Trump takes the fight to ISIS

[Speaker to Animals]

Not fighting ISIS will get you more terror attacks.

Al Queda did not need to hold any actual territory in order to launch terrorist attacks on the US and Europe. ISIS will keep on launching terrorist attacks after it loses its last territory. When the Iraqi and Syrian armies and militias take the last ISIS territory, ISIS will become like any other terrorist organization: A law enforcement challenge rather than a military challenge.

What does holding territory have to do with what I said?

[BjornP]

Not fighting ISIS will get you more terror attacks.

Al Queda did not need to hold any actual territory in order to launch terrorist attacks on the US and Europe. ISIS will keep on launching terrorist attacks after it loses its last territory. When the Iraqi and Syrian armies and militias take the last ISIS territory, ISIS will become like any other terrorist organization: A law enforcement challenge rather than a military challenge.

What does holding territory have to do with what I said?

Based on your reply to him, I figured that must be the part you disagreed with nmoore about? That he objected to US military presence in Iraq/Syria, and that you didn't. Did you interpret what Nick said as him not even wanting to combat any ISIS terrorism aimed at the US, at all?

[Speaker to Animals]

Al Queda did not need to hold any actual territory in order to launch terrorist attacks on the US and Europe. ISIS will keep on launching terrorist attacks after it loses its last territory. When the Iraqi and Syrian armies and militias take the last ISIS territory, ISIS will become like any other terrorist organization: A law enforcement challenge rather than a military challenge.

What does holding territory have to do with what I said?

Based on your reply to him, I figured that must be the part you disagreed with nmoore about? That he objected to US military presence in Iraq/Syria, and that you didn't. Did you interpret what Nick said as him not even wanting to combat any ISIS terrorism aimed at the US, at all?

If ISIS did not control territory, we'd still have to fight them, dude. They do control territory, though, so part of fighting them entails taking that away from them..

[Okeefenokee]

Coalition allows IS to flee with their weapons.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt ... rty_secret

The deal to let IS fighters escape from Raqqa – de facto capital of their self-declared caliphate – had been arranged by local officials. It came after four months of fighting that left the city obliterated and almost devoid of people. It would spare lives and bring fighting to an end. The lives of the Arab, Kurdish and other fighters opposing IS would be spared.

But it also enabled many hundreds of IS fighters to escape from the city. At the time, neither the US and British-led coalition, nor the SDF, which it backs, wanted to admit their part.

Has the pact, which stood as Raqqa’s dirty secret, unleashed a threat to the outside world - one that has enabled militants to spread far and wide across Syria and beyond?

Great pains were taken to hide it from the world. But the BBC has spoken to dozens of people who were either on the convoy, or observed it, and to the men who negotiated the deal.

This'll be awesome, guys! We just let them go to another city full of people, then we blow that one up too! Whatever survivors crawl out of the rubble will become terrorists too, and then we can keep this going forever! INIFINITE WAR RULES!!!

Lockmart shareholders approve.

Hack bitch confirmed again.

Why are you shelling them? There's people in there.

Five minutes later.

Why did you spare the people?

[clubgop]

Or did you mean the ISIS fighters were smart for keeping their weapons? In which case, how is this a victory, or surrender?

Who cares about their small arms? It's not like they can oppose the might of the US government. They don't have missile launchers, so they are no threat. Isn't that your anti 2A argument? Yes, yes it is.

[Speaker to Animals]

Or did you mean the ISIS fighters were smart for keeping their weapons? In which case, how is this a victory, or surrender?

Who cares about their small arms? It's not like they can oppose the might of the US government. They don't have missile launchers, so they are no threat. Isn't that your anti 2A argument? Yes, yes it is.

[clubgop]

Coalition allows IS to flee with their weapons.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt ... rty_secret

This'll be awesome, guys! We just let them go to another city full of people, then we blow that one up too! Whatever survivors crawl out of the rubble will become terrorists too, and then we can keep this going forever! INIFINITE WAR RULES!!!

Lockmart shareholders approve.

Hack bitch confirmed again.

Why are you shelling them? There's people in there.

Five minutes later.

Why did you spare the people?

I pointed that out here earlier. He is clowning himself in thread after thread.

Bias doesn't exist. Because no one is a monolith.

Next Minute.

Of course bias exists doesn't mean my lies aren't true!

[SuburbanFarmer]

Or did you mean the ISIS fighters were smart for keeping their weapons? In which case, how is this a victory, or surrender?

Who cares about their small arms? It's not like they can oppose the might of the US government. They don't have missile launchers, so they are no threat. Isn't that your anti 2A argument? Yes, yes it is.

Please stop quoting that clown.

Obviously, they can’t. They managed to blow up a lot of civilians, and slowed the army down after we had withdrawn 90% of our troops, and still lost their territory. So... yeah, I’d say small arms don’t really work.

Now, if the US military was reduced to squabbling warlords in 20-year-old soviet equipment, maybe they’d have a chance...

[nmoore63]

Not fighting ISIS will get you more terror attacks.

You say this because you want it to be true. Not because it is.
Its easier to have someone to fight.

And I'm not against blowing up ISIS, but it will do next to nothing to end terrorism. The cancer is everywhere, sure cut out that little piece that happened to congeal into a large tumor but it will do very little to help the patient.

http://www.businessinsider.com/global-t ... ps-2017-5/

To be clear, I wanted to go blow up shit 16 years ago to, so I claim no innocence in this, but the tactics and methods have proven a failure.

We've spent trillions and have made no progress in the sand.

You only plan is to keep doing the same thing until you are punched out.

Spend the money on the VA, not on another hellfire strike that kills as many crazies as it creates.

Just. Come. Home.

[Martin Hash]

Not fighting ISIS will get you more terror attacks.

You say this because you want it to be true. Not because it is.
Its easier to have someone to fight.

And I'm not against blowing up ISIS, but it will do next to nothing to end terrorism. The cancer is everywhere, sure cut out that little piece that happened to congeal into a large tumor but it will do very little to help the patient.

http://www.businessinsider.com/global-t ... ps-2017-5/

To be clear, I wanted to go blow up shit 16 years ago to, so I claim no innocence in this, but the tactics and methods have proven a failure.

We've spent trillions and have made no progress in the sand.

You only plan is to keep doing the same thing until you are punched out.

Spend the money on the VA, not on another hellfire strike that kills as many crazies as it creates.

Just. Come. Home.

This is where I am too. (However, I'm kind of pleased Trump took out ISIS's shit.)