Preview of Trump's New Plan to Defeat ISIS is released ...

[The Original Tree]

They already know. Obama thinks they are THE JV TEAM.

Lame, very LAME..If that's all you morons have to 'bash Obama" to make you feel better, a laxative may help you more.

But I want to see The DEM UBER WEAPON. No one has ever seen THE DNC SERVER.

I mean this thing is like a 100 H bombs. A weapon so hideous and so powerful that it could Reverse The Election and Make Hillary President! It could Impeach Trump, and Slaughter ISIS with a Single Blow.

But we aren't allowed to see this Mythical Dooms Day Device.

Apparently The Evidence Of Russian Hacking is just too much for anyone to handle so Not Even THE FBI is allowed to see it.

It will melt your face off.

If only THE DNC would have unleashed it on the world! Imagine for a moment that we'd have NO ISIS, No Trump, No Hunger.

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace, you

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will be as one...

 

[depotoo]

You realize this is a fake title as nothing has been released.

 

[usmbguest5318]

What were thy called before that?

Al Qaeda in Iraq

Sorry buster you couldn't be farther from reality. There are two completely separate organizations. Was Al Queda in Iraq a factor before Bush invaded?

Dude you are retarded. It is common knowledge that they changed the name after Zarqawi died.

ISIS and Al Qaeda really aren't the same things. ISIS is an offshoot of Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), but AQI divested itself of it's ISIS "wing." Furthermore, the threat ISIS poses to the U.S. and others is different from that of Al Qaeda (AQ).

• Targets:
  • AQ --> Focused almost exclusively on attacking the U.S. and its allies in Europe and on attacking Israel.
  • ISIS --> Attacks anybody anywhere. As much concerned with destroying Shiites as with Westerners.
• Strategy:
  • AQ --> Deliberate, centrally coordinated
  • ISIS --> Opportunistic; decentralized
• Key Goal:
  • AQ --> "Mess with" Westerners in a lethal way
  • ISIS --> Found a sovereign (Suni) Islamic State

There are other differences. Looking just at the differences above, one can see that while neither is "a good thing," the nature of the threat they each pose is very different. Both are, however, ideological movements, so there really are only two strategies for dealing with them:

• Containment -- This strategy accepts that there will be a certain quantity of casualties from AQ/ISIS. This approach forces leaders to make a normative decision about how many deaths are "okay," and it makes the matter of AQ/ISIS terrorism/attacks become one of politics and bickering....."They want to handle it this way and they are wrong. I say we should handle it that way and I'm right." Containment is basically a non-solution to the problem (unless one sees the problem as the need for a rhetorical/political wedge) that lets one "dance around" the real issue for as long as voters will suffer one's doing so. Make no mistake; a "wedge" that involves armed conflict and the industries that supply such things is a powerful "wedge" in many ways.
• Extermination -- This strategy aims to kill or convert every person who might possibly share any material portion of AQ/ISIS' ideology. This approach isn't quick either way, and the armed tack will surely piss of as many people as it kills. Thus the physical approach risks creating a new enemy that merely has a different ideological basis for being pissed off. The intellectual/moral approach takes years and years to produce real results. Also, as goes the AQ/ISIS issue, requires one to admit one's own prior failings before one can be taken seriously when delivering a new message that professes one's new stance(s) that are neither selfish nor arrogant nor maliciously intended. The problem with this is voters; they generally aren't patient. Thus one also has to get voters to take a long view toward a moral solution's efficacy and effectiveness.

Here is a great link that explains everything.
The Islamic State | Mapping Militant Organizations

I'm not sure about why you refer me to that page. It doesn't say anything I didn't, though it does present a much greater degree of detail. I suspect had I presented that much detail, folks wouldn't have read it. Yet here I am responding to you, seemingly because I didn't post that level of detail.....Maybe so; maybe not??? I guess I don't care much. I'm not altering my posting style either way.

I think your linked content explains a lot. It's an excellent reference site. (Stanford has a lot of very good reference sites.) Would that people use it and fully explore it.

You'll note that the same source -- Stanford U.'s Al Qaeda page -- writes:

"The most significant result of the Arab Spring for Al Qaeda has been the expansion of Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), which harnessed the Syrian civil war to grow dramatically in size and power. AQI changed its name to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and announced a merger with new AQ-affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra, which operated in the Syrian civil war with the support of AQI/ISIS. When the commander of al-Nusra denied the merger, Zawahiri supported al-Nusra, saying that the organizations should remain separate. [64] ISIS’s leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, publicly rejected Zawahiri’s statement. [65] [66] ISIS continued to operate in Syria, often clashing with other Islamist groups and ignoring calls for mediation. Attempts at reconciliation with Al Qaeda leadership failed, and AQ officially renounced any connection with ISIS in February 2014.​

Furthermore, I'm not convinced you've read all of what Stanford has written on the page you linked. From the specific page to which you pointed:

• Initially, many Sunnis in Iraq were sympathetic to AQI and its goal of driving American and coalition forces from Iraq and preventing a Shiite government takeover. The Shiite majority in Iraq had been oppressed by the Hussein regime, and many Sunnis feared the Shiites gaining power. However, AQI’s extreme and violent tactics began to alienate potential supporters. Many Iraqis, including Sunnis, took issue with AQI’s use of suicide bombings and other violent attacks like assassinations; its willingness to target Iraqis and popular Sunni leaders; its perceived foreign membership and leadership; and its intentional incitement of sectarian violence.
  
• ISIS continued to operate in Syria, often clashing with other Islamist groups and ignoring calls for mediation. Attempts at reconciliation with Al Qaeda leadership failed, and AQ officially renounced any connection with ISIS in February 2014.

What's the difference between the two pages? Mostly topical focus. The ISIS page goes into detail about how ISIS and gives coverage of AQ secondary status, which is appropriate given the page is about ISIS. The AQ page presents content with the exact opposite focus, subordinating its nuanced discussion of ISIS to that of AQ. They are conceptually reciprocal pages. The facts relevant to the discussion here on USMB, however, is found on both pages.

Did I inaccurately summarize that? Did I misrepresent the context of what happened? I think the answer to both questions is "no." My earlier post that contradicted you was made to clarify a point of fact. I don't much care who is right or wrong about whether AQ and ISIS are the same things. I care that the full facts of the matter are what guide the nature of the discussion going forward.

 

[TNHarley]

Al Qaeda in Iraq

Sorry buster you couldn't be farther from reality. There are two completely separate organizations. Was Al Queda in Iraq a factor before Bush invaded?

Dude you are retarded. It is common knowledge that they changed the name after Zarqawi died.

ISIS and Al Qaeda really aren't the same things. ISIS is an offshoot of Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), but AQI divested itself of it's ISIS "wing." Furthermore, the threat ISIS poses to the U.S. and others is different from that of Al Qaeda (AQ).

• Targets:
  • AQ --> Focused almost exclusively on attacking the U.S. and its allies in Europe and on attacking Israel.
  • ISIS --> Attacks anybody anywhere. As much concerned with destroying Shiites as with Westerners.
• Strategy:
  • AQ --> Deliberate, centrally coordinated
  • ISIS --> Opportunistic; decentralized
• Key Goal:
  • AQ --> "Mess with" Westerners in a lethal way
  • ISIS --> Found a sovereign (Suni) Islamic State

There are other differences. Looking just at the differences above, one can see that while neither is "a good thing," the nature of the threat they each pose is very different. Both are, however, ideological movements, so there really are only two strategies for dealing with them:

• Containment -- This strategy accepts that there will be a certain quantity of casualties from AQ/ISIS. This approach forces leaders to make a normative decision about how many deaths are "okay," and it makes the matter of AQ/ISIS terrorism/attacks become one of politics and bickering....."They want to handle it this way and they are wrong. I say we should handle it that way and I'm right." Containment is basically a non-solution to the problem (unless one sees the problem as the need for a rhetorical/political wedge) that lets one "dance around" the real issue for as long as voters will suffer one's doing so. Make no mistake; a "wedge" that involves armed conflict and the industries that supply such things is a powerful "wedge" in many ways.
• Extermination -- This strategy aims to kill or convert every person who might possibly share any material portion of AQ/ISIS' ideology. This approach isn't quick either way, and the armed tack will surely piss of as many people as it kills. Thus the physical approach risks creating a new enemy that merely has a different ideological basis for being pissed off. The intellectual/moral approach takes years and years to produce real results. Also, as goes the AQ/ISIS issue, requires one to admit one's own prior failings before one can be taken seriously when delivering a new message that professes one's new stance(s) that are neither selfish nor arrogant nor maliciously intended. The problem with this is voters; they generally aren't patient. Thus one also has to get voters to take a long view toward a moral solution's efficacy and effectiveness.

Here is a great link that explains everything.
The Islamic State | Mapping Militant Organizations

I'm not sure about why you refer me to that page. It doesn't say anything I didn't, though it does present a much greater degree of detail. I suspect had I presented that much detail, folks wouldn't have read it. Yet here I am responding to you, seemingly because I didn't post that level of detail.....Maybe so; maybe not??? I guess I don't care much. I'm not altering my posting style either way.

I think your linked content explains a lot. It's an excellent reference site. (Stanford has a lot of very good reference sites.) Would that people use it and fully explore it.

You'll note that the same source -- Stanford U.'s Al Qaeda page -- writes:

"The most significant result of the Arab Spring for Al Qaeda has been the expansion of Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), which harnessed the Syrian civil war to grow dramatically in size and power. AQI changed its name to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and announced a merger with new AQ-affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra, which operated in the Syrian civil war with the support of AQI/ISIS. When the commander of al-Nusra denied the merger, Zawahiri supported al-Nusra, saying that the organizations should remain separate. [64] ISIS’s leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, publicly rejected Zawahiri’s statement. [65] [66] ISIS continued to operate in Syria, often clashing with other Islamist groups and ignoring calls for mediation. Attempts at reconciliation with Al Qaeda leadership failed, and AQ officially renounced any connection with ISIS in February 2014.​

Furthermore, I'm not convinced you've read all of what Stanford has written on the page you linked. From the specific page to which you pointed:

• Initially, many Sunnis in Iraq were sympathetic to AQI and its goal of driving American and coalition forces from Iraq and preventing a Shiite government takeover. The Shiite majority in Iraq had been oppressed by the Hussein regime, and many Sunnis feared the Shiites gaining power. However, AQI’s extreme and violent tactics began to alienate potential supporters. Many Iraqis, including Sunnis, took issue with AQI’s use of suicide bombings and other violent attacks like assassinations; its willingness to target Iraqis and popular Sunni leaders; its perceived foreign membership and leadership; and its intentional incitement of sectarian violence.
  
• ISIS continued to operate in Syria, often clashing with other Islamist groups and ignoring calls for mediation. Attempts at reconciliation with Al Qaeda leadership failed, and AQ officially renounced any connection with ISIS in February 2014.

What's the difference between the two pages? Mostly topical focus. The ISIS page goes into detail about how ISIS and gives coverage of AQ secondary status, which is appropriate given the page is about ISIS. The AQ page presents content with the exact opposite focus, subordinating its nuanced discussion of ISIS to that of AQ. They are conceptually reciprocal pages. The facts relevant to the discussion here on USMB, however, is found on both pages.

Did I inaccurately summarize that? Did I misrepresent the context of what happened? I think the answer to both questions is "no." My earlier post that contradicted you was made to clarify a point of fact. I don't much care who is right or wrong about whether AQ and ISIS are the same things. I care that the full facts of the matter are what guide the nature of the discussion going forward.

I linked that because I assumed you didn't know what was going on...
You posted exactly what I said. You even bolded it. Do you even understand my argument?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Sorry buster you couldn't be farther from reality. There are two completely separate organizations. Was Al Queda in Iraq a factor before Bush invaded?

Dude you are retarded. It is common knowledge that they changed the name after Zarqawi died.

ISIS and Al Qaeda really aren't the same things. ISIS is an offshoot of Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), but AQI divested itself of it's ISIS "wing." Furthermore, the threat ISIS poses to the U.S. and others is different from that of Al Qaeda (AQ).

• Targets:
  • AQ --> Focused almost exclusively on attacking the U.S. and its allies in Europe and on attacking Israel.
  • ISIS --> Attacks anybody anywhere. As much concerned with destroying Shiites as with Westerners.
• Strategy:
  • AQ --> Deliberate, centrally coordinated
  • ISIS --> Opportunistic; decentralized
• Key Goal:
  • AQ --> "Mess with" Westerners in a lethal way
  • ISIS --> Found a sovereign (Suni) Islamic State

There are other differences. Looking just at the differences above, one can see that while neither is "a good thing," the nature of the threat they each pose is very different. Both are, however, ideological movements, so there really are only two strategies for dealing with them:

• Containment -- This strategy accepts that there will be a certain quantity of casualties from AQ/ISIS. This approach forces leaders to make a normative decision about how many deaths are "okay," and it makes the matter of AQ/ISIS terrorism/attacks become one of politics and bickering....."They want to handle it this way and they are wrong. I say we should handle it that way and I'm right." Containment is basically a non-solution to the problem (unless one sees the problem as the need for a rhetorical/political wedge) that lets one "dance around" the real issue for as long as voters will suffer one's doing so. Make no mistake; a "wedge" that involves armed conflict and the industries that supply such things is a powerful "wedge" in many ways.
• Extermination -- This strategy aims to kill or convert every person who might possibly share any material portion of AQ/ISIS' ideology. This approach isn't quick either way, and the armed tack will surely piss of as many people as it kills. Thus the physical approach risks creating a new enemy that merely has a different ideological basis for being pissed off. The intellectual/moral approach takes years and years to produce real results. Also, as goes the AQ/ISIS issue, requires one to admit one's own prior failings before one can be taken seriously when delivering a new message that professes one's new stance(s) that are neither selfish nor arrogant nor maliciously intended. The problem with this is voters; they generally aren't patient. Thus one also has to get voters to take a long view toward a moral solution's efficacy and effectiveness.

Here is a great link that explains everything.
The Islamic State | Mapping Militant Organizations

I'm not sure about why you refer me to that page. It doesn't say anything I didn't, though it does present a much greater degree of detail. I suspect had I presented that much detail, folks wouldn't have read it. Yet here I am responding to you, seemingly because I didn't post that level of detail.....Maybe so; maybe not??? I guess I don't care much. I'm not altering my posting style either way.

I think your linked content explains a lot. It's an excellent reference site. (Stanford has a lot of very good reference sites.) Would that people use it and fully explore it.

You'll note that the same source -- Stanford U.'s Al Qaeda page -- writes:

"The most significant result of the Arab Spring for Al Qaeda has been the expansion of Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), which harnessed the Syrian civil war to grow dramatically in size and power. AQI changed its name to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and announced a merger with new AQ-affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra, which operated in the Syrian civil war with the support of AQI/ISIS. When the commander of al-Nusra denied the merger, Zawahiri supported al-Nusra, saying that the organizations should remain separate. [64] ISIS’s leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, publicly rejected Zawahiri’s statement. [65] [66] ISIS continued to operate in Syria, often clashing with other Islamist groups and ignoring calls for mediation. Attempts at reconciliation with Al Qaeda leadership failed, and AQ officially renounced any connection with ISIS in February 2014.​

Furthermore, I'm not convinced you've read all of what Stanford has written on the page you linked. From the specific page to which you pointed:

• Initially, many Sunnis in Iraq were sympathetic to AQI and its goal of driving American and coalition forces from Iraq and preventing a Shiite government takeover. The Shiite majority in Iraq had been oppressed by the Hussein regime, and many Sunnis feared the Shiites gaining power. However, AQI’s extreme and violent tactics began to alienate potential supporters. Many Iraqis, including Sunnis, took issue with AQI’s use of suicide bombings and other violent attacks like assassinations; its willingness to target Iraqis and popular Sunni leaders; its perceived foreign membership and leadership; and its intentional incitement of sectarian violence.
  
• ISIS continued to operate in Syria, often clashing with other Islamist groups and ignoring calls for mediation. Attempts at reconciliation with Al Qaeda leadership failed, and AQ officially renounced any connection with ISIS in February 2014.

What's the difference between the two pages? Mostly topical focus. The ISIS page goes into detail about how ISIS and gives coverage of AQ secondary status, which is appropriate given the page is about ISIS. The AQ page presents content with the exact opposite focus, subordinating its nuanced discussion of ISIS to that of AQ. They are conceptually reciprocal pages. The facts relevant to the discussion here on USMB, however, is found on both pages.

Did I inaccurately summarize that? Did I misrepresent the context of what happened? I think the answer to both questions is "no." My earlier post that contradicted you was made to clarify a point of fact. I don't much care who is right or wrong about whether AQ and ISIS are the same things. I care that the full facts of the matter are what guide the nature of the discussion going forward.

I linked that because I assumed you didn't know what was going on...
You posted exactly what I said. You even bolded it. Do you even understand my argument?

Did I misconstrue what you wrote? It seemed to me that you were saying that ISIS = Al Qaeda in all but name. It does not.

Maybe I misinterpreted the following remark:

Dude you are retarded. It is common knowledge that they changed the name after Zarqawi died.

I admit I didn't expand the quote prior to responding to it. Assuming I've misunderstood your intent, not doing that is my fault for it caused me to leap to an inaccurate conclusion re: what you were intending. I didn't think I'd misinterpreted you because the post to which you responded stated:

ISIS is an offshoot of Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), but AQI divested itself of it's ISIS "wing."

Are we quibbling over whether AQI = ISIS vs. whether a subset of AQI = ISIS? I have to ask because that's about the only difference..

 

[TNHarley]

Dude you are retarded. It is common knowledge that they changed the name after Zarqawi died.

ISIS and Al Qaeda really aren't the same things. ISIS is an offshoot of Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), but AQI divested itself of it's ISIS "wing." Furthermore, the threat ISIS poses to the U.S. and others is different from that of Al Qaeda (AQ).

• Targets:
  • AQ --> Focused almost exclusively on attacking the U.S. and its allies in Europe and on attacking Israel.
  • ISIS --> Attacks anybody anywhere. As much concerned with destroying Shiites as with Westerners.
• Strategy:
  • AQ --> Deliberate, centrally coordinated
  • ISIS --> Opportunistic; decentralized
• Key Goal:
  • AQ --> "Mess with" Westerners in a lethal way
  • ISIS --> Found a sovereign (Suni) Islamic State

There are other differences. Looking just at the differences above, one can see that while neither is "a good thing," the nature of the threat they each pose is very different. Both are, however, ideological movements, so there really are only two strategies for dealing with them:

• Containment -- This strategy accepts that there will be a certain quantity of casualties from AQ/ISIS. This approach forces leaders to make a normative decision about how many deaths are "okay," and it makes the matter of AQ/ISIS terrorism/attacks become one of politics and bickering....."They want to handle it this way and they are wrong. I say we should handle it that way and I'm right." Containment is basically a non-solution to the problem (unless one sees the problem as the need for a rhetorical/political wedge) that lets one "dance around" the real issue for as long as voters will suffer one's doing so. Make no mistake; a "wedge" that involves armed conflict and the industries that supply such things is a powerful "wedge" in many ways.
• Extermination -- This strategy aims to kill or convert every person who might possibly share any material portion of AQ/ISIS' ideology. This approach isn't quick either way, and the armed tack will surely piss of as many people as it kills. Thus the physical approach risks creating a new enemy that merely has a different ideological basis for being pissed off. The intellectual/moral approach takes years and years to produce real results. Also, as goes the AQ/ISIS issue, requires one to admit one's own prior failings before one can be taken seriously when delivering a new message that professes one's new stance(s) that are neither selfish nor arrogant nor maliciously intended. The problem with this is voters; they generally aren't patient. Thus one also has to get voters to take a long view toward a moral solution's efficacy and effectiveness.

Here is a great link that explains everything.
The Islamic State | Mapping Militant Organizations

I'm not sure about why you refer me to that page. It doesn't say anything I didn't, though it does present a much greater degree of detail. I suspect had I presented that much detail, folks wouldn't have read it. Yet here I am responding to you, seemingly because I didn't post that level of detail.....Maybe so; maybe not??? I guess I don't care much. I'm not altering my posting style either way.

I think your linked content explains a lot. It's an excellent reference site. (Stanford has a lot of very good reference sites.) Would that people use it and fully explore it.

You'll note that the same source -- Stanford U.'s Al Qaeda page -- writes:

"The most significant result of the Arab Spring for Al Qaeda has been the expansion of Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), which harnessed the Syrian civil war to grow dramatically in size and power. AQI changed its name to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and announced a merger with new AQ-affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra, which operated in the Syrian civil war with the support of AQI/ISIS. When the commander of al-Nusra denied the merger, Zawahiri supported al-Nusra, saying that the organizations should remain separate. [64] ISIS’s leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, publicly rejected Zawahiri’s statement. [65] [66] ISIS continued to operate in Syria, often clashing with other Islamist groups and ignoring calls for mediation. Attempts at reconciliation with Al Qaeda leadership failed, and AQ officially renounced any connection with ISIS in February 2014.​

Furthermore, I'm not convinced you've read all of what Stanford has written on the page you linked. From the specific page to which you pointed:

• Initially, many Sunnis in Iraq were sympathetic to AQI and its goal of driving American and coalition forces from Iraq and preventing a Shiite government takeover. The Shiite majority in Iraq had been oppressed by the Hussein regime, and many Sunnis feared the Shiites gaining power. However, AQI’s extreme and violent tactics began to alienate potential supporters. Many Iraqis, including Sunnis, took issue with AQI’s use of suicide bombings and other violent attacks like assassinations; its willingness to target Iraqis and popular Sunni leaders; its perceived foreign membership and leadership; and its intentional incitement of sectarian violence.
  
• ISIS continued to operate in Syria, often clashing with other Islamist groups and ignoring calls for mediation. Attempts at reconciliation with Al Qaeda leadership failed, and AQ officially renounced any connection with ISIS in February 2014.

What's the difference between the two pages? Mostly topical focus. The ISIS page goes into detail about how ISIS and gives coverage of AQ secondary status, which is appropriate given the page is about ISIS. The AQ page presents content with the exact opposite focus, subordinating its nuanced discussion of ISIS to that of AQ. They are conceptually reciprocal pages. The facts relevant to the discussion here on USMB, however, is found on both pages.

Did I inaccurately summarize that? Did I misrepresent the context of what happened? I think the answer to both questions is "no." My earlier post that contradicted you was made to clarify a point of fact. I don't much care who is right or wrong about whether AQ and ISIS are the same things. I care that the full facts of the matter are what guide the nature of the discussion going forward.

I linked that because I assumed you didn't know what was going on...
You posted exactly what I said. You even bolded it. Do you even understand my argument?

Did I misconstrue what you wrote? It seemed to me that you were saying that ISIS = Al Qaeda in all but name. It does not.

Maybe I misinterpreted the following remark:

Dude you are retarded. It is common knowledge that they changed the name after Zarqawi died.

I admit I didn't expand the quote prior to responding to it. Assuming I've misunderstood your intent, not doing that is my fault for it caused me to leap to an inaccurate conclusion re: what you were intending. I didn't think I'd misinterpreted you because the post to which you responded stated:

ISIS is an offshoot of Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), but AQI divested itself of it's ISIS "wing."

Are we quibbling over whether AQI = ISIS vs. whether a subset of AQI = ISIS? I have to ask because that's about the only difference..

That's not what I was saying at all

 

[usmbguest5318]

ISIS and Al Qaeda really aren't the same things. ISIS is an offshoot of Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), but AQI divested itself of it's ISIS "wing." Furthermore, the threat ISIS poses to the U.S. and others is different from that of Al Qaeda (AQ).

• Targets:
  • AQ --> Focused almost exclusively on attacking the U.S. and its allies in Europe and on attacking Israel.
  • ISIS --> Attacks anybody anywhere. As much concerned with destroying Shiites as with Westerners.
• Strategy:
  • AQ --> Deliberate, centrally coordinated
  • ISIS --> Opportunistic; decentralized
• Key Goal:
  • AQ --> "Mess with" Westerners in a lethal way
  • ISIS --> Found a sovereign (Suni) Islamic State

There are other differences. Looking just at the differences above, one can see that while neither is "a good thing," the nature of the threat they each pose is very different. Both are, however, ideological movements, so there really are only two strategies for dealing with them:

• Containment -- This strategy accepts that there will be a certain quantity of casualties from AQ/ISIS. This approach forces leaders to make a normative decision about how many deaths are "okay," and it makes the matter of AQ/ISIS terrorism/attacks become one of politics and bickering....."They want to handle it this way and they are wrong. I say we should handle it that way and I'm right." Containment is basically a non-solution to the problem (unless one sees the problem as the need for a rhetorical/political wedge) that lets one "dance around" the real issue for as long as voters will suffer one's doing so. Make no mistake; a "wedge" that involves armed conflict and the industries that supply such things is a powerful "wedge" in many ways.
• Extermination -- This strategy aims to kill or convert every person who might possibly share any material portion of AQ/ISIS' ideology. This approach isn't quick either way, and the armed tack will surely piss of as many people as it kills. Thus the physical approach risks creating a new enemy that merely has a different ideological basis for being pissed off. The intellectual/moral approach takes years and years to produce real results. Also, as goes the AQ/ISIS issue, requires one to admit one's own prior failings before one can be taken seriously when delivering a new message that professes one's new stance(s) that are neither selfish nor arrogant nor maliciously intended. The problem with this is voters; they generally aren't patient. Thus one also has to get voters to take a long view toward a moral solution's efficacy and effectiveness.

Here is a great link that explains everything.
The Islamic State | Mapping Militant Organizations

I'm not sure about why you refer me to that page. It doesn't say anything I didn't, though it does present a much greater degree of detail. I suspect had I presented that much detail, folks wouldn't have read it. Yet here I am responding to you, seemingly because I didn't post that level of detail.....Maybe so; maybe not??? I guess I don't care much. I'm not altering my posting style either way.

I think your linked content explains a lot. It's an excellent reference site. (Stanford has a lot of very good reference sites.) Would that people use it and fully explore it.

You'll note that the same source -- Stanford U.'s Al Qaeda page -- writes:

"The most significant result of the Arab Spring for Al Qaeda has been the expansion of Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), which harnessed the Syrian civil war to grow dramatically in size and power. AQI changed its name to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and announced a merger with new AQ-affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra, which operated in the Syrian civil war with the support of AQI/ISIS. When the commander of al-Nusra denied the merger, Zawahiri supported al-Nusra, saying that the organizations should remain separate. [64] ISIS’s leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, publicly rejected Zawahiri’s statement. [65] [66] ISIS continued to operate in Syria, often clashing with other Islamist groups and ignoring calls for mediation. Attempts at reconciliation with Al Qaeda leadership failed, and AQ officially renounced any connection with ISIS in February 2014.​

Furthermore, I'm not convinced you've read all of what Stanford has written on the page you linked. From the specific page to which you pointed:

• Initially, many Sunnis in Iraq were sympathetic to AQI and its goal of driving American and coalition forces from Iraq and preventing a Shiite government takeover. The Shiite majority in Iraq had been oppressed by the Hussein regime, and many Sunnis feared the Shiites gaining power. However, AQI’s extreme and violent tactics began to alienate potential supporters. Many Iraqis, including Sunnis, took issue with AQI’s use of suicide bombings and other violent attacks like assassinations; its willingness to target Iraqis and popular Sunni leaders; its perceived foreign membership and leadership; and its intentional incitement of sectarian violence.
  
• ISIS continued to operate in Syria, often clashing with other Islamist groups and ignoring calls for mediation. Attempts at reconciliation with Al Qaeda leadership failed, and AQ officially renounced any connection with ISIS in February 2014.

What's the difference between the two pages? Mostly topical focus. The ISIS page goes into detail about how ISIS and gives coverage of AQ secondary status, which is appropriate given the page is about ISIS. The AQ page presents content with the exact opposite focus, subordinating its nuanced discussion of ISIS to that of AQ. They are conceptually reciprocal pages. The facts relevant to the discussion here on USMB, however, is found on both pages.

Did I inaccurately summarize that? Did I misrepresent the context of what happened? I think the answer to both questions is "no." My earlier post that contradicted you was made to clarify a point of fact. I don't much care who is right or wrong about whether AQ and ISIS are the same things. I care that the full facts of the matter are what guide the nature of the discussion going forward.

I linked that because I assumed you didn't know what was going on...
You posted exactly what I said. You even bolded it. Do you even understand my argument?

Did I misconstrue what you wrote? It seemed to me that you were saying that ISIS = Al Qaeda in all but name. It does not.

Maybe I misinterpreted the following remark:

Dude you are retarded. It is common knowledge that they changed the name after Zarqawi died.

I admit I didn't expand the quote prior to responding to it. Assuming I've misunderstood your intent, not doing that is my fault for it caused me to leap to an inaccurate conclusion re: what you were intending. I didn't think I'd misinterpreted you because the post to which you responded stated:

ISIS is an offshoot of Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), but AQI divested itself of it's ISIS "wing."

Are we quibbling over whether AQI = ISIS vs. whether a subset of AQI = ISIS? I have to ask because that's about the only difference..

That's not what I was saying at all

Okay....Here's what you wrote that I responded to. My response to it is in the first (collapsed) quoted passage above.

Dude you are retarded. It is common knowledge that they changed the name after Zarqawi died.

What were you saying?

 

[Avatar4321]

... and, guess what? ...

... it's ...

... wait for it ...

... Obama's plan!

Pentagon prepares to give the White House a stepped-up battle plan against Islamic State

Hahahahahahahahahaha ...

... what a bunch of rubes.

Is Obama in the pentagon nowadays?

 

[Avatar4321]

... and, guess what? ...

... it's ...

... wait for it ...

... Obama's plan!

Pentagon prepares to give the White House a stepped-up battle plan against Islamic State

Hahahahahahahahahaha ...

... what a bunch of rubes.

Why do people have to fucking lie?

No idea. I may be wrong about things from time to time (hard to believe, I know), but I always try to be honest. Usually am successful too unless I start getting sarcastic. Seems like a much simpler policy.

 

[Never3ndr]

... and, guess what? ...

... it's ...

... wait for it ...

... Obama's plan!

Pentagon prepares to give the White House a stepped-up battle plan against Islamic State

Hahahahahahahahahaha ...

... what a bunch of rubes.

Looks like the PENTAGON'S plan.

Obama's plan was to cheer from the sidelines as ISIS stole military assets & marched them in a convoy across an empty desert in Iraq on their way back to Syria

I think that the bigger issue is that Lying Donald gave his zealot Trumpers another lie to chew upon in "having a secret plan to defeat ISIS" during the campaign run...when he wouldn't even be able to accurately identify ISIS's strongholds on a map without help.

We can only hope that Mattis is able to act independently of Trump and fight for America's interests before Trump's anti-American policies become too much for our over-extended forces to handle.

 

[Siete]

ISIS is spread thinner than Aunt Nellie's drawers after Obama and his military advisers kicked ass.

Trump won't say what his actions will be against ISIS because the element of surprise is crucial.

SURPRISE !!!

the sorry bastard's big plan is to remain status quo, and use Obama's plan.

[[[[[[[ SHOCKING ]]]]]]]]

 

[TNHarley]

ISIS and Al Qaeda really aren't the same things. ISIS is an offshoot of Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), but AQI divested itself of it's ISIS "wing." Furthermore, the threat ISIS poses to the U.S. and others is different from that of Al Qaeda (AQ).

• Targets:
  • AQ --> Focused almost exclusively on attacking the U.S. and its allies in Europe and on attacking Israel.
  • ISIS --> Attacks anybody anywhere. As much concerned with destroying Shiites as with Westerners.
• Strategy:
  • AQ --> Deliberate, centrally coordinated
  • ISIS --> Opportunistic; decentralized
• Key Goal:
  • AQ --> "Mess with" Westerners in a lethal way
  • ISIS --> Found a sovereign (Suni) Islamic State

There are other differences. Looking just at the differences above, one can see that while neither is "a good thing," the nature of the threat they each pose is very different. Both are, however, ideological movements, so there really are only two strategies for dealing with them:

• Containment -- This strategy accepts that there will be a certain quantity of casualties from AQ/ISIS. This approach forces leaders to make a normative decision about how many deaths are "okay," and it makes the matter of AQ/ISIS terrorism/attacks become one of politics and bickering....."They want to handle it this way and they are wrong. I say we should handle it that way and I'm right." Containment is basically a non-solution to the problem (unless one sees the problem as the need for a rhetorical/political wedge) that lets one "dance around" the real issue for as long as voters will suffer one's doing so. Make no mistake; a "wedge" that involves armed conflict and the industries that supply such things is a powerful "wedge" in many ways.
• Extermination -- This strategy aims to kill or convert every person who might possibly share any material portion of AQ/ISIS' ideology. This approach isn't quick either way, and the armed tack will surely piss of as many people as it kills. Thus the physical approach risks creating a new enemy that merely has a different ideological basis for being pissed off. The intellectual/moral approach takes years and years to produce real results. Also, as goes the AQ/ISIS issue, requires one to admit one's own prior failings before one can be taken seriously when delivering a new message that professes one's new stance(s) that are neither selfish nor arrogant nor maliciously intended. The problem with this is voters; they generally aren't patient. Thus one also has to get voters to take a long view toward a moral solution's efficacy and effectiveness.

Here is a great link that explains everything.
The Islamic State | Mapping Militant Organizations

I'm not sure about why you refer me to that page. It doesn't say anything I didn't, though it does present a much greater degree of detail. I suspect had I presented that much detail, folks wouldn't have read it. Yet here I am responding to you, seemingly because I didn't post that level of detail.....Maybe so; maybe not??? I guess I don't care much. I'm not altering my posting style either way.

I think your linked content explains a lot. It's an excellent reference site. (Stanford has a lot of very good reference sites.) Would that people use it and fully explore it.

You'll note that the same source -- Stanford U.'s Al Qaeda page -- writes:

"The most significant result of the Arab Spring for Al Qaeda has been the expansion of Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), which harnessed the Syrian civil war to grow dramatically in size and power. AQI changed its name to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and announced a merger with new AQ-affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra, which operated in the Syrian civil war with the support of AQI/ISIS. When the commander of al-Nusra denied the merger, Zawahiri supported al-Nusra, saying that the organizations should remain separate. [64] ISIS’s leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, publicly rejected Zawahiri’s statement. [65] [66] ISIS continued to operate in Syria, often clashing with other Islamist groups and ignoring calls for mediation. Attempts at reconciliation with Al Qaeda leadership failed, and AQ officially renounced any connection with ISIS in February 2014.​

Furthermore, I'm not convinced you've read all of what Stanford has written on the page you linked. From the specific page to which you pointed:

• Initially, many Sunnis in Iraq were sympathetic to AQI and its goal of driving American and coalition forces from Iraq and preventing a Shiite government takeover. The Shiite majority in Iraq had been oppressed by the Hussein regime, and many Sunnis feared the Shiites gaining power. However, AQI’s extreme and violent tactics began to alienate potential supporters. Many Iraqis, including Sunnis, took issue with AQI’s use of suicide bombings and other violent attacks like assassinations; its willingness to target Iraqis and popular Sunni leaders; its perceived foreign membership and leadership; and its intentional incitement of sectarian violence.
  
• ISIS continued to operate in Syria, often clashing with other Islamist groups and ignoring calls for mediation. Attempts at reconciliation with Al Qaeda leadership failed, and AQ officially renounced any connection with ISIS in February 2014.

What's the difference between the two pages? Mostly topical focus. The ISIS page goes into detail about how ISIS and gives coverage of AQ secondary status, which is appropriate given the page is about ISIS. The AQ page presents content with the exact opposite focus, subordinating its nuanced discussion of ISIS to that of AQ. They are conceptually reciprocal pages. The facts relevant to the discussion here on USMB, however, is found on both pages.

Did I inaccurately summarize that? Did I misrepresent the context of what happened? I think the answer to both questions is "no." My earlier post that contradicted you was made to clarify a point of fact. I don't much care who is right or wrong about whether AQ and ISIS are the same things. I care that the full facts of the matter are what guide the nature of the discussion going forward.

I linked that because I assumed you didn't know what was going on...
You posted exactly what I said. You even bolded it. Do you even understand my argument?

Did I misconstrue what you wrote? It seemed to me that you were saying that ISIS = Al Qaeda in all but name. It does not.

Maybe I misinterpreted the following remark:

Dude you are retarded. It is common knowledge that they changed the name after Zarqawi died.

I admit I didn't expand the quote prior to responding to it. Assuming I've misunderstood your intent, not doing that is my fault for it caused me to leap to an inaccurate conclusion re: what you were intending. I didn't think I'd misinterpreted you because the post to which you responded stated:

ISIS is an offshoot of Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), but AQI divested itself of it's ISIS "wing."

Are we quibbling over whether AQI = ISIS vs. whether a subset of AQI = ISIS? I have to ask because that's about the only difference..

That's not what I was saying at all

Okay....Here's what you wrote that I responded to. My response to it is in the first (collapsed) quoted passage above.

Dude you are retarded. It is common knowledge that they changed the name after Zarqawi died.

What were you saying?

That AQI changed their name when zarqawi died

 

[brummelben]

ISIS is spread thinner than Aunt Nellie's drawers after Obama and his military advisers some kicked ass.

Trump won't say what his actions will be against ISIS because the element of surprise is crucial.

SURPRISE !!!

the sorry bastard's big plan is to remain status quo, and use Obama's plan.

[[[[[[[ SHOCKING ]]]]]]]]

Trump doesn't have a phyucking clue to what he is doing. I doubt if he could ever find Iraq or Iran on a map

 

[Siete]

ISIS is spread thinner than Aunt Nellie's drawers after Obama and his military advisers some kicked ass.

Trump won't say what his actions will be against ISIS because the element of surprise is crucial.

SURPRISE !!!

the sorry bastard's big plan is to remain status quo, and use Obama's plan.

[[[[[[[ SHOCKING ]]]]]]]]

Trump doesn't have a phyucking clue to what he is doing. I doubt if he could ever find Iraq or Iran on a map

he knows all he has to do is lie, and his Trumpbots will hump his leg then each other.

 

[namvet]

... and, guess what? ...

... it's ...

... wait for it ...

... Obama's plan!

Pentagon prepares to give the White House a stepped-up battle plan against Islamic State

Hahahahahahahahahaha ...

... what a bunch of rubes.

the LA slime Gracie?? ever hear of national security??

 

[namvet]

... and, guess what? ...

... it's ...

... wait for it ...

... Obama's plan!

Pentagon prepares to give the White House a stepped-up battle plan against Islamic State

Hahahahahahahahahaha ...

... what a bunch of rubes.

Looks like the PENTAGON'S plan.

Obama's plan was to cheer from the sidelines as ISIS stole military assets & marched them in a convoy across an empty desert in Iraq on their way back to Syria

U.S. analysts said they don’t expect the new plan to differ dramatically from the Obama administration’s approach

link child??

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

ISIS is spread thinner than Aunt Nellie's drawers after Obama and his military advisers some kicked ass.

Trump won't say what his actions will be against ISIS because the element of surprise is crucial.

SURPRISE !!!

the sorry bastard's big plan is to remain status quo, and use Obama's plan.

[[[[[[[ SHOCKING ]]]]]]]]

Trump doesn't have a phyucking clue to what he is doing. I doubt if he could ever find Iraq or Iran on a map

Oh yes he does, and can! The key is changing the rules of engagement giving our troops the authority to kill ISIS women and children because they provide the breeding and next generation of them. Full Irradication without remorse is what is needed to defeat them.

 

[brummelben]

ISIS is spread thinner than Aunt Nellie's drawers after Obama and his military advisers some kicked ass.

Trump won't say what his actions will be against ISIS because the element of surprise is crucial.

SURPRISE !!!

the sorry bastard's big plan is to remain status quo, and use Obama's plan.

[[[[[[[ SHOCKING ]]]]]]]]

Trump doesn't have a phyucking clue to what he is doing. I doubt if he could ever find Iraq or Iran on a map

Oh yes he does, and can! The key is changing the rules of engagement giving our troops the authority to kill ISIS women and children because they provide the breeding and next generation of them. Full Irradication without remorse is what is needed to defeat them.

I hope your women and children are included

 

[radical right]

... and, guess what? ...

... it's ...

... wait for it ...

... Obama's plan!

Pentagon prepares to give the White House a stepped-up battle plan against Islamic State

Hahahahahahahahahaha ...

... what a bunch of rubes.

I think that the bigger issue is that Lying Donald gave his zealot Trumpers another lie to chew upon in "having a secret plan to defeat ISIS" during the campaign run...when he wouldn't even be able to accurately identify ISIS's strongholds on a map without help.
.

The pentagon plan is the Trump plan. Trump told Mattis how to go after ISIS, and Mattis is just repeating what Trump told him.

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

How to defeat ISIS:

Tell ISIS that the next Muslim terrorist attack on American soil or against one of our allies will result in nukes being dropped on Mecca.