How to defeat ISIS in Syria


Kian	Dread wrote: Don't call out a fallacy if you don't know how to disarm it, otherwise that is in essence the Fallacy fallacy (Since the substance of your argument is essentially calling out a fallacy.) When an argument is based around a Straw Man, it doesn't address the actual argument. Hence, the argument is, barring lucky chance, invalid. Dread wrote: I agree with Apollon/Иван in that it wouldn't work. You don't just simply go in and kill every enemy hiding in territory of neutrals/innocents, regardless of how good your soldiers are. Hunt and shoot is not something you can easily do when your enemies are spread out, armed, and hiding. I agree that this doesn't work when you have a terrorist group, like Al Qaeda, in hiding as you describe. Part of the aforementioned failure of Bush was that he attempted to root out terrorists with a large ground force. ISIS, however, is a military presence. It controls cities and towns, and has military outposts. These are the kinds of things which can be taken - and in the cases of cities and towns, held - by ground forces. Indiscriminate bombing won't work with population centers of any size (unless you are a huge fan of collateral damage), and, to my knowledge, we have not had significant success with bombing ISIS in general. "Nothing gives one person so much advantage over another as to remain always cool and unruffled under all circumstances." -Thomas Jefferson Posted Jan 14, 16
Dread AOwner Posts: 25 Votes: +5 LEVEL 0 Admins Owner	Kian wrote: Dread wrote: Don't call out a fallacy if you don't know how to disarm it, otherwise that is in essence the Fallacy fallacy (Since the substance of your argument is essentially calling out a fallacy.) When an argument is based around a Straw Man, it doesn't address the actual argument. Hence, the argument is, barring lucky chance, invalid. I think you missed the part where I said " if you don't know how to disarm it", which if you know how to do such, you shouldn't take the ineffective route of calling out the fallacy but not explaining and disarming it. Kian wrote: Dread wrote: I agree with Apollon/Иван in that it wouldn't work. You don't just simply go in and kill every enemy hiding in territory of neutrals/innocents, regardless of how good your soldiers are. Hunt and shoot is not something you can easily do when your enemies are spread out, armed, and hiding. I agree that this doesn't work when you have a terrorist group, like Al Qaeda, in hiding as you describe. Part of the aforementioned failure of Bush was that he attempted to root out terrorists with a large ground force. ISIS, however, is a military presence. It controls cities and towns, and has military outposts. These are the kinds of things which can be taken - and in the cases of cities and towns, held - by ground forces. Indiscriminate bombing won't work with population centers of any size (unless you are a huge fan of collateral damage), and, to my knowledge, we have not had significant success with bombing ISIS in general. The issue with attempting to take hold of cities and towns like that like that is that you will have trouble telling ISIS apart from the normal population (Unless they are preaching of course), especially when there is distrust between Iraqians and America. I think we all knew this day would come..... Posted Jan 15, 16
Vellerofon Posts: 13 Votes: +4 LEVEL 0	Kian wrote: When an argument is based around a Straw Man, it doesn't address the actual argument. Hence, the argument is, barring lucky chance, invalid. We know what a strawman is, thanks for educating us. >Hence, the argument is, barring lucky chance, invalid >fallacy fallacy Kian wrote: I agree that this doesn't work when you have a terrorist group, like Al Qaeda, in hiding as you describe. Part of the aforementioned failure of Bush was that he attempted to root out terrorists with a large ground force. ISIS, however, is a military presence. It controls cities and towns, and has military outposts. These are the kinds of things which can be taken - and in the cases of cities and towns, held - by ground forces. Indiscriminate bombing won't work with population centers of any size (unless you are a huge fan of collateral damage), and, to my knowledge, we have not had significant success with bombing ISIS in general. Because that worked perfectly in the Iraqi war right... right? Posted Jan 15, 16 · Last edited Jan 15, 16
Kian	Dread wrote: I think you missed the part where I said " if you don't know how to disarm it", which if you know how to do such, you shouldn't take the ineffective route of calling out the fallacy but not explaining and disarming it. It may be inelegant and somewhat ineffective, but it is rather quicker when there are other things you are doing. Also, (my apologies for nitpicking actually, I'm probably not very sorry) "which if you know how to do such" is painful to read. Dread wrote: The issue with attempting to take hold of cities and towns like that like that is that you will have trouble telling ISIS apart from the normal population (Unless they are preaching of course), especially when there is distrust between Iraqians and America. Although I doubt that the United States is in 'cahoots' with ISIS, I can't really blame the Iraqi people for distrusting America when the U.S. is in no small part responsible for the rise of ISIS (as I have pointed out in one of my previous posts). Now, when you have a terror cell in hiding, you are correct that rooting them out is a problem. However, from what I know of the whole situation, ISIS is maintaining an open military presence. I am talking about the cities under the control of the Islamic State's 'government', not a city under the control of another country which has ISIS soldiers hiding in it. "Nothing gives one person so much advantage over another as to remain always cool and unruffled under all circumstances." -Thomas Jefferson Posted Jan 15, 16
Gucci_Chain Posts: 1 Votes: 0 LEVEL 0	We need to have Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl lead our forces on the ground. Posted Jan 16, 16
Dread AOwner Posts: 25 Votes: +5 LEVEL 0 Admins Owner	Kian wrote: Now, when you have a terror cell in hiding, you are correct that rooting them out is a problem. However, from what I know of the whole situation, ISIS is maintaining an open military presence. I am talking about the cities under the control of the Islamic State's 'government', not a city under the control of another country which has ISIS soldiers hiding in it. And assuming you didn't change from your original point, you expect the "best trained soldiers" to be able to defend these cities how? That'd be stretching resources pretty thin, as Navy SEALs aren't numerous. Kian wrote: Dread wrote: I think you missed the part where I said " if you don't know how to disarm it", which if you know how to do such, you shouldn't take the ineffective route of calling out the fallacy but not explaining and disarming it. It may be inelegant and somewhat ineffective, but it is rather quicker when there are other things you are doing. Also, (my apologies for nitpicking actually, I'm probably not very sorry) "which if you know how to do such" is painful to read. (This is getting reaaaallly off topic) You are employing the red herring fallacy!!!! See, that's what you are essentially doing. You are making a statement without any explanation and it looks absolutely stupid because you did nothing to deny what Apollon said. You never corrected him. You never explained/clarified your point. You just called out a strawman with nothing else to back it up. (He also has a little bit of merit in calling you Bush based on what he quoted when he said that lol.) Kian wrote: but it is rather quicker when there are other things you are doing. This is ~~hardly~~ NOT a valid excuse. This is not a live conversation in a chatroom. You can always reply several hours later and you will very likely have no issues. Enjin even seems to cache a post into your post box for when you plan to actually post it if you're too lazy to do Win+R and type notepad tl;dr actually disarm the fallacy next time (Because not disarming it ruins the point of calling it out) instead of splitting the debate into two for a little chatter on why you should do the former I think we all knew this day would come..... Posted Jan 17, 16
Not Fyte	time to fuck these sandniggers up Posted Jan 17, 16
Vellerofon Posts: 13 Votes: +4 LEVEL 0	Let's revive this for the sake of reviving the entire site too Kian wrote: Probably not before they merge with ISIS.[1][2] They won't merge with ISIS, that's a dumb thing to say Kurds and Rebels are against ISIS completely, the rebels even agreed in a cease fire with the government so they can focus against ISIS Kian wrote: Thing is, although intervention by the US tends to gunk things up[3] So it's better to leave them? Personally, yes, it is, let the Russians support Assad, instead of having the obongo administration fund ISIS and Rebels. Kian wrote: by pulling out our troops, we likely were the ones who left the power vacuum for ISIS to rise to dominance in, in the first place![4] yes i agree with this, you cant pull troops off Iraq. The Iraqi army needs help, the country is already in a civil war itself. Kian wrote: The United States still has, presumably, the most powerful military force in the world. So did both of the german reichs, the british empire, 2nd-3rd French republic. Those didn't do that well, did they Kian wrote: Since funding rebels obviously isn't working Of course it didn't Kian wrote: and bombing ISIS is not working Of course it didn't Kian wrote: I would suggest that the best way to defeat them is to send in the best-armed and best-trained[5] Lol okay, here's where you just replied with "strawman" before Shock and Awe did not work in afghanistan nor Iraq It didn't work anywhere and it certainly won't work in lands infested by islamic radicals. You can't just send "muh elite" and expect them to wipe everyone out. This logic is strategically daft, the experience of soldiers matters very little, look at the bigger picture. Kian wrote: (well... the first qualifier there is for the Army and the second is for the Marines...) Oh boy you really do have it upside-down. Kian wrote: best-armed and best-trained soldiers on the planet and wipe them out. YES, SEND IN 5 SEALS TO WIPE EVERYONE OUT! GREAT IDEA Kian wrote: These aren't exactly well-trained soldiers being fought They aren't, but they're near that Kian wrote: I agree that this doesn't work when you have a terrorist group, like Al Qaeda, in hiding as you describe. Part of the aforementioned failure of Bush was that he attempted to root out terrorists with a large ground force Shock and Awe is self-explanitory. Take the Baghdad bombings for example Kian wrote: ISIS, however, is a military presence. It controls cities and towns, and has military outposts. Jeez, you don't think that guerilla forces wouldn't appear? You really think that the native population isn't pretty much ready to conspire with ISIS in case they lose lands? Kian wrote: These are the kinds of things which can be taken - and in the cases of cities and towns, held - by ground forces. It's probably a civilian-guard/militia type of thing. Kian wrote: Indiscriminate bombing won't work with population centers of any size Of course it doesn't Kian wrote: we have not had significant success with bombing ISIS in general. Actually there have been lots of successes in bombings. Jihadi John died in an airstrike for example, and other high-profile targets of ISIS I can't name at the moment. Either way, how about the US actually focuses on actually bombing ISIS instead of empty industrial areas Kian wrote: Although I doubt that the United States is in 'cahoots' with ISIS, I can't really blame the Iraqi people for distrusting Of course they are in cahoots with ISIS, maybe the DoD or the general government isn't directly, but foreign agencies (like, I don't know, what foreign agency has a lot of controversy surrounding it and its legitimacy? CIA) certainly are.. directly or indirectly, again. Kian wrote: America when the U.S. is in no small part responsible for the rise of ISIS (as I have pointed out in one of my previous posts). Of course they did, we should've left Qaddafi in his place. Turns out Hillary isn't a good choice after all? Who would've thought. Kian wrote: Now, when you have a terror cell in hiding, you are correct that rooting them out is a problem. At this point I have to remind you that Al-Qaeda is active in the Syrian civil war and probably in cooperation with ISIS, particularly the Al-Nusra Front Kian wrote: However, from what I know of the whole situation, ISIS is maintaining an open military presence. I am talking about the cities under the control of the Islamic State's 'government', not a city under the control of another country which has ISIS soldiers hiding in it. You're missing the point. It's even worse that the Islamic State is already a de-facto nation and occupies a lot of lands ranging from Iraq to Syria, but that doesn't mean they are not going to employ guerilla tactics in case of direct conflict with the US. At this point we must assume the worst Posted Jul 14, 16

How to defeat ISIS in Syria

Force a signature on this user