. If the U.S. bordered ISIS territory, we’d likely see far more attacks.

For three, there’s more going on than simple revenge. We’re talking about competing worldviews here, and the coalition of democracies that invaded Iraq gave a boost to a worldview that rejects democracy in favor of a theocracy. If I were *actively trying *to convince people that democracy was morally wrong, I’d have just done what Bush, Blair et al did.

And for four, the invasion itself destabilized the area, leading to the aforementioned power vacuum, and created a class of out-of-work Iraqi officers and soldiers that became the core of ISIS.

[Chihuahua]

I’m not saying there are zero attacks on America. But the point still holds that the vast majority of violence is directed against other Muslims. Even when the US was in Iraq, there was a tremendous amount of Sunni-vs-Shia violence, to the point that some (such as myself) call it the Iraqi Civil War. It doesn’t follow that, even when US forces are in their country, they devoted so much energy into attacking rival sects.

Also, I like to point out how many US armies were in Iraq and Afghanistan on September 10. The first WTC attack, the bombing of the Cole, the attacks on Saudi barracks and African embassies… All of these things happened without the US invading anyone.

[Human_Action]

@Chihuahua

I’m not saying there are zero attacks on America. But the point still holds that the vast majority of violence is directed against other Muslims. Even when the US was in Iraq, there was a tremendous amount of Sunni-vs-Shia violence, to the point that some (such as myself) call it the Iraqi Civil War. It doesn’t follow that, even when US forces are in their country, they devoted so much energy into attacking rival sects.

See points 3 and 4.

[Chihuahua]

@up_the_junction

Sorry, but I have no interest after the word “terrorism”. Good luck with that.

Another brilliant rebuttal!

[Grumman]

@Potestas

So what is the key to destroying ISIS and ensuring they never come back?

It seems to me that we are in a darned if you do darned if you don’t position where if you don’t intervene they will just get worse and continue to spread but if you do intervene they will just use it as a recruitment tool to get more fighters t o join their ranks.

ISIL cannot summon reinforcements from the aether - they can only convert sympathisers into active supporters. Fortunately for us, the only people who have an ounce of sympathy for anything ISIL wants to achieve are already assholes. Every Muslim Elliot Rodger who travels to ISIL’s new caliphate and eats a Hellfire missile is one less Elliot Rodger in the world.

[Human_Action]

@chappachula

Journalist Tomas Friedman of the New York Times once made an interesting observation:
The vast majority of the terrorists are men who by the age of twenty or 25 “have never held a job or a girl’s hand”.

As long as Islamic countries remain backwards in those two areas (decent jobs and-more importantly–decent attitudes to women), terrorism will continue to grow.

There might be something to this, if there’s a commonality to other groups, like the IRA, Tamil Tigers, Black Hands, Red Army Faction, and other terrorist groups. If those men had job and relationship prospects and still fought for terrorist organizations, then this analysis isn’t worth much.

[XT]

@up_the_junction

Don’t invade their countries and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Well, if that’s all it took then they’d be attacking Europe a hell of a lot more than they are the US.

As for the OP:

So what is the key to destroying ISIS and ensuring they never come back?

Stability in the region, long term. ISIS is able to flourish because of the instability due to the Syrian civil war as well as a destabilized Iraq. Short term basically do what we are collectively doing…target the money and infrastructure, hit their logistics and training centers and support regional allies such as the Kurd’s who can and are fighting them on the ground. Also, don’t expect that there is a silver bullet or that they will be defeated by Christmas or on some short time frame.

It seems to me that we are in a darned if you do darned if you don’t position where if you don’t intervene they will just get worse and continue to spread but if you do intervene they will just use it as a recruitment tool to get more fighters t o join their ranks.

That’s because some folks want to ensure that everything they do is popular to everyone. Can’t be done…you are bound to piss someone off. You aren’t going to stop people from joining ISIS ranks, though there are a lot of cracks in the facade lately with people from Europe or the region who rushed to join now backing out, and a lot of the more professional people in the region (who they need badly) fleeing as fast as they can or even paying ransoms so they are allowed to bolt.

Is it possible to defeat ISIS or do we just need to get used to the idea of genocidal militant groups rising up and killing people wantonly and threatening us from time to time?

ISIS is only a symptom. Yeah, we ARE defeating them (‘we’ being the collection of allies fighting them, not including those idiots from Russia who don’t seem to be noticeably helping in the fight against ISIS…though, of course, that’s not really what they are there for), slowly but surely. The easy early days are behind ISIS, and increasingly they are strapped for cash and the other sinews of war, have their C&C increasingly being hammered and generally are having a bad time of things, since they have managed to piss off just about everyone who isn’t already with them…and even some that were. But even if ISIS goes down, which I expect they will, if you don’t fix the core issue with stability in the region (and get Assad et al the fuck out of there) it’s just going to be like a hydra…kill one head, two take their place and all that. And that’s not something we, the US, can just wave our magic missiles at and fix…there has to be a political solution and it’s got to be the regional powers there driving and buying into it. No idea how to accomplish that, sadly.