Posted by Platinum

The cold war was primarily between the US and Soviet Union. Two nations.

A lot of Countries got involved. To help their homies out.  

Posted by Distorted_P2P

I disagree. Most of the countries are currently against Isis/neutral. For it to be designated a World War there would have to be multiple countries fighting alongside each other.



Isis will be wiped out in time, I mean they're killing themselves for god's sake!
Too inappropriate?

I'm trying not to be misleading when I say this, but ISIS is only a contributing factor to a world war. It isn't a centralized motive.

Pavel Felgenhauer, a Russian military analyst, says that a nuclear war is now likely.  

Posted by TWIZ

I'm trying not to be misleading when I say this, but ISIS is only a contributing factor to a world war. It isn't a centralized motive.

Pavel Felgenhauer, a Russian military analyst, says that a nuclear war is now likely.

I haven't heard anything about this, but if so, ****. Why does he suspect this?

Link plz.  

Posted by Distorted_P2P

I haven't heard anything about this, but if so, ****. Why does he suspect this?

Link plz.

There are many links, but I found this one:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/experts...ar-war/5509195

Now, with new tensions arising from North Korea, Iran, and several other states, I predict that once Iran restrictions are over something serious may happen.  

Posted by Distorted_P2P

Non-violently? It's not like we can just quarantine them from the rest of the world. This is the precise reason I think Bernie would make a terrible President. No matter how peaceful we are they won't stop their terrorism. I think we need to use violence as well. Of course to an extent, and not hurting civilians. But killing the bastards responsible for these atrocious crimes. Them or us.

Violence against the middle east hasn't worked for the past, almost 3 decades now. I think its very clear that neither airstrikes nor boots on the ground are going to fix the problems we have in the middle east, and even if it were enough government in the middle east is obviously incapable of holding territory or taking care of its citizens.

How about we start by un****ing the ridiculous post-war borders we made for those countries, or try to resolve the cultural conflicts going on there, actually help build a government that isn't lead by corrupt leaders that simply serve the goals of superpowers?

We are bombing cities, hospitals, market places. That's not solving problems, many people there don't have access to news and current events like we do, they don't know what is going on in, or understand global politics. All we are doing is breeding a generation of muslims with a hate for the western world. I mean really imagine that, the people of the country you are bombing don't like you.


Ninjaedit: I do think that we need more American military support in Syria to help keep peace and provide aid.  

Posted by Colin

Trump wouldn't have the power to start a war even if he wanted, that isn't how US government works even if he was being stupid they can prevent him from making rash decisions he shouldn't

true, but he can still order military action.

Posted by MrSimons

I think the worst part about this is that the more of these attacks happen, the closer world government is being pushed to a breaking point where we will no longer tolerate terrorism and come at the Middle East with much more ferocity.

I firmly think we need to solve this non-violently now, and make actual diplomatic attempts to end conflict there.

Posted by Distorted_P2P

Non-violently? It's not like we can just quarantine them from the rest of the world. This is the precise reason I think Bernie would make a terrible President. No matter how peaceful we are they won't stop their terrorism. I think we need to use violence as well. Of course to an extent, and not hurting civilians. But killing the bastards responsible for these atrocious crimes. Them or us.

Wasn't white-mans violence responsible for ISIS' uprising? They're willing to kill themselves for their beliefs you think they're going to stop because we use "violence" That will only create more anti-american sentiment and push more people into ISIS type groups.



If you don't want them to attack you stop fooking with them. Stop getting involved in muslim business.

Posted by Distorted_P2P

Non-violently? It's not like we can just quarantine them from the rest of the world. This is the precise reason I think Bernie would make a terrible President. No matter how peaceful we are they won't stop their terrorism. I think we need to use violence as well. Of course to an extent, and not hurting civilians. But killing the bastards responsible for these atrocious crimes.
Them or us.

And how do you suggest we distinguish the terrorist from the non-terrorist? That's the whole problem with these terror groups they blend in with the regular civilians when they have too.  

Posted by Weeno

How would world war 3 start if its the whole world vs isis?

how would it be world war 2 if it's the whole world versus Germany?
>Japan logged in
>Italy logged in
>Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, and Hungary logged in  

Pathetic to see people still defend Religion.
Read some of the Quran its disgusting.  

Posted by GOAT

Wasn't white-mans violence responsible for ISIS' uprising?

Ya, we're the bad guys, you solved it

 

I'm honestly tired of this crap they should have been on guard always that's how it should be always because there are always threats. I don't give two fuc*s on what's going on over there  

Like many extremist groups before it, ISIS is a perversion of the Islamic faith and is not Islam. ISIS is not only a threat to the world but a very big danger to the religion of Islam and the Muslim people.

ISIS believes itself to be Islamic. Members quote from the Quran. People who use isolated verses from the Quran alone are usually Islamophobes or Islamic extremists.There are many passages in the Quran that condemn violence, God giving people the freedom to choose their faith, that religion cannot be imposed on others, that killing a single innocent person is the same as killing every person. These verses are nowhere to be found in ISIS propaganda. The group reads Islam selectively.

The Muslim people need our help and support to fight ISIS.
Ignorance and hate never solves anything.  

Posted by Thallen

Ya, we're the bad guys, you solved it

This has nothing to do with who's the "bad" guy. I'm pretty sure I've mentioned before that 2 wrongs don't make a right. This is about "us" acting like we didn't contribute anything towards their hate for us. This shock at how they hate us for no reason.

You're the Muslim expert, tell me how/why ISIS became what it is today.

Posted by Alexmo

I'm honestly tired of this crap they should have been on guard always that's how it should be always because there are always threats. I don't give two fuc*s on what's going on over there

lol I wouldn't doubt that the same dudes crying about needing to make "our" country safer would be the first ones to criticize these laws that followed 9/11. We don't need laws to keep us safe we need walls

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...nges-from-9-11


It's a lose lose situation. The governemnt used anti-muslim/terrorism sentiment after 9/11 to get these laws passed and now they're abused against non-terrorist acts.  

Posted by GraalAholic

There are many passages in the Quran that condemn violence, God giving people the freedom to choose their faith, that religion cannot be imposed on others, that killing a single innocent person is the same as killing every person. These verses are nowhere to be found in ISIS propaganda. The group reads Islam selectively.

That's called kitman, as stated in an earlier post. It's perfectly fine for them to lie and be deceptive if it means to gain the trust of non-believers.
ISIS is not the first terrorist group that represents Islam. It's not even up for debate that the religion is plagued by violence and intolerance. People love saying that not all Muslims are terrorists, but that's an empty statement. You should be asking what all terrorists are, and nearly all terrorists end up being Muslim. Is that just some strange coincidence?

We're never going to be able to fight the problem until people like you get real about it and stop making some disconnect between Islam and violence. It does not matter if people catchphrase it as a "religion of peace" or if there are hugs and kisses in the Quran. None of that excuses the religion for the terror and violence it's bringing to the world.  

Posted by Thallen

That's called kitman, as stated in an earlier post. It's perfectly fine for them to lie and be deceptive if it means to gain the trust of non-believers.
ISIS is not the first terrorist group that represents Islam. It's not even up for debate that the religion is plagued by violence and intolerance. People love saying that not all Muslims are terrorists, but that's an empty statement. You should be asking what all terrorists are, and nearly all terrorists end up being Muslim. Is that just some strange coincidence?

We're never going to be able to fight the problem until people like you get real about it and stop making some disconnect between Islam and violence. It does not matter if people catchphrase it as a "religion of peace" or if there are hugs and kisses in the Quran. None of that excuses the religion for the terror and violence it's bringing to the world.

But do the ends justify the means of your implied solution?

If I interpreted it correctly, I think what you're saying is that Muslims should be stripped of their freedom of religion in order to rid the world of its disease -- terrorism. But we're yet to figure out how exactly we can/will do that.

Or, if Trump becomes president, we can build an entire wall to restrict Muslims from entering the country. Perhaps others should do the same.

Just kidding, that's an utterly terrible and highly expensive project.  

Wont be surprised if these terrorists are coming in with the never ending flow of migrants.