American soldiers being forced to attend services? That would be headline news on CNN and MSNBC, doesn't pass the smell test.
God is 'always' on your side. If not what is the point?

This kind of thing: Military | American Atheists. CNN reports on it periodically.

Why do you think the US has asked every ally but Israel ?

The deeper challenge is how to stop radicalisation ? It's happening everywhere, and a "victory" in Iraq/Syria (I/S coincidentally) will continue to fuel radical thought and principles.

BBC News - The boy from Kosovo who grew up to be a suicide bomber

Blame Canada.

Actually, I have seen a bunch of news stories about how religious the US armed forces are. If I remember correctly, there were stories about religion featuring heavily at the air force academy.

I found the following links with a very simple search so the information is definitely out there:

Religion and the American armed forces: One army under God? | The Economist


Air Force’s mind-boggling violation: Members forced to swear religious allegiance - Salon.com


(The air force academy is discussed in detail starting at page #59):

http://www.af.mil/Portals/1/document...arent-free.pdf

Since this thread is on the Canadian forums, can I drag the topic away from the obvious truth that US soldiers are just as gullible and fanatical as any other country's army and mention instead that, on tonights CBC News it was pointed out the Canada's half dozen CF-18's won't be in a position to fire a bullet or drop a pamphlet for at least three weeks?

That's predictable of course, but what was amusing was an admission from a senior commander that by the time they get there they don't expect to know what to do.

There was some mumbling about attacking targets of opportunity if and when a militant ever ventured out from a civilian population centre. I suppose Canadian Intelligence would help.

And for this, we're pissing off these bastards even more?

Just helps with more propaganda, and case for cause for our 'enemies'

The population of Kobane and surrounding towns was about 400,000 before ISIS began attacking it in September and since then over 200,000 have fled to refugee camps over the Turkish border. If the city falls within the next 2 weeks (without intervention by ground troops that's likely) and any residents are still there they will be in extreme peril. The Turks aren't going to help them because they're Kurds and won't intervene until Turkey is attacked or the coalition can devise a plan for a coalition of ground forces where pro-Assad forces receive no support. If 50,000 or 100,000 civilians get butchered in that city when ISIS takes it over that may sway public opinion in the US and other western nations to supporting widening the scope of their involvement. A few propaganda beheading videos got people here indignant because the victims were white so hopefully the mass butchery that Kobane is on the verge of will be enough to spark interest. As rebel groups in Libya and other countries declare affiliation with ISIS I suspect some of our allies in the area will want to keep their armies close to home rather than deploy to Syria in case they're next. By the time Canada gets the 6 F-18's we're sending from Cold Lake to Kuwait they will likely be joining the other western players in attacking ISIS targets in Iraq. Should the tide of battle turn against ISIS in the coming months with increasing western involvement I would expect them to make a concentrated attack to try and re-take Mosul Dam so they have the option of blowing it and flooding everything down to and including Baghdad.

It seems we are going to move to ground attack sooner rather than later. That is the tone of the media reports this week. Britain and Canada's fighter support is token at best, perhaps a cynical public softening ploy by respective ministries of defence. Of course it's terrible to have to engage in another ME conflict, but when so many innocents are likely to be butchered (as you somewhat awkwardly put it) and an anti-Western power base in IS is solidified, there is not much option.

Who is moving to a ground attack sooner rather than later? NATO? I've been reading the news often and carefully and haven't seen this. Maybe Kobane can be completely evacuated in advance of ISIS occupation but the logistics (to where?, refugee camps are overflowing) are staggering. ISIS currently controls over half the Syria/Turkey border and if they decide to shell/raid/gas those camps the 14 or so Turkish army tanks lined up overlooking Kobane aren't likely to stop them. Despite the UN calling on the world to save Kobane the 1st priority will probably be saving Iraq because that's where US and British blood paid for the regime that's currently in peril. When choices must be made the ones that can be sold to the voters will win out.
Edit: Nothing awkward about butchery once you know how and get a little practice in.

Articles like this suggest a softening line on ground troops. Prior to this the tone was very much reassurance that US involvement would be strictly limited to air strikes.

We should send all Ebola patients to the war zones

There's an election on November 4th. Democrats aren't going to let Obama send US troops back to Iraq before then.

Because driving around the desert with an AK-47 and RPG blowing stuff up is far more exciting than pouring coffee in Starbucks with a huge student loan you can't afford to pay off.