Originally posted by partypoker15
Taking over? Ha! Hardly. 71 operatives in 15 different states. Not that I think another nation would commit acts like ISIS, but take a country like the UK. I don't want to know how many operatives the MI5 has operating in America, and I'm sure the world doesn't want to know how many CIA operatives are operating in their countries either. Even if everything ISIS says is true, they are hardly taking over. 71 operatives isn't an army, it isn't even guerrilla warfare. Its small scale attacks. They can't do anything to actually harm America as a whole. They just attacked France, and while France and most of the world mourns, did they harm the nation of France in any way, shape, or form? Is France destabilizing and questioning if they should surrender to ISIS? (French running away jokes aside here) Hell no. If anything, the more ISIS attacks, the longer the list of nations willing to go to war will get. The dryer the ink gets on their death warrant.
Lets play out a hypothetical here. Lets say all 71 of those alleged operatives attack in the US, and lets just say each one manages somehow to kill 100 people. 7,100 people die. More than 2x the people that died on 9/11. Do you honestly think the US, and for that matter the rest of the world, would cower in fear? We would let that attack go unanswered? Hell no. If would only unite the world more against these extremists and they would invoke a world of shit upon themselves. What I really want to see is ISIS try and fuck with the US, Russia, or China. Lets see how you fair with a military superpower coming for you like the US did with the Middle East. Not going to lie, the US has blood on its hands because of that war, but the reason we went there was just.
In unconventional warfare, 71 operatives is actually a lot. The Battle of Tora Bora was waged by about 50 men. Mainly Special Forces Operational Detachment Delta, and CIA Special Activities Division. You could say it's comparing apples to oranges, and it might be. But you can't be more unconventional than terrorism. In regards to Russia, and China. We're on the wrong side of the Syrian conflict to even be considered remotely allied with them. I said this years ago, when the Syrian conflict came to light in the mainstream media that the Syrian rebels are who we do not need to align with. Sure enough it looks like I was right. Instead, Obama does his shtick like he usually does. And as a result we're tied into another proxy war against the Russians and the Chinese. You don't know how much I would love for you to be right. That if something happened on the homeland, that Americans will wake up. But I fear that it's too late as indoctrination has ran so deep that people will chalk up irrefutable evidence as conspiracy theory.
I would have to agree that invading Iraq was a mistake. We destabilized a country because they were led by a secular dictator and member of the Ba'ath party. A lot of people - including Obama - were against the war in Iraq. Now the Iraqi government is in power - if you want to consider their weak attempt at government a government - their defense forces couldn't handle insurgencies and unconventional warfare especially after we pulled out. Thus, they were further destabilized to where they are now. Ironically, Obama wants to target Bashar al-Assad who is also secular and a member of the Ba'ath party. There is no difference between the two. Saddam was found to be in possession of mustard and sarin gas as is al-Assad. It's insanity I tell you. We're doing everything we can possibly do, wrong.
As for culling terrorism. It's never going to happen. Our ROE is stupid. It insures that we take causalities before we can engage. Frankly, for ISIS to be defeated we're going to have to drop the rebels. Tell al-Assad that we were wrong, amend relations with Russia, and promptly change our ROE. Sorry for attempting to write and essay. This is a topic that I have spent a lot of time investigating, researching, and will eventually have first hand experience in. Unfortunately for me, I won't be the one giving orders.