Understanding the Threat Posed by ISIS

[Proud Liberal Dem]

I get it that they are a nasty sort of religious fanatics and we need to tackle them like we did with Al-Queda (whose associates also beheaded at least one journalist), but what makes them worse than Osama Bin Laden and Al-Queda and why does it seem that pundits and politicians are treating them like they are more dangerous/threatening than any other terrorist organization? If I had to guess, I'd say that the neocons are latching onto ISIS to help restart their preferred version of "war on terror" so that they can start invading countries (that probably have nothing to do with ISIS), reviving Gitmo detentions, and (their favorite) torturing people, but some of the rhetoric from some Democrats, even level-headed ones like Elizabeth Warren, seems a bit extreme for the amount of risk that they supposedly pose to the country and the rest of the world. Defense Secretary Hagel, who I otherwise respect, is also playing into the fearmongering by claiming that a large (100?) group of Americans have allegedly joined ISIS, as have several Europeans. What is it about ISIS that is worse than Al-Queda? Hell, for all of our (justifiable) outrage over reporters being beheaded, countries like Saudi Arabia routinely do it to their own citizens for various transgressions. We should do to ISIS what we did to Al-Queda. It worked. Why do we need to elevate them and treat them as megalomanical "super men"?

[grahamhgreen]

1. We should let Israel, Iran, and Saudi Arabia unite to fight this threat in their own region.

Would be real good for them, in my view.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

2. I don't mind the idea of supporting them

but it should be more them than us- and ISIS is clearly more of a threat to them than us

[grahamhgreen]

3. We should walk away. We are the problem there, not the solution, IMHO.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. I yearn for the day when Fidel Castro and his beard were the Greatest Menace In History.

We almost had to launch Nukes to save ourselves from Mighty Cuba. Of course, he was going to launch his massive fleet of '54 Plymouth and Chevvies into the Caribbean and invade Miami. And, we'd all be eating black beans and rice, listening to salsa music, and have Socialized Medicine to contend with.

[TwilightGardener]

5. "What makes them worse than Osama Bin Laden/AQ?"

Did AQ ever carve and hold a country the size of what ISIS has now? With oil revenues and western weaponry? The closest analogy is the Taliban, who sheltered AQ, but the Taliban itself was mostly bent on governing/controlling Afghanistan, they didn't have much grander ambitions and weren't really considered a terror organization. Also, ISIS kind of knows all our tricks, because the core founders were Iraqi AQ/Baathist officers and fought us for years there. Does anyone believe they wouldn't launch terror attacks on western targets once they were able to consolidate and hold their gains? I believe they held off because they didn't want to draw us into battle until they were ready--but they overran Mosul and went after the Yazidis, and that was their bad. I do not believe the administration is trying to fear-monger. Hagel's been concerned and warning about ISIS for some time, for example, and there are something like a hundred American passport holders that are known to be in Syria doing God knows what. Probably not "relief work". Great Britain estimates they have 500 citizens fighting for ISIS in Syria. What are we supposed to do with these people?

[CJCRANE]

6. Then maybe he should have targeted them

as they were trooping across the desert in a convoy of shiny new Toyota pickup trucks.

Or frozen the start up funds. Or not allowed our allies to train, arm and fund the rebels in the first place.

But we are where we are, so let's hope the military effort manages to degrade them and all the surveillance and security we have manages to keep them at bay.

[TwilightGardener]

7. Don't conflate the various rebel groups in Syria.

We BARELY did anything with the Free Syrian Army (the target "moderates&quot , and that was because we were afraid we couldn't reliably tell them apart from ISIS or Nusra Front. As far as targeting the convoys, we didn't have an apparatus in place to do airstrikes in June. The Iraqi military should have taken out those convoys, since that's 100% their job as a sovereign country with a military--instead, they either ignored the invasion, or ran away, or collaborated. There is no way for the US to "freeze" start up funds, because as far as I know, these groups don't use financial institutions deliberately to avoid being tracked--it's cash donations that are hard to track, and organized crime $$.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

8. Good points

n/t