What can you say about ISIS?

[R@uL]

---

unsa inyo masulti ani nila? (ako ra gibisaya ang title.. lol) og nganong dghan mn nangapil nila??

[buddy&sale]

Daghan nangapil tungod sa kwarta dile tungod sa kun unsay tumong sa grupo.

[loyz]

Ug successful ni ang ISIS, pakita lang jud na dali ra diay mangilug ug country agion lang sa genocide.
Nangatarongan ra ni sila na para maCover up ilang genocide na gipangbuhat pra lang makaControl sa mga tao.
Delikado ug musucceed...

[Istudyante-Ni-Pikoy]

Ang mga membro aning ISIS, nangita ni cla adventure sa ilang life ky na boring ug walay challenge ilang kinabuhi. hehehe

[<SMILE>]

Richard Epstein, the legal scholar and libertarian Republican known for his erudite wisdom in the fields of law and economics and tort law, has recently joined in the chorus of Right-wing critics attacking Senator Rand Paul (and President Obama) for arguing that the US government does not have enough information to carry out an attack or launch a military campaign against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and that further action on the part of Washington will only make things in the region worse rather than better.

Unfortunately, Epstein’s argument represents the best of what is essentially a quick-tempered fallacy that’s short on details and long on moral posturing. Epstein, for example, provides absolutely no outline for what action that US government should take against ISIS. Should the US bomb targets from afar as it has been doing in Pakistan? Should the US government put combat troops back on the ground in Iraq? Should the US invade Syria and strike ISIS from there? If you read carefully the arguments put forth by proponents of attacking ISIS, you’ll notice that none of them have an outline for what the US government should do about it (even the usually sharp Professor Epstein refrains from providing a coherent outline). Instead, readers are treated to ad hominem attacks that liken Senator Paul to the worst-possible person imaginable: the Big Government-loving Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces, Barack Obama. Oh, the horror!

Epstein’s argument lays a great foundation for any starting point that discusses what a libertarian foreign policy should be. He writes:

Libertarian theory has always permitted the use and threat of force, including deadly force if need be, to defend one’s self, one’s property, and one’s friends. To be sure, no one is obligated to engage in humanitarian rescue of third persons, so that the decision to intervene is one that is necessarily governed by a mixture of moral and prudential principles. In addition, the justified use of force also raises hard questions of timing. In principle, even deadly force can be used in anticipation of an attack by others, lest any delayed response prove fatal. In all cases, it is necessary to balance the risks of moving too early or too late.

Of course, none of this provides any helpful hints for what the US government can or should do going forward to deal with ISIS. Libertarians, like everybody else in the West save for a few disgruntled young Muslims, think that ISIS is morally bad. It does not follow, though, that the use of military force is the best (or even fifth-best) option going forward.

Unfortunately, many libertarians (though not Senator Paul) erroneously fall back on the fallacy that because the US government is unable to coherently attack ISIS (much less define it), Washington should simply adhere to a policy of non-intervention. So what follows is a modest proposal to implement a more libertarian foreign policy toward ISIS.


The New Caliphate in the Middle East: When Islamists experiment with libertarianism (and why the West should do the same) | Notes On Liberty

The aim of ISIS is to bring order within the turmoil torn Syria and Iraq through Sharia law.
They know they will not be effective using the peaceful means and because of that, under the jihad interpretation of Islam they resorted to enforce their aspirations, eventually it now evolve as a bloody and gore tainted campaign based upon the fundamentals of the islamic religious teachings.They make Islam appear as an anti-humanity confining everyone divested of freedom and kept imprisoned within the religious authority.

[ian_1983]

unsa inyo masulti ani nila? (ako ra gibisaya ang title.. lol) og nganong dghan mn nangapil nila??

A bunch of scumbags just trying to make a name.

[bleedingboi]

A bunch of scumbags just trying to make a name.

Well, they already have a name, they have different names. But just the same idiot running the show : )

I hope when a US tomahawk missile hits them, they'll see their 70 bearded, "hole-less" virgins. And oh, here's my middle finger!

[salbahis]

unsa inyo masulti ani nila? (ako ra gibisaya ang title.. lol) og nganong dghan mn nangapil nila??

lonely people who wants to get laid with 72 virgins... pul-an na siguro sa kanding...

[jntio]

angayng polboson

[7DMM]

Threat to my way of life.