The Insanity of our Allowing ISIS Combatants to Return to the West

[jordan179]

Right now, citizens of Western countries, to whom they have sworn allegiance, are joining the fighting forces of the Islamic State, fighting for a while in Iraq and Syria, and then returning home to the West.  And nothing is being done to capture or punish them

Comments

[anonymous]

Solution: Offer amnesty to the man who kills Bashar al Assad.

[jordan179]

How would this destroy ISIS, end its hostility to the West, bring justice to its victims, or reduce the danger that returning combatants from ISIS might pose to the Western societies of whom they are citizens? ISIS does not exist solely to fight Bashar al Assad, and while his death would please me since the Assad regime has long nurtured other Muslim Terrorists (and Muslim Terrorists and their enablers are traitors to Civilization), it would do nothing to prevent ISIS establishing itself as the Isalmic Caliphate reborn.

[anonymous]

I don't care if it doesn't hurt Isis. It gets rid of the man who tried to kill the Arab Spring and his disgusting wife, and that's all that matters.

[jordan179]

When you preface a reply with "Solution" it implies that you are offering a solution to the problem outlined in the main post. You also claim to be humane, yet you would turn Syria over to a faction worse than the Assad regime, just for punishing Assad for tying "to kill the Arab Spring."

Or, more accurately, succeeding, given that the choice in Syria is now between Assad and ISIS -- or are you saying that you wanted to see the old-style Arab dictators replaced by truly monstrous regimes that would engage in the wholesale massacres of their own subjects, televise this and run it as recruiting ads?

[anonymous]

Do you mean to tell me Bashar and Asma aren't engaged in wholesale massacres of their own subjects?

[jordan179]

No, I mean to tell you that ISIS is worse.

The only good argument for toppling or killing the Assads is specifically in revenge for the crimes the Assad regime has committed against America and her allies. The humanitarian argument is absurd, unless one plans to invade with a large army and occupy and reconstruct the country. This is because simply toppling Assad will bring ISIS to power.

Not only would the ISIS control of Syria and Iraq lead to the murder of at least hundreds of thousands of Syrians and Iraqis (and possibly of millions of them, depending on how rapidly the natives could escape their conquerors). The stated goals and policies of ISIS (conquest of the world and terrorist attacks against the Great Powers) would inevitably spark wars against ISIS, which would result in further death and destruction in ISIS controlled lands.

Is getting the Assads for "killing the Arab Spring" important enough to you to do things that will result in the deaths of most of those who would have benefited from the Arab Spring?

Who was phone?

[silent_o]

Yama? Is that you?

Re: Who was phone?

[jordan179]

Oh yes, it's Yama. Who else would still believe in the "Arab Spring," after the way things have fallen apart in Libya and the way they nearly fell about in Egypt?

Re: Who was phone?

[silent_o]

Amusement achieved.

Re: Who was phone?

[anonymous]

1. The Arab Spring was stolen from Egypt.
2. Libya was worse under Gaddafi.
2. When there's no hope, keep fighting the dictators until they have hope.

Re: Who was phone?

[jordan179]

1. The Muslim Brotherhood came to power in Egypt and were in the process of instituting strict shari'a, destroying the country's own wealth of archaeological treasures and moving toward a suicidal war with Israel, when the Egyptian military saved the day with a coup. There was no outcome which would have led to liberal democracy, or indeed any democracy at all beyond "one man, one vote, one time.

2. Qaddafi was not worse FOR LIBYA than is the current anarchy and civil war. I don't mourn his overthrow for one and only one reason -- he was a major supporter of international terrorism and specifically of the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing. I regard each death of a Libyan in the last several years of Libyan civil war as so much payback for Lockerbie. If America claimed ot be doing this deliberately for that purpose, we would even diplomatically benefit from it -- as humanitarian policy aimed at helping Libya, our policy has been hilariously disastrous.

3. The evidence so far is that the Muslim world is incapable of producing anything but

[skarman]

Well, since it is an 'anonymous' poster, we can all, logically, infer his intentions and views. He or she is either a muslim that extols ISIS' actions OR is one of those current-day, liberals.

You know the type. Doesn't care about anything else but the goal and anything or anyone that gets caught in the middle? Well, sacrifices need to be made and you can't make an omelet without eggs, right?

[baron_waste]

Yeah, but y' know, it also establishes precedent.  We could start offering bounties - very substantial ones - for the heads of ANY NUMBER of people over there.  “Money talks, b_s walks.”

We just need to make sure we pay out, immediately, so that side of it is established without a doubt.  They'd fall on each other like wolves…