What do YOU think the world should do about the ISIS crisis?

After reading news today of further horrific ways of executing prisoners of the Islamic state, how do you think the world should react, and if not the world, individual countries and states. No racist or stupid comments, I am just curious on what other people think.

Reply 1

flibber

13

The coalition should help the FSA (with the YPG playing a supporting role) recapture Arab-majority villages (further south of Ayn Issa that are held by ISIS) from Kurdish territory by supplying weapons and supporting them with airstrikes like they did at Kobani and Tel Abyad with the Kurds.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 2

R£SP£CT

15

Stop giving those nutjobs media coverage. Avoid direct military aggression. Support a local effort in dealing with them. Continue to provide aid for those affected. Those are some of the strategies I'd employ.

Reply 3

moggis

18

I read a piece in the paper a couple of weeks or so ago that strongly suggested that the best way to deal with them could be the same way Nigeria seems to have successfully fought back against
Boku Haram.

Use mercenaries against them.

As far as the suggestion of not giving them publicity is concerned I must say I really don't say how that can possibly work?

I mean the fact is that there is a demand to read about this and the idea that journalists would simply not report certain atrocities but carry on reporting others( one presumes) is fanciful to say the least especially when it will be available online somehow or other.
There's alsso just too much competition in the world media for it to even be possible.Sorry.

Also,the families of people killed or kidnapped by these people would usually desire publicity and I wouldn't want to be the one who tells them they can't have it no matter what the bigger picture.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 4

Rakas21

21

Original post by Tom5pence

After reading news today of further horrific ways of executing prisoners of the Islamic state, how do you think the world should react, and if not the world, individual countries and states. No racist or stupid comments, I am just curious on what other people think.

Invade them and occupy them.

The sooner people accept that the Middle East is incapable of self governance (or at least democratic self governance), the better.

Reply 5

flibber

13

Original post by Rakas21

Invade them and occupy them.

The sooner people accept that the Middle East is incapable of self governance (or at least democratic self governance), the better.

Sorry about my last post (which I deleted)- I didn't look at the thread title properly.

Reply 6

flibber

13

Original post by Rakas21

Invade them and occupy them.

The sooner people accept that the Middle East is incapable of self governance (or at least democratic self governance), the better.

Western, secular education (instead of ISIS propaganda) in schools would certainly do their children good but are we really going to put our soldiers at risk of daily suicide bombings and insurrections for at least 20 years. 2003 was bad enough.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 7

Rakas21

21

Original post by flibber

Western, secular education (instead of ISIS propaganda) in schools would certainly do their children good but are we really going to put our soldiers at risk of daily suicide bombings and insurrections for at least 20 years. 2003 was bad enough.

One must speculate to accumulate.

Reply 8

flibber

13

Original post by Rakas21

One must speculate to accumulate.

I hope if you do succeed in your planned invasion, you'd remove the Iraqi Shia militias and clerics who have hijacked the central government from any political role.

Reply 9

Rakas21

21

Original post by flibber

I hope if you do succeed in your planned invasion, you'd remove the Iraqi Shia militias and clerics who have hijacked the central government from any political role.

Syria and Libya are bigger priorities than Iraq (plus Gaza arguably) but yeah. Basically i think that the north east of Syria (controlled by the Kurds) should become part of Iraqi Kurdistan and then all religion would be removed from the Syrian government (and Assad deposed). The mistake we made in Iraq and would not make here is disbanding the army, as soon as opposing generals were dead we'd give the soldiers amnesty for any crimes committed during the civil in return for following a western governor. They'd have elections for tax and spend but like Egypt only secular parties could stand.

Then in 30 years, we might have a functioning much more western nation.

Reply 10

castlemadeofsand

1

What we should do is:

Head over to the Winchester for a pint and wait for this all to blow over

Reply 11

RF_PineMarten

18

Original post by flibber

The coalition should help the FSA (with the YPG playing a supporting role) recapture Arab-majority villages (further south of Ayn Issa that are held by ISIS) from Kurdish territory by supplying weapons and supporting them with airstrikes like they did at Kobani and Tel Abyad with the Kurds.

Pretty much this. I'm a bit skeptical of the plan to train and equip Syrian rebels. But I'd drop my opposition if they were to do it with these FSA groups that are allied to the Kurds - they'e proven themselves to be moderates by fighting alongside secular Kurds, and helping them could seriously threaten ISIS in its heartland. And they're apparently getting more recruits because of their battlefield successes.

Have you also been following the latest events in Syria?

Original post by Rakas21

Syria and Libya are bigger priorities than Iraq (plus Gaza arguably) but yeah. Basically i think that the north east of Syria (controlled by the Kurds) should become part of Iraqi Kurdistan and then all religion would be removed from the Syrian government (and Assad deposed).

If Assad is removed it should be through diplomacy. Any military attempt to do that would strengthen ISIS, Nusra, and all the other Islamist groups in Syria, because it would inevitably cause them to capture more territory from the Syrian government. And sending western ground troops to fight ISIS would give the group the war it desperately wants - the west against their "Islamic caliphate". It would be a propaganda and recruitment gold mine for them.

Personally I think long term we need a political solution to the wider Syrian war, so we can get a decent government in power that has more legitimacy among civilians in rebel held areas than Assad does (and who might be a bit more reasonable and reliable as an ally). Then we could back that government to take on the Islamists who would never abide by any peace deal. But that's extremely unlikely at the moment.

Reply 12

Aj12

18

Original post by castlemadeofsand

What we should do is:

Head over to the Winchester for a pint and wait for this all to blow over

What are you going to do when they blow up the Winchester? We're lucky at the moment, ISIS is focusing on the near enemy. Once they carve themselves out a nice stable state they will start looking towards the West more. Fact is the US is the only nation that is pushing any one to do anything. If they stopped then ISIS would be allowed to run rampant. The fact that Saudi Arabia is currently cluster bombing Yemen says everything about one of the biggest regional powers priorities.

Reply 13

Skip_Snip

3

Let Israel take over their lands, rename it Canaan.

Reply 14

BrightBlueLight

1

do nothing ban all immigration from muslim countries and treat asylum seekers as a threat to civilised society. keep muslims contained in their own countries and let them get on with it

Reply 15

username1533709

5

Original post by R£SP£CT

Stop giving those nutjobs media coverage. Avoid direct military aggression. Support a local effort in dealing with them. Continue to provide aid for those affected. Those are some of the strategies I'd employ.

Posted from TSR Mobile
This ^.Especially the first point.

Reply 16

flibber

13

Original post by RFowler

Pretty much this. I'm a bit skeptical of the plan to train and equip Syrian rebels. But I'd drop my opposition if they were to do it with these FSA groups that are allied to the Kurds - they'e proven themselves to be moderates by fighting alongside secular Kurds, and helping them could seriously threaten ISIS in its heartland. And they're apparently getting more recruits because of their battlefield successes.

Have you also been following the latest events in Syria?

I've been following the events in Syria for quite some time. A lot has changed even in the time between your post and my reply- ISIS have reentered Kobani, only to be repelled today.

I'm not sure whether an all out offensive on Raqqa itself is feasible at the moment (ISIS would probably fight even more viciously than it did at Kobani), but I'd certainly support blocking more supply lines and taking villages on the way. It helps when there are only two sides in the battle as is the case with the Rojava campaign against ISIS- no al-Nusra, Islamic Front etc. to consider in this case (Southern Kurdistan) before backing up friendly forces

If Assad is removed it should be through diplomacy. Any military attempt to do that would strengthen ISIS, Nusra, and all the other Islamist groups in Syria, because it would inevitably cause them to capture more territory from the Syrian government. And sending western ground troops to fight ISIS would give the group the war it desperately wants - the west against their "Islamic caliphate". It would be a propaganda and recruitment gold mine for them.

Personally I think long term we need a political solution to the wider Syrian war, so we can get a decent government in power that has more legitimacy among civilians in rebel held areas than Assad does (and who might be a bit more reasonable and reliable as an ally). Then we could back that government to take on the Islamists who would never abide by any peace deal. But that's extremely unlikely at the moment.

Rakas earns my respect for adding to the political diversity of the forum and for standing up for somewhat controversial views. I remember a debate with him in which he claimed that the Middle East renders any progress it has made void by sectarian conflict and dictatorships. I argued that Europe, too, used to be like this but has changed to the progressive bastion it is currently. He then replied that Europe was uncivilized '600 years ago. We can't wait 600 years for them (the Middle East) to catch up' in defence of his planned occupation of the Middle East.

I remember saying something along the lines of saying that while the Iraq War was unnecessary, the Americans should not have alienated Sunni Muslims by their clumsy policy of de-Baathification (which essentially placed draconian restrictions on members of the banned Ba'ath Party, which many Sunni Iraqis had been members of only by convenience, not by any ideological loyalty), and therefore Al-Qaeda in Iraq (precursor to ISIS) would not have got the mass support it did in the early years of the Iraq War. American support for al-Maliki only further made Sunnis more likely to at least tolerate radical Islamist groups for support against the Shia militias.

Reply 17

Soldieroffortune

2

Reform the eitgh army and do what they did against the Nazi menace send them forth like gods on wrath and destroy everything in their path that even might be related to ISIL, sometimes the high impact approach is a lot better than the low impact one.

Reply 18

SnoochToTheBooch

17

It could be 200+ other countries vs. a few tens of thousands of brainwashed lunatics and part-timers. They're so outnumbered and out-weaponed. I don't see why the entire world couldn't just advance on them from all sides and crush them if it really wanted to.