[Brotein]

(01-07-2015 12:10 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 11:54 AM)Brotein Wrote:  

And how did the Chechen war work out for Russia? It was a failure, in the end Russia co-opted a Chechen to autonomously rule that land. Essentially the Russians surrendered.

And lets not forget how much the US struggled in Iraq and Afghanistan. They had to pay off their opponents to stop killing them.

Read up on what a Russian puppet regime is.

If you think running the separatist Chechen forces into a minefield (wiping them out) and systematically purging the leftovers and playing puppeteer with the population isn't a success I don't know what is.


The U.S. is getting dicked around in the middle east because:
A) It shouldn't be there to begin with.
B) War policy formulated by greedy neocons.
B) It didn't go in with a cohesive or realistic end goal.
C) Nation building and policing is not for the military to handle.

The U.S. isn't losing because Iraq and Afghanistan is full of badasses. It's losing because of idiots who entered for stupid reasons and ran the war with stupid policies.

I am pretty knowledgeable on this subject. My understanding, was the first chechen was war tough and Russia struggled, the second they tried to annihilate the chechens (this failed) and their third attempt was to co-opt a chechen to run Chechnya as an autonomous region of Russia.

The final attempt has been the only one that has been successful in any meaningful way.

To be fair, of all places I imagine Iraq an Afghanistan to be the type of places with a lot of badasses.

[Constitution45]

(01-07-2015 12:17 PM)Brotein Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 12:10 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 11:54 AM)Brotein Wrote:  

And how did the Chechen war work out for Russia? It was a failure, in the end Russia co-opted a Chechen to autonomously rule that land. Essentially the Russians surrendered.

And lets not forget how much the US struggled in Iraq and Afghanistan. They had to pay off their opponents to stop killing them.

Read up on what a Russian puppet regime is.

If you think running the separatist Chechen forces into a minefield (wiping them out) and systematically purging the leftovers and playing puppeteer with the population isn't a success I don't know what is.


The U.S. is getting dicked around in the middle east because:
A) It shouldn't be there to begin with.
B) War policy formulated by greedy neocons.
B) It didn't go in with a cohesive or realistic end goal.
C) Nation building and policing is not for the military to handle.

The U.S. isn't losing because Iraq and Afghanistan is full of badasses. It's losing because of idiots who entered for stupid reasons and ran the war with stupid policies.

I am pretty knowledgeable on this subject. My understanding, was the first chechen was war tough and Russia struggled, the second they tried to annihilate the chechens (this failed) and their third attempt was to co-opt a chechen to run Chechnya as an autonomous region of Russia.

The final attempt has been the only one that has been successful in any meaningful way.

First one was a massacre, it was mainly a way in which the oligarchs such as Berezovsky could launder money. A lot of Chechens got killed and many young Russian conscripts were wiped out; it like a miniature vietnam.

After the Russian apartment bombings, you had a retaliation by Putin at the time, however towards the end he was able to appoint a leader and government which brought relative stability. On top of that I believe Russia pumped a lot of money in the region along with Saudi Arabia putting ridiculous amounts of cash injections into the capital.

[El Chinito loco]

(01-07-2015 12:17 PM)Brotein Wrote:  

I am pretty knowledgeable on this subject. My understanding, was the first chechen was war tough and Russia struggled, the second they tried to annihilate the chechens (this failed) and their third attempt was to co-opt a chechen to run Chechnya as an autonomous region of Russia.

The final attempt has been the only one that has been successful in any meaningful way.

Brush up on your history a bit more. Turning the city into dust and sending alpha group hit teams to go root out (ie. shoot leftover insurgents and their families in the back of the head while they sleep) is not failing, it's called clean up duties.

When the conquering force installs a puppet regime, has superior firepower/willing to use it, and controls the elites in that area it's pretty much game over.

[Brotein]

(01-07-2015 12:23 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 12:17 PM)Brotein Wrote:  

I am pretty knowledgeable on this subject. My understanding, was the first chechen was war tough and Russia struggled, the second they tried to annihilate the chechens (this failed) and their third attempt was to co-opt a chechen to run Chechnya as an autonomous region of Russia.

The final attempt has been the only one that has been successful in any meaningful way.

Brush up on your history a bit more. Turning the city into dust and sending alpha group hit teams to go root out (ie. shoot leftover insurgents and their families in the back of the head while they sleep) is not failing.

When the conquering force installs a puppet regime, has superior firepower/willing to use it, and controls the elites in that area it's pretty much game over.

I guess it all comes down to how you define victory. Do you think America won in Iraq too?

This is a place where the US overwhelmed Iraq with greater fire power, they installed what is meant to be a puppet government. However in my opinion the US lost pretty badly, because the Iraq government has moved closer to Iran and even buys it arms from Russia, lol.

Is that a victory too?

How about the Lebanon war of 2006. Israel lost to Hezbollah in embarrassing fashion.

I think you're trying to create a narrative that muslims are savages/idiots and that all non-muslims are somehow more civilized and capable of outshining them in any field. This is patently not true, all civilizations move in cycles, it just so happens during this period the west is on top and Muslim socieites/china etc are not. This can change and in time it is inevitable. Furthermore muslims are not a single group as all western nations are not a single group, each has advantages and disadvanatges and in time we can see which wwill progress and which will not.

Frankly I believe we are living in the decline of western civilization and it would of happened much sooner if it were not for immigrants who bolster the economy and the birth rate. The growth of far-right anti immigration partys in europe and the US would in fact accelerate the decline.

[Icepasian]

For one, what is fundamentalist and radical Islam? There's no such thing. The Quran is the literal word of Allah spoken through the prophet Muhammad. Period. There are Muslims who believe in Islam and the entire political/social/theological basis that it represents, and then there are unfaithful Muslims who, like most Christians in the West, aren't really Christian/Muslim. That's something that everyone here needs to accept as a fact. There is no "moderate Islam". Yes, there are separate sects within Islam and some are a bit more militant than others(Salafism/Wahhabism being the most well-known) but the fact remains that Islam as a whole is a militant religion. It always has been, always will be. There has never been in the history of Islam and Europe a peace between them. They did not live side-by-side as equals in harmony for centuries anywhere as someone stated in a previous page. You can say that the Christians of Al-Andalus or the Ottoman Empire were prosperous for much of history, sure; In the same way that black South Africans under Apartheid were prosperous in comparison to other Africans elsewhere in the continent during the 20th century. It doesn't take away the fact that Islam still dominated them and that the Christians didn't like being second class citizens or vice versa depending on the region and era. Once one side loses complete dominance, the other rebels from under them and the cycle continues until the tables turn again. It's always been either Christians dominating Muslims or Muslims dominating Christians. If there was ever incomplete dominance, then there was war and rebellion. Name any century after the birth of Islam and I can guarantee you there will be at least a handful of wars/revolts between Europeans and the Islamic World during that timeframe.

Neither culture is compatible with the other. It doesn't matter whether the year is 732, 1453, 1683, 1961, or 2015. Dates are merely numbers on a timeline measuring the length of this ancient conflict. There was no end of history and how many electronic gadgets you have in your pocket or how "progressive" your social welfare net is won't change that.The French once understood this very well in Algeria back when it was once considered a part of Metropolitan France, yet most people were not French citizens there. This wasn't necessarily because the French hated Algerians but because they understood the incompatibility between France's secular humanist traditions(Christian morality made secular) and Islam at the time. An Algerian had the possibility of becoming French if they did only two things: Learn French and renounce Islam. Most chose their religion over the wealth they could amass as a French citizen. The same thing will occur again. The vast majority of Muslims will choose their way of life over money, each and every time. The reason this isn't understood by many in the West today is due to the fact that in the modern West, everything is based upon money and consumerism. Why would you believe in some hokey mysticism when you could instead make twice as much money? Decadence has indeed blinded most Westerners from having a true understanding of non-Western cultures in this way.

Unfortunately, it looks like the Europeans will continue to avoid making the hard decisions today only to realize tomorrow that they'll have to make much harder and harsher decisions. Europe will either nip this problem in the bud by accepting that Islam is a problem and must be assimilated out while it can be or wait until the problem is unbearable and fascism carries a lower opportunity cost to put forth the "final solution"(eg. Spanish Inquisition-style expulsions or Nazi Germany-style genocide).

I wish it didn't have to be this way but reality is rarely kind to mere wishes. Also, my apologies for coming off as pretentious.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(01-07-2015 11:54 AM)Brotein Wrote:  

...
And how did the Chechen war work out for Russia? It was a failure, in the end Russia co-opted a Chechen to autonomously rule that land. Essentially the Russians surrendered.

And lets not forget how much the US struggled in Iraq and Afghanistan. They had to pay off their opponents to stop killing them.

Neither the Russians in Chechnia, nor the US in Iraq or Afghanistan lost. All those countries were completely wiped out and are hell-holes for decades to come. Winning a war and controlling a country are two completely different things. The US still effectively controls Iraq financially, but real liberation and orderly ruling of Iraq or Afghanistan were never realistic and honestly I doubt that the real leaders of the US did not know that. The bullshit propaganda on TV is just for the unwashed masses.

Chechnia is a similar situation - if it were Stalin's times, he likely would have killed them all and settled Russians there. Now they erected a puppet regime and are still pulling the strings, because in our times guerilla warfare can be done by anyone way too easily and it is utterly impossible to control a country unless the people want it so to a greater degree.

As I said all Muslim countries will be utterly destroyed either literally or culturally. Radicalization serves those goals well.

[El Chinito loco]

(01-07-2015 12:26 PM)Brotein Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 12:23 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 12:17 PM)Brotein Wrote:  

I am pretty knowledgeable on this subject. My understanding, was the first chechen was war tough and Russia struggled, the second they tried to annihilate the chechens (this failed) and their third attempt was to co-opt a chechen to run Chechnya as an autonomous region of Russia.

The final attempt has been the only one that has been successful in any meaningful way.

Brush up on your history a bit more. Turning the city into dust and sending alpha group hit teams to go root out (ie. shoot leftover insurgents and their families in the back of the head while they sleep) is not failing.

When the conquering force installs a puppet regime, has superior firepower/willing to use it, and controls the elites in that area it's pretty much game over.

I guess it all comes down to how you define victory. Do you think America won in Iraq too?

This is a place where the US overwhelmed Iraq with greater fire power, they installed what is meant to be a puppet government. However in my opinion the US lost pretty badly, because the Iraq government has moved closer to Iran and even buys it arms from Russia, lol.

Is that a victory too?

America in Iraq literally has nothing to do with Russia in Chechnya. It's a completely different situation entered with completely different pretext. Nor are the various regimes even comparable to each other for any similar historical reasons.

Stop trolling.

[Malekhit]

Mikado problem is that either non fanatical muslims will take their trash out or Europe will take muslims out. There is no way that this thing will resolve peacefully except muslims fixing themselves within just like christianity did. You can trust me Eastern Europeans countries are fed up with muslims already and sooner or later this slowly ticking bomb will explode and regular muslims will pay the price.

[Brotein]

(01-07-2015 12:32 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 11:54 AM)Brotein Wrote:  

...
And how did the Chechen war work out for Russia? It was a failure, in the end Russia co-opted a Chechen to autonomously rule that land. Essentially the Russians surrendered.

And lets not forget how much the US struggled in Iraq and Afghanistan. They had to pay off their opponents to stop killing them.

Neither the Russians in Chechnia, nor the US in Iraq or Afghanistan lost. All those countries were completely wiped out and are hell-holes for decades to come. Winning a war and controlling a country are two completely different things. The US still effectively controls Iraq financially, but real liberation and orderly ruling of Iraq or Afghanistan were never realistic and honestly I doubt that the real leaders of the US did not know that. The bullshit propaganda on TV is just for the unwashed masses.

Chechnia is a similar situation - if it were Stalin's times, he likely would have killed them all and settled Russians there. Now they erected a puppet regime and are still pulling the strings, because in our times guerilla warfare can be done by anyone way too easily and it is utterly impossible to control a country unless the people want it so to a greater degree.

As I said all Muslim countries will be utterly destroyed either literally or culturally. Radicalization serves those goals well.

lol Iran is now in control of both Iraq and Afghanistan, the US lost badly. It was a terrible manouvre (from the US point of view) and served Iranian interests.

In times past you could have made a pyramid of skulls out of chechens, however we live in the modern age. Is an autonomous region (of your own territory) a puppet regime? That counts as a loss in my book.


All muslim countries will be destroyed? lol whut?

[Quintus Curtius]

A few more thoughts, if you can handle them.

I know there are a lot of hard-core guys over there in Europe, but their voices are just suppressed beneath the tide of politically-correct SJW-cultural Marxist presence.

But young, hard-core snake-eaters want to be inspired. They want to get in there and kick ass. And the Catholic Church is not providing the kind of muscular, masculine response to the cultural Marxist challenge and the Islamic challenge.

If I were the Pope, I would call for the following:

1. Like Urban II did in 1099, immediately send out a call for a new crusade against radical Islam. Radicals in Europe should be hunted down and either expelled or jailed. At the same time, he should commission the creation of an elite force of shock troops to pursue and destroy ISIS.

2. Create a New Inquisition to combat cultural Marxism and radical feminism. If we really believe that these things are threats to civilization (as I do) then we need to take the logical next step. These cultural poisoners need to fought directly and vigorously. This is a cultural war in which some severe measures need to be taken to regain the initiative. These SJWs, cultural Marxists, and other degenerates need to know what fear feels like.

3. Major reform of the priesthood and monastic orders. The rule of celibacy is out of date and contributes to the perception that priests are irrelevant pussies. Celibacy may be fine for a few select orders, but just is not practical, in my view. Priests need to see themselves as the shock troops on the front lines in this battle.

4. The Jesuits need to be unleashed again. These guys need to be using their powers of erudition and education to prepare the new generations for the fight against cultural Marxism.

5. Go back to the basics. Guys don't want to see some pussified, namby-pamby Pope talking about bullshit. They want to seek out and kill ISIS. This needs to happen.

ISIS is living in the Middle Ages. If I was Pope, I would speak to them in the language that they understand. And believe me, they do respect this.

[Mekorig]

(01-07-2015 11:59 AM)POASTER Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 11:55 AM)Mekorig Wrote:  

Still waiting for those "moderate" muslims to make massive gatherings against the extremist...

In my city here in America the local Muslim community always does publicly condemn these kinds of attacks and says they are against Islam.

They just never get media coverage, because it doesn't get views or clicks or whatever.

POASTER, i am not refering to a couple of muslim "moderates2 comunity leaders denouncing the extremist or saying "not in my name". I mean marchs, manifestations of at least +500 person marching against extremist islam, not lead by white SJW, but by those "moderate" muslims. I am still waiting for it.

[SamuelBRoberts]

Quote:

ISIS is living in the Middle Ages. If I was Pope, I would speak to them in the language that they understand. And believe me, they do respect this.

Yeah... that'd help. That might very well do it.

Of course it would also help if the Pope turned into a 45-foot tall mecha-pope, stomped across the deserts and blew up Mecca with his laser eyes.

I'm not sure which is more likely.

[lskdfjldsf]

U.S. policy is fucking brilliant, but I may see this differently than many. What if the purpose of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wasn't to build stable democracies, but to destabilize the region? Think about it:

- The entire region is fighting itself, no large state actors are capable of threatening the West as they have in the past.
- Simultaneously, we've decreased the price of oil and have become nearly energy-independent from the Middle East, which means we no longer have to kiss the Saudi's asses and others in the region who provide the manpower, ideological training, and funding for Islamic terrorism. We've weaned ourself from the Middle East's oil.
- Iraq and Afghanistan are under Iranian and Pakistani influence and power now (respectively), and we knew this would be the case from the beginning. A greater sphere for the Shiites means greater friction with the Sunnis.
- Israel is no longer threatened by legions of tanks from Syria, Jordan, Egypt, or Lebanon, as ISIS is an existential threat to the Muslim countries more so than it is Israel.

I really think we've known from the beginning that it's impossible to stop a handful of brainwashed extremists from attacking the US. So instead, we've created an even larger magnet in the Middle East and an even more threatening enemy for Muslims - themselves.

[Saweeep]

(01-07-2015 11:58 AM)Brotein Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 09:38 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  

I don't think it would take much persuasion to get the British underclass off fighting a war again, were it ever needed.

lol you think these people would make good soldiers? most of them smoke weed all day.

I'm afraid your knowledge of British military history and who did most of the fighting (and dying) is as sound as your Russian history by the sounds of it.

They may be weed smoking wastrels in the current climate but most of these scallywags are as patriotic as their forefathers who died in the trenches, died in Napoleonic squares or were press-ganged onto scurvy ridden warships.

It is oh so easy to look down on the common man; however it is he that we all always turn to to fight (and die in) our battles when the shit hits the fan.

(p.s. "lol" and the suchlike will get a man into trouble around these parts)

[Ringo]

This thread:

[Truth Teller]

QC is right, but Vatican II seems to have largely pussified the Catholic Church.

Also, let's stop the references to God as a "sky wizard." God is Being Itself, not some sort of "sky fairy."

[TheWastelander]

If conservative forces in Western governments fail to deal with the problem peacefully now, the radical right will deal with it in the near future and they don't mind using extreme violence.

"History is the sum total of things that could have been avoided." - Konrad Adenauer

[scorpion]

Here's a poll from a few years ago that shows how poorly Muslims integrate into Western democracies:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/many-british...lam-first/

Quote:

Thirty percent of British Muslims would prefer to live under Sharia (Islamic religious) law than under British law. According to the report, "Half of those who express a preference for living under Sharia law say that, given the choice, they would move to a country governed by those laws."

Twenty-eight percent hope for the U.K. one day to become a fundamentalist Islamic state. This comports with last year's Daily Telegraph newspaper survey that found one-third of British Muslims believe that Western society is decadent and immoral and that Muslims should seek to end it.

The news is no less alarming on the question of freedom of speech. Seventy-eight percent support punishment for the people who earlier this year published cartoons featuring the Prophet Mohammed. Sixty-eight percent support the arrest and prosecution of those British people who "insult Islam." When asked if free speech should be protected, even if it offends religious groups, 62 percent of British Muslims say No, it should not.

There is no integration with Islam, or tolerance of a large Islamic minority population. The choice is expulsion and total separation of Muslims and Westerners, constant bloodshed of the sort we saw today, or eventual Western submission to Islam. There is no coexistence, you must choose a side.

[Plato]

A random nut shoots some people dead.

I don't think this has anything to do with ISIS.

ISIS is a distraction. They are zero threat to the West. Hell - they are more interested in killing each other than in attacking the West.

Let's not overreact. This is like when that Elliot Rodger went on a rampage and they tried to pin the blame on the PUA community.

There are always random nutters looking for a cause to attach themselves to. And it is in the interest of the politicians to play up any links they can find which will help them justify their next geopolitical chess move.

[HighSpeed_LowDrag]

(01-07-2015 12:49 PM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

U.S. policy is fucking brilliant, but I may see this differently than many. What if the purpose of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wasn't to build stable democracies, but to destabilize the region? Think about it:

- The entire region is fighting itself, no large state actors are capable of threatening the West as they have in the past.
- Simultaneously, we've decreased the price of oil and have become nearly energy-independent from the Middle East, which means we no longer have to kiss the Saudi's asses and others in the region who provide the manpower, ideological training, and funding for Islamic terrorism. We've weaned ourself from the Middle East's oil.
- Iraq and Afghanistan are under Iranian and Pakistani influence and power now (respectively), and we knew this would be the case from the beginning. A greater sphere for the Shiites means greater friction with the Sunnis.
- Israel is no longer threatened by legions of tanks from Syria, Jordan, Egypt, or Lebanon, as ISIS is an existential threat to the Muslim countries more so than it is Israel.

I really think we've known from the beginning that it's impossible to stop a handful of brainwashed extremists from attacking the US. So instead, we've created an even larger magnet in the Middle East and an even more threatening enemy for Muslims - themselves.

If I've learned anything from being a member of a Western military, it's that one should never attribute to conspiracy that which can be explained by sheer incompetence.

HSLD

[Soothesayer]

So what will the response be by the French on this? Will it be the same as when the Nazis marched into their cities all those decades ago?

The only solution to this is to outlaw Islam completely. Do not allow any immigrants who are Islamic into the country. Of course that won't happen and there will be more attacks like this as well as inside the USA since we did not do what needed to be done after 9/11.

The only hope it seems is to allow open carry. What are the odds of that happening in Paris?

[Brotein]

(01-07-2015 12:51 PM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 11:58 AM)Brotein Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 09:38 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  

I don't think it would take much persuasion to get the British underclass off fighting a war again, were it ever needed.

lol you think these people would make good soldiers? most of them smoke weed all day.

I'm afraid your knowledge of British military history and who did most of the fighting (and dying) is as sound as your Russian history by the sounds of it.

They may be weed smoking wastrels in the current climate but most of these scallywags are as patriotic as their forefathers who died in the trenches, died in Napoleonic squares or were press-ganged onto scurvy ridden warships.

It is oh so easy to look down on the common man; however it is he that we all always turn to to fight (and die in) our battles when the shit hits the fan.

(p.s. "lol" and the suchlike will get a man into trouble around these parts)

My Russian history is great. I just see things in a rational manner instead of some warped anti-muslim philosophy.

So you think those people on benefits street are going to turn into a well disciplined and dangerous fighting force? The UK has a decent military, but this underclass you are romanticizing are pretty much useless.

I am curious to what you want? you want an underclass of chavs to have open battles with British Muslims in the streets?

Although I think it's a ridiculous vision, It'd be interesting to see who'd win. 100 British muslims v 100 chavs. I'd pay to watch ha.

[Truth Teller]

The British underclass was a large part of the same British Army that fought the best trained, best equipped army in Europe (The Germans) to a standstill at the Battle of Mons in 1914.

Same underclass that defeated Napoleon, too.

[KorbenDallas]

It is interesting to note Arab christians commit no terrorist attacks, though they have suffered more from western wars and hostile Muslims in their home countries while there are legions of muslims who commit terror against both their fellow musllims and the west. Islam has a terror problem.

[Plato]

The underclass of today is very different to the underclass of a hundred years ago.

The underclass of a hundred years ago were held down by society.

The underclass of today are too thick and lazy to rise up in society.