It was one confused, troubled guy with a few guns - which, by looking at the events of today, was more efficient in killing innocent people than three ISIS-trained suicide bombers were.

Paint the Orlando gunman however you want, but to say he wasn't influenced by ISIS propaganda is intellectually dishonest.

I totally agree that Christians and non-religious Americans can be homophobic, dangerously so. But he was NOT Christian. He was NOT irreligious. He was not a member of the First Baptist Church of Redneckistan. He was inspired by Islamic fundamentalism, even if he was not a card carrying member of ISIS, Al Qaeda, or whatever.

Why are we not allowed to recognize and deal with that truth?

Exploitative and nasty.

OP wants to equate an ISIS planned attacked with an ISIS inspired lone wolf. It's even harder to equate them when the Florida dipshit also supported Al Qaeda and Hezbollah. Those two terrorist organizations are at war with ISIS.

ISIS isn't going to stop murdering people if we sit on our hands.

Do they have a navy?

Though their Genesis may be in part our fault, they are no danger to the US.

It's like asking The Italians what they should do about the Westboro Baptist Church.

Let the people of the Middle East sort them out

1. I'm not an isolationist, so why would the fact that they don't have air force matter? Do we live inside of a bubble?
2. Their propaganda has already been responsible for a number of attacks within America
3. Comparing them to the WBC is possibly the silliest comparison I've ever seen.

Religious whack jobs half the world away ranks up there with the silliest questions ever asked on this message board

Why didn't you ask what we should do about Boku Haram? Or the Lords Resistance Army? Or the assholes in India who think it's perfectly fine to rape young women?

Yeah. Silly all right

....responsibility for attacks that kill large amounts of innocent civilians is as silly as comparing a group that throws gay men off of rooftops to a group that makes goofy signs and waves them as passing cars.

You know, just like we're already doing with at least two of those nations.

As evidenced by the posts to this thread.

I'm out.

The status quo is that Isis is losing, has been losing for awhile, they were just driven out of Fallujah this week, they have lost 40 % of the territory that they held, they have lost hundreds of millions in cash after the US bombed the banks where the money was kept in large stacks. The number of recruits has fallen.

Various groups that don't like each other much have formed alliances to fight Isis on the ground, and are being successful in this effort. That success will continue.

This is the status quo. What is wrong with this?

But that would be a war crime.

Unfortunately the rest of the world gets blowback from it.

When the majority of moderate Muslims get fed up with what the minority of idiots who claim to be fundamentalist are doing in the name of Islam and take them on from within, it will be game over for ISIS.

Nothing new as far as man in the sky religions go.

Christians had there holy wars and inquisitions, puritan phase with actual witch hunts just to name a few.

Outside of thwarting attacks on the home front there ain't a damn thing we can do.

Not what peeps want to hear. JMHO

A lot of the armaments we send over there seem to get left laying around where our good friends in Daesh can pick them up and use them against our erstwhile allies.

Unfortunately the Sunni hate the Shia more than they do ISIS, which is why they stood by and let ISIS run the Shia-dominated central government out of the Sunni areas of Iraq.

so more of that is the last thing the world needs.

The best thing to "do about ISIS", is to undertake a massive, global effort to convert our current energy system, to souces of energy other than burning hydrocarbons, thereby eliminating the 'need' for intervention.

It's going to take the people in the Islamic countries who are Muslims to finally defeat it.

The biggest thing I think is Iran and Iraq and Saudi Arabia are going to have to have some sort of diplomatic breakthrough.

As long as the there is the Sunni / Shiite hatred I don't think anything can be imposed from the outside.

The sad part is a lot of the people who are moderate are leaving the area for here or Europe, so that leaves more crazies.

I think Iran and Saudi Arabia and some of these other countries are going to have to figure out a way to secure their borders.

Ever since Afghanistan we have seen the rise of the multi national, nationless Islamic army. The CIA helped start it.

For us, we can pull out and secure our borders, we don't even really need a lot of the oil anymore. However not having the oil revenue will make the problem even worse there.

So my vote is that Islamic religious figures have to come out strong against it and Iran and Saudi Arabia need to work together to save the region. Will it happen? I doubt it but that's what needs to be done.

The level of mistrust between the players is about the same.

There's not a panacea here; it's going to take a long, long time of 50 people dead here, 50 people dead there, and sometimes those 50 people will be in Western countries. And that's what happens when you start needless wars.

The strategy used by Obama will, in a fewvyrears, bring able end to their Csliphate. We do not need to send in an invasion force.

(2) Stable governments must be set up in Syria and Iraq.

With stable governments, even if they are governments we don't like, ISIS will loose its ability to inspire.

1. Banking - corrupt their funding somehow.


Or, since our traditional fighting mechanisms ( bombing) seem to be getting us nowhere.

2. Pay ISIS enemies to infiltrate, assassinate.

3. Find a way cultural to invalidate ISIS.

4. Send them drinking water bottles filled with Round-Up (tm)