ISIS and Islamic militants - discussion

IronWarrior said:
You look real dumb when you are kneeing on the ground with your hands tied behind your back as someone prepares to cut your head off.
Click to expand...

Yeah and some of us work and even live with people from Iraq, Iran and similar countries who just as easily could be caught in the middle of this nightmare if they weren't over here. These countries aren't exclusively populated by warmongering morons.

These IS idiots are making life hell for normal people who have families just like you and me, so nuking is an absolutely retarded idea. I don't think the Yazidis volunteered for ethnic cleansing.

EDIT: I say that openly admitting I don't like left wing pansies.
 
Last edited:
Nukes are generally quite bad.... One nuke will probably mean more. I don't particularly fancy a mini nuclear winter which would affect southern and eastern europe alongside the resulting economic disaster.

Very interesting cold war US government study for those who are interested. Goes over a few US/Russian attack scenarios. Synopsis: it's all bad and you don't want to be living in Houston.

http://atomicarchive.com/Docs/pdfs/7906.pdf
 
Last edited:
AndyT said:
Nukes are generally quite bad.... One nuke will probably mean more. I don't particularly fancy a mini nuclear winter which would affect southern and eastern europe alongside the resulting economic disaster.

Very interesting cold war US government study for those who are interested. Goes over a few US/Russian attack scenarios. Synopsis: it's all bad.

http://atomicarchive.com/Docs/pdfs/7906.pdf
Click to expand...

Do you read that date on that report? Yeah, few things have changed since then.
 
Last edited:
IronWarrior said:
Do you read that date on that report? Yeah, few things have changed since then.
Click to expand...

Eh? You've managed to completely miss the point.

You looked at the front page and that's all you could manage. I've read it, and there is no difference really in what would happen in modern times vs 1979. The dark ages in 1979 is the same as the dark ages in 2014. In fact it could arguably be worse. We are so reliant on all things electronic that the EMP blast alone from a nuclear weapon could cause utter mayhem. It's likely that a lot of people would just be wandering around without a clue what to do. People were educated on what to do during the cold war in the event it all kicked off.
 
Last edited:
AndyT said:
Eh? You've managed to completely miss the point.

You looked at the front page and that's all you could manage. I've read it, and there is no difference really in what would happen in modern times vs 1979. The dark ages in 1979 is the same as the dark ages in 2014.
Click to expand...

True, I didn't read it all, but what am denying is that there wouldn't be a Nuclear War to begin with.
 
Anyone suggesting a nuclear war needs a brain transplant.



Edit: On the other hand, sorted the evil Jap regime out a treat.

Do you know who's responsible for this?

The liberals, don't call them Pakistanis, they are Asians...

What utter nonsense.

So an English born Pakistani is a European of Asian descent? That narrows it down!

I'm from planet earth is closer to the mark.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
IronWarrior said:
True, I didn't read it all, but what am denying is that there wouldn't be a Nuclear War to begin with.
Click to expand...

The whole principle of nuclear weapons is founded on the doctrine of mutually assured destruction. In a nuclear armed world, if one side launched and the other didn't then the whole concept falls down. Non-retaliation for any nuclear-armed party is effectively not an option. If it was ever thought for a second that the other party wouldn't retaliate then nobody would care who had nukes. It's all based on game theory.

If Israel attacked an Islamic country with nuclear weapons, Pakistan and (eventually, once they secure their own) Saudi Arabia, would probably find it very hard not to fire back.
 
Last edited:
AndyT said:
The whole principle of nuclear weapons is founded on the doctrine of mutually assured destruction. In a nuclear armed world, if one side launched and the other didn't then the whole concept falls down. Non-retaliation for any party is effectively not an option. If it was ever thought for a second that the other party wouldn't retaliate then nobody would care who had nukes. It's all based on game theory.

If Israel attacked an Islamic country with nuclear weapons, Pakistan and (eventually) Saudi Arabia would probably find it very hard not to fire back.
Click to expand...

Yes, the original idea was MAD at first but is no longer true as it was back in the 60's, even the Russians see that by changing their defence policy has been to allow them to use Nuclear Weapon in small scale engagements to stop them turning into full scale actions.

This isn't War Games, where someone fires a Nuclear weapon from a silo, this is where we have tact nukes that can be fired from or dropped from aircraft and the thus explosion wouldn't set alarms off on giant computer screens.
 
Last edited:
IronWarrior said:
Yes, the original idea was MAD at first but is no longer true as it was back in the 60's, even the Russians see that by changing their defence policy has been to allow them to use Nuclear Weapon in small scale engagements to stop them turning into full scale actions.

This isn't War Games, where someone fires a Nuclear weapon from a silo, this is where we have tact nukes that can be fired from or dropped from aircraft and the thus explosion wouldn't set alarms off on giant computer screens.
Click to expand...

Agreed in the modern principle, but firing one tactical nuclear weapon at another armed nation invites a larger response (at the very least more tactical weapons than you fired at them), so the MAD principle still applies but on a smaller scale.

This isn't COD where you drop a tactical nuke and the round ends.

This nuke you want to drop - Is it a little teeny-weeny tactical one? Or do you want to drop loads of little teeny-weeny ones? If you want to "nuke" ISIS you will be nuking a lot more than just terrorists.
 
I fail to see how we can hope to defeat this scum if we have to fight with one hand tied behind our back whilst wearing an eye-patch. We are bound by rules, regulations and conventions - something they aren't. If we want to erradicate this human vermin then quite frankly we have to take the gloves off and get our hands dirty.

FoxEye said:
At this point I'm really confused as to what ISIS can hope to achieve with these executions.
Click to expand...

They're loosely following the doctrine laid out in the Management of Savagery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management_of_Savagery
 
Malevolence said:
I fail to see how we can hope to defeat this scum if we have to fight with one hand tied behind our back whilst wearing an eye-patch. We are bound by rules, regulations and conventions - something they aren't. If we want to erradicate this human vermin then quite frankly we have to take the gloves off and get our hands dirty.
Click to expand...

Sadly I tend to agree to an extent, someone is going to have to get their hands dirty if they want to deal with this.
 
FoxEye said:
None of them deserved it tho did they. It's not like he's any more or less deserving of beheading than any of the others.

At this point I'm really confused as to what ISIS can hope to achieve with these executions.

But then I guess they're called extremists for a reason.
Click to expand...

I agree. Not just this guy, but all of them died for nothing! Including what they have done and are still doing to their own people!

For some reason this guys death has really affected me! The news broke and I felt sick as a dog.

It is getting too much now and something has to be done. Sometimes I feel that the world is just one long war that never ends :(
 
FoxEye said:
At this point I'm really confused as to what ISIS can hope to achieve with these executions.
Click to expand...

Exactly what we're giving them. Deaths of muslims by foreign infidels. Ergo more recruits to the cause. Al-Nusra and IS which were bitter rivals in Syria have already put their differences aside to fight alongside each other following US airstrikes. Hell even Abu Qutada (yes, that one) was regretting the airstrikes as giving IS exactly what they want, and even he's opposed to IS.
 
Last edited:
Malevolence said:
I fail to see how we can hope to defeat this scum if we have to fight with one hand tied behind our back whilst wearing an eye-patch. We are bound by rules, regulations and conventions - something they aren't. If we want to erradicate this human vermin then quite frankly we have to take the gloves off and get our hands dirty.



They're loosely following the doctrine laid out in the Management of Savagery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management_of_Savagery
Click to expand...

Thanks for that link, info like that should be more widespread so we all understand what we're up against. They know they have a fifth column of human rights lawyers in civilised countries who hamper the government's fight against these nut jobs at every opportunity. I noted yesterday when the news of the Conservative plans for scrapping the Human Rights Act were being discussed, it was Muslim human rights lawyer after Muslim human rights lawyer who were wheeled out to criticise the plan.
 
I am not convinced myself. Too many fake news stories these days.

jJNuDFo.jpg.png
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom