Saturday, November 28, 2015

What Should be Done to Defeat ISIS and Other Islamo-Terrorist Groups?

This post gives a more specific solution than I have given before to the Islamo-Terrorism problems that are affecting the entire world.

Neither ISIS nor al Qaeda could openly exist in the United States or many other countries. Why? Because we wouldn't put up with terrorists, or any group who tried to control our lives. Let 10,000 ISIS militants materialize in Texas and see how long they'd last. 

So here's the only real solution. The men in these predominantly Muslim countries must come together and beat ISIS and other terrorist groups.

As far as an organized group of fighting men goes, the Arab League, which is an organization that consists of about 22 Arabic-speaking countries, with a population of over 400 million (compare to the US population of 310 million) has plenty of men and natural resources. For more information about it, check out the Wikipedia page at Arab League. 

It did not have much of a military component until they voted in 2015 to have a military to fight terrorism. They will need time to form a well-organized, capable military, and the United States and other countries can help with this, but only at the request of the Arab League. 

We, and other countries, can provide advice, and air support with fighters and bombers in conjunction with the Arab League. But they need to provide the 'boots on the ground'.

I emphatically do not want the United States to become involved in another land war in the Middle East.

(We should have Special Operations forces and our intelligence agencies over in Middle East in order to find any terrorist groups who have attacked or who are planning to attack the United States. If any are found, we can eliminate their threat without going to war). 

Why is the solution of having the Arab League fight ISIS a good one? We have had wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and lost thousands of American military lives, and have had ten times as many severe injuries. And to what avail? None. We may actually have made matters worse. (This is not the fault of our military, but mostly of the Bush administration that got us involved in these wars). 

If the United States, even working with a coalition of other countries, defeats ISIS, another group will pop up and take its place. 

On the other hand, if the Arab League fought and defeated ISIS, al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups, that would mean that most of those in these predominantly Muslim countries will have said no to terrorism, and even to Sharia Law.

Those Muslims that support Sharia Law support laws that infringe on the individual rights of others, especially those of women. Sharia Law is not sustainable and it is only when the vast majority of Muslims reject it, that there will there be a lasting peace in the Middle East. 

I do not know what the chances are that the Arab League will form a military strong enough to defeat ISIS and other terrorist groups. But if they do, this would imply that most Muslims reject terrorism and Sharia Law from being enforced. And that is the only way to have peace in the Middle East. 

That is the end of my main thesis. 


Does this relate to whether or not the United States should accept thousands of Syrian refugees? Not directly, but very much so indirectly. 

Currently, Muslims in the United States have a lower murder rate than non-Muslims in the United States, even including Islamo-Terrorist attacks in our country. 

And I want to keep it that way. One reason is that if Muslim immigrants start committing more terrorist attacks, it will be bad for the vast majority of peaceful American Muslims. And it may lead an American land war in the Middle East.

Letting in Syrian refugees will likely lead to negative consequences for the United States, and for peaceful Muslims.

Here are some quotes from a site about Syrian refugees in Europe. The quotes are from:

Survey of Syrian Refugees in Europe

"As the United States moves forward in letting 10,000 Syrian refugees into the country, a survey says that 13 percent of the
Syrian refugees in Europe sympathize with the Islamic State.

"The poll by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies surveyed 900 refugees in what it called 'the largest public opinion poll conducted in the Arab region'.

"The survey also found that 10 percent of the displaced Syrian refugees have a mixed or lukewarm — but not entirely negative — view of the terror group. In response to the survey’s findings, Investors’ Business Daily pointed out, 'That means 23% — or almost 1 in 4 — could be susceptible to ISIS recruitment.'

"Asked about national security concerns over Syrian refugees, FBI Director James Comey told the House Judiciary Committee, 'The only thing we can query is information that we have. And so if we have no information on someone, they’ve never crossed our radar screen, never been a ripple in the pond, there will be no record of them there. And so it will be challenging.'

"And National Counterterrorism Center Director Nicholas Rasmussen added, 'The intelligence picture we have of this particular conflict zone is not as rich as we would like it to be'."


This is a strong argument for not letting into our country Syrian
refugees. There is little to gain and much to lose if we do.


Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. The views expressed herein are those of the author.


Anonymous said...

If the Arab league could not be mobilized to eliminate ISIS and build a societal structure that will not permit them to exist openly, as in the U.S.A., there is a "Plan B". That plan would be to first make sure our military is re-armed and ready. Then notify every country in which ISIS exists the we consider them a threat to our national security. Any attacks or threats from an ISIS group will then be traced back to the country of origin that permitted the group to function and gain the necessary resources to launch international attacks. Once validated by our intelligence resources, we then adopt a "scorched earth" tactic both as a means of defeating our enemy, ISIS, and demonstrating with ACTION that we are serious about protecting our nation's security. I think if this policy was implemented it would not be long before any country who in the past allowed ISIS to exist openly within their borders, would take whatever means necessary to remove them from their soil before we must do so to protect the USA.

Tim Farage said...

Thanks for your suggestion. If we take two countries that ISIS has a stronghold in, Syria and Iraq, I don't think that either has the capability of removing ISIS. So in Iraq for instance, are you suggesting we essentially destroy the country, to let other countries know that we are serious?

Also, if we don't let refugees in, and protect ou borders, it will be difficult for ISIS members to get into the USA. So they could not really do us harm. Would this not be a better solution, if the Arab League could not get rid of ISIS?

Anonymous said...

I am curious what your thoughts are concerning the comparison of these refugees and those from the Holocaust (WWII). In particular, U.S. attitudes at the time of the Holocaust were against letting in large numbers of Jews fleeing the Nazis--in particular, the time when the U.S. was in the war (1941-1945) the argument was made that some of these Jews could be "blackmailed" to be spies by the Nazis because of their families back in Germany, Austria, Czech, etc.

Tim Farage said...

It's difficult to say because I don't know how much of a threat Jewish immigants were because they might be blackmailed.

But we know that ISIS will try to come to the United States as refugees, and the effect of another attack on US soil by Islamo-Terrorists would likely be very negative.

No, Aliens Have Not Been To Earth

We're still not sure about these facts, but our Milky Way Galaxy contains around a trillion stars, and there are estimated to be a trill...