US politics are so weird, no one would ever do anything that your candidates do over here
Which makes our politics kinda boring to watch but still
Random Politics & Religion #09
Random Politics & Religion #09
Politicians* derp
#Wings4Rooks
Bismarck.Dracondria said: »
US politics are so weird, no one would ever do anything that your candidates do over here
Which makes our politicians kinda boring to watch but still
Which makes our politicians kinda boring to watch but still
Caitsith.Shiroi said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
But there isn't any issues with ISIS. Obama said so!
Remember, they are slowly dying, according to our partisan in chief.
Remember, they are slowly dying, according to our partisan in chief.
ISIS has been losing ground slowly, what's inaccurate here?
One would think it would be the other way around....
Because there totally isn't a rather accurate saying about what happens when something is pushed into a corner.
One year ago ISIS had about half of Iraq and Syria. Now they only have a tiny fraction of that territory still under "control", with defections increasing too.
Also, indoctrinating children to eventually supplement your declining soldier/supporter count and holding your 'supporters' at literal gunpoint?
Yup, they're totally in a great position
Yup, they're totally in a great position
Ragnarok.Raenil said: »
Because there totally isn't a rather accurate saying about what happens when something is pushed into a corner.
Might as well deny that there were any attacks that took place then. Or that those attacks are related with ISIS.
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Ragnarok.Raenil said: »
Because there totally isn't a rather accurate saying about what happens when something is pushed into a corner.
Might as well deny that there were any attacks that took place then. Or that those attacks are related with ISIS.
Serious question:
How are we differentiating -- if at all -- actual coordinated ISIS attacks and lone perpetrator attacks dedicated to/on behalf of ISIS?
Because I feel like in combatting them you're looking at two very different sets of tactics. The former is a more traditional method and is the battle we're slowly winning. The latter is basically no different from Tim McVeigh, just with different motivations, and stopping those attacks is considerably different and more difficult.
[+]
Also I feel like giving ISIS credit for lone wolf-type attacks is a bit generous. Someone who was already unstable found a reason to carry out whatever lunacy was already in their head. Those people are sadly always going to be around, at least in the "as long as any of us are alive" definition of "always."
[+]
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Bismarck.Dracondria said: »
US politics are so weird, no one would ever do anything that your candidates do over here
Which makes our politicians kinda boring to watch but still
Which makes our politicians kinda boring to watch but still
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Caitsith.Shiroi said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
But there isn't any issues with ISIS. Obama said so!
Remember, they are slowly dying, according to our partisan in chief.
Remember, they are slowly dying, according to our partisan in chief.
ISIS has been losing ground slowly, what's inaccurate here?
One would think it would be the other way around....
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton get stranded on a desert island. who survives?
The politics and theology of the caliphate need to be mentioned here.
The caliphate only retains what little theological legitimacy it has by expanding. When they actually loose ground its more than a military retreat, it calls into question the totality of their existence and beliefs.
Their military defeat gives strong ammunition to the imams who preach against ISIS.
The caliphate only retains what little theological legitimacy it has by expanding. When they actually loose ground its more than a military retreat, it calls into question the totality of their existence and beliefs.
Their military defeat gives strong ammunition to the imams who preach against ISIS.
Ramyrez said: »
Serious question:
How are we differentiating -- if at all -- actual coordinated ISIS attacks and lone perpetrator attacks dedicated to/on behalf of ISIS?
Because I feel like in combatting them you're looking at two very different sets of tactics. The former is a more traditional method and is the battle we're slowly winning. The latter is basically no different from Tim McVeigh, just with different motivations, and stopping those attacks is considerably different and more difficult.
How are we differentiating -- if at all -- actual coordinated ISIS attacks and lone perpetrator attacks dedicated to/on behalf of ISIS?
Because I feel like in combatting them you're looking at two very different sets of tactics. The former is a more traditional method and is the battle we're slowly winning. The latter is basically no different from Tim McVeigh, just with different motivations, and stopping those attacks is considerably different and more difficult.
Generally speaking, if a terrorist proclaims an attack in the name of ISIS that involves more than a few people, you can be reasonably assured that it's a coordinated attack. More so if there are several attacks that day.
If it's just one person committing the attack in the name of ISIS, you can be reasonably assured it's a lone wolf, especially if that's the only attack that day.
The only problem with it is there's a lot of single attacks that day in the name of ISIS (which ones are coordinated and which ones are lone wolves who happen to know what day to attack).
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Ramyrez said: »
Serious question:
How are we differentiating -- if at all -- actual coordinated ISIS attacks and lone perpetrator attacks dedicated to/on behalf of ISIS?
Because I feel like in combatting them you're looking at two very different sets of tactics. The former is a more traditional method and is the battle we're slowly winning. The latter is basically no different from Tim McVeigh, just with different motivations, and stopping those attacks is considerably different and more difficult.
How are we differentiating -- if at all -- actual coordinated ISIS attacks and lone perpetrator attacks dedicated to/on behalf of ISIS?
Because I feel like in combatting them you're looking at two very different sets of tactics. The former is a more traditional method and is the battle we're slowly winning. The latter is basically no different from Tim McVeigh, just with different motivations, and stopping those attacks is considerably different and more difficult.
Generally speaking, if a terrorist proclaims an attack in the name of ISIS that involves more than a few people, you can be reasonably assured that it's a coordinated attack. More so if there are several attacks that day.
If it's just one person committing the attack in the name of ISIS, you can be reasonably assured it's a lone wolf, especially if that's the only attack that day.
The only problem with it is there's a lot of single attacks that day in the name of ISIS (which ones are coordinated and which ones are lone wolves who happen to know what day to attack).
Yeah.
I guess the point I'm trying to get across is, it's sort of not hard to see how we're making progress while still dealing with attacks. We're not talking about a linear series of events here.
Ramyrez said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Ramyrez said: »
Serious question:
How are we differentiating -- if at all -- actual coordinated ISIS attacks and lone perpetrator attacks dedicated to/on behalf of ISIS?
Because I feel like in combatting them you're looking at two very different sets of tactics. The former is a more traditional method and is the battle we're slowly winning. The latter is basically no different from Tim McVeigh, just with different motivations, and stopping those attacks is considerably different and more difficult.
How are we differentiating -- if at all -- actual coordinated ISIS attacks and lone perpetrator attacks dedicated to/on behalf of ISIS?
Because I feel like in combatting them you're looking at two very different sets of tactics. The former is a more traditional method and is the battle we're slowly winning. The latter is basically no different from Tim McVeigh, just with different motivations, and stopping those attacks is considerably different and more difficult.
Generally speaking, if a terrorist proclaims an attack in the name of ISIS that involves more than a few people, you can be reasonably assured that it's a coordinated attack. More so if there are several attacks that day.
If it's just one person committing the attack in the name of ISIS, you can be reasonably assured it's a lone wolf, especially if that's the only attack that day.
The only problem with it is there's a lot of single attacks that day in the name of ISIS (which ones are coordinated and which ones are lone wolves who happen to know what day to attack).
Yeah.
I guess the point I'm trying to get across is, it's sort of not hard to see how we're making progress while still dealing with attacks. We're not talking about a linear series of events here.
Let me rephrase that: How are we pushing back a group who's sphere of influence is growing? ISIS is not a country, they have no real territory. But their sphere of influence is growing, and continues to grow. That's the real problem the one that the Obama is doing, which is ignoring the influence ISIS has and claims that they are slowly dying. When they aren't.
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Let me rephrase that: How are we pushing back a group who's sphere of influence is growing? ISIS is not a country, they have no real territory. But their sphere of influence is growing, and continues to grow. That's the real problem the one that the Obama is doing, which is ignoring the influence ISIS has and claims that they are slowly dying. When they aren't.
Like this?
Look, part of winning a war on terror is simply taking the mindset that you are. Shaking in your boots isn't exactly a position of strength. And we have had victories. Especially with ISIS, where they did claim a lot of land and territory, shrinking that territory (and continuing to do so) is a major victory.
But how do you fight an ideology otherwise? Terrorism is always going to be a problem in some fashion. Islamic or otherwise. ISIS is slowly dying. At least as presently comprised.
That doesn't mean their ideals are, and they never will, until something major happens. And it's probably not going to be anything good. So I wouldn't sit around expecting it to be a U.S.-led initiative, as long as we're lucky.
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Ramyrez said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Ramyrez said: »
Serious question:
How are we differentiating -- if at all -- actual coordinated ISIS attacks and lone perpetrator attacks dedicated to/on behalf of ISIS?
Because I feel like in combatting them you're looking at two very different sets of tactics. The former is a more traditional method and is the battle we're slowly winning. The latter is basically no different from Tim McVeigh, just with different motivations, and stopping those attacks is considerably different and more difficult.
How are we differentiating -- if at all -- actual coordinated ISIS attacks and lone perpetrator attacks dedicated to/on behalf of ISIS?
Because I feel like in combatting them you're looking at two very different sets of tactics. The former is a more traditional method and is the battle we're slowly winning. The latter is basically no different from Tim McVeigh, just with different motivations, and stopping those attacks is considerably different and more difficult.
Generally speaking, if a terrorist proclaims an attack in the name of ISIS that involves more than a few people, you can be reasonably assured that it's a coordinated attack. More so if there are several attacks that day.
If it's just one person committing the attack in the name of ISIS, you can be reasonably assured it's a lone wolf, especially if that's the only attack that day.
The only problem with it is there's a lot of single attacks that day in the name of ISIS (which ones are coordinated and which ones are lone wolves who happen to know what day to attack).
Yeah.
I guess the point I'm trying to get across is, it's sort of not hard to see how we're making progress while still dealing with attacks. We're not talking about a linear series of events here.
Let me rephrase that: How are we pushing back a group who's sphere of influence is growing? ISIS is not a country, they have no real territory. But their sphere of influence is growing, and continues to grow. That's the real problem the one that the Obama is doing, which is ignoring the influence ISIS has and claims that they are slowly dying. When they aren't.
ISIS may be defeat but some other Islamic extremist group will take the charge. This isn't going to end any time soon.
Unless we nuke the Middle East (please nuke the middle east) terrorism is going to be around for a long long time.
All the drone strikes are doing is making ISIS members move into Europe and other countries. It isn't defeating them.
fonewear said: »
ISIS may be defeat but some other Islamic extremist group will take the charge. This isn't going to end any time soon.
Which is why things get so hairy in the defining of "success." ISIS itself is being worn down as an entity.
Terrorism as a whole?
That's an entirely different thing. It's not going away until we find a way to un-radicalize people's beliefs.
Let me know when that's worked out, because it will be among the greatest sociologic advances in the history of the race.
Caitsith.Shiroi said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Let me rephrase that: How are we pushing back a group who's sphere of influence is growing? ISIS is not a country, they have no real territory. But their sphere of influence is growing, and continues to grow. That's the real problem the one that the Obama is doing, which is ignoring the influence ISIS has and claims that they are slowly dying. When they aren't.
I don't know where all of that is coming from, but ISIS has territory. They lost about 20% of the territory within the last year. They lost a lot of revenue by losing oil and are now heavily taxing/stealing from citizens, they are losing the support they had.
I heard they could have saved 20% of their territory by switching to Geico !
[+]
Ramyrez said: »
fonewear said: »
ISIS may be defeat but some other Islamic extremist group will take the charge. This isn't going to end any time soon.
Which is why things get so hairy in the defining of "success." ISIS itself is being worn down as an entity.
Terrorism as a whole?
That's an entirely different thing. It's not going away until we find a way to un-radicalize people's beliefs.
Let me know when that's worked out, because it will be among the greatest sociologic advances in the history of the race.
So you are suggesting we brainwash Muslims with MTV and western culture I'll do it !
Caitsith.Shiroi said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Let me rephrase that: How are we pushing back a group who's sphere of influence is growing? ISIS is not a country, they have no real territory. But their sphere of influence is growing, and continues to grow. That's the real problem the one that the Obama is doing, which is ignoring the influence ISIS has and claims that they are slowly dying. When they aren't.
I don't know where all of that is coming from, but ISIS has territory. They lost about 20% of the territory within the last year. They lost a lot of revenue by losing oil and are now heavily taxing/stealing from citizens, they are losing the support they had.
Last I looked, Syria and Iraq are nations that ISIS are based in. Are you saying that both Syria and Iraq have lost land to ISIS and a new nation was born from it?
And that the sphere of influence being spread across the world has nothing to do with any of this?
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.