ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

facebook newsfeed still crazy today... apparently ISIS isn't just a Jewish conspiracy any more but it was created by the US.

Kenyan flags are still there - for a bombing that happened months ago, its like alternative and stuff, man. Facebook has enable the safety check for Nigeria but they're still 'eurocentric' and 'racist' etc...

One former female collage who is very into animals and was quiet re: the attacks themselves has now gone bat**** crazy over the police dog being killed - ISIS are now the biggest scumbags ever!
 
dowie said:
facebook newsfeed still crazy today... apparently ISIS isn't just a Jewish conspiracy any more but it was created by the US.

Kenyan flags are still there - for a bombing that happened months ago, its like alternative and stuff, man. Facebook has enable the safety check for Nigeria but they're still 'eurocentric' and 'racist' etc...

One former female collage who is very into animals and was quiet re: the attacks themselves has now gone bat**** crazy over the police dog being killed - ISIS are now the biggest scumbags ever!
Click to expand...

I studied an arts subject at a London university yet even my Facebook friends -including more than one Guardian blogger so you know the level we're talking about - can't compete with that level of nonsense. Where did you find these people?!
 
dowie said:
facebook newsfeed still crazy today... apparently ISIS isn't just a Jewish conspiracy any more but it was created by the US.


One former female collage who is very into animals and was quiet re: the attacks themselves has now gone bat**** crazy over the police dog being killed - ISIS are now the biggest scumbags ever!
Click to expand...

hahaha everythings the jews fault these days.

Im glad I don't have anyone spouting that crap on my friends list, arguments would ensue.

Dj_Jestar said:
Obviously you aren't aware that ISIS literally did start in camp Bucca - a US internment camp where many people were taken from the streets of Iraq and kept, without trial, in harsh conditions, for very long periods.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/11/-sp-isis-the-inside-story
Click to expand...

gahhh details :) Their ideology and goals are the same.
 
dowie said:
well there was at least one CIA agent who helped track him down and he is currently in prison in Pakistan....
Click to expand...

This is what I don't understand. The CIA have brilliant people (read up on SAD/SOG) who should be absolutely ideal for finding the ISIS leadership on the ground and taking them out, gathering intel, recruiting informants, etc, etc, while keeping civilian casualties to a minimum. Airstrikes are a waste of time and are just counter-productive. Forget about the 30,000 ISIS "soldiers" - concentrate on the "brains" of the group and cause discontent and infighting within the rest. Surely a surgical approach is what we need? The Bin Laden take-down being the perfect example - CIA SF tracked him down and gathered intel, called in SEALS to take him out. They didn't just drop a bomb on his compound precisely because there would have been too much collateral damage. Why not do more of that? :confused:
 
Curio said:
This is what I don't understand. The CIA have brilliant people (read up on SAD/SOG) who should be absolutely ideal for finding the ISIS leadership on the ground and taking them out, gathering intel, recruiting informants, etc, etc, while keeping civilian casualties to a minimum. Airstrikes are a waste of time and are just counter-productive. Forget about the 30,000 ISIS "soldiers" - concentrate on the "brains" of the group and cause discontent and infighting within the rest. Surely a surgical approach is what we need? The Bin Laden take-down being the perfect example - CIA SF tracked him down and gathered intel, called in SEALS to take him out. They didn't just drop a bomb on his compound precisely because there would have been too much collateral damage. Why not do more of that? :confused:
Click to expand...

I think the problem is you've got some people behind the organising of ISIS who are smart enough to make it difficult to get to them directly and difficult to pin down ISIS into an open fight that would eradicate them - so yes to really render them ineffective surgical removal (whether that is killing, catching or isolating them) is necessary but also not so easy as they've learnt from the days of Bin Laden, etc.
 
Curio said:
This is what I don't understand. The CIA have brilliant people (read up on SAD/SOG) who should be absolutely ideal for finding the ISIS leadership on the ground and taking them out, gathering intel, recruiting informants, etc, etc, while keeping civilian casualties to a minimum. Airstrikes are a waste of time and are just counter-productive. Forget about the 30,000 ISIS "soldiers" - concentrate on the "brains" of the group and cause discontent and infighting within the rest. Surely a surgical approach is what we need? The Bin Laden take-down being the perfect example - CIA SF tracked him down and gathered intel, called in SEALS to take him out. They didn't just drop a bomb on his compound precisely because there would have been too much collateral damage. Why not do more of that? :confused:
Click to expand...

Because its risky - lose a chinny and you just lost 40 sf in one go, (ala 2011) you need rescue PJ helis, blocking forces (like rangers or sfsg), air cover, intel etc etc

it takes patrols, interrogations, meetings, signal intel, recon, forensics, raids etc to generate targets for more raids

To do all that you need many people on the ground (like Afghanistan / Iraq deployments) - which there is little appetite for
 
Last edited:
gettothechopper said:
Because its risky - lose a chinny and you just lost 40 sf in one go, (ala 2011) you need rescue PJ helis, blocking forces (like rangers or sfsg), air cover, intel etc etc

it takes patrols, interrogations, meetings, signal intel, recon, forensics, raids etc to generate targets for more raids

To do all that you need many people on the ground (like Afghanistan / Iraq deployments) - which there is little appetite for
Click to expand...

They didn't need any of that for the Bin Laden raid, AFAIK.
 
gettothechopper said:
Yep - and it was bloody risky! They deliberated about doing it for weeks, luckily bin laden stayed put - and clearly he was worth the risk for the usa - something not true in Syria
Click to expand...

Well, I dunno, but it still strikes me as a better option than dropping bombs. Sure it's risky (they're soldiers), but I'm sure they would get more worthwhile targets and not create a bunch more extremists by blowing random people up in the process. At the end of the day, these forces are trained to be the best and take the greatest risks. Goes with the territory.
 
One More Solo said:
I studied an arts subject at a London university yet even my Facebook friends -including more than one Guardian blogger so you know the level we're talking about - can't compete with that level of nonsense. Where did you find these people?!
Click to expand...

few (East London) muslim ex-colleagues from a tech firm who seem to think everything is a jewish conspiracy, one carribean guy who is massively into alternative black history (black africans were the true Egyptians apparently) and some HR girl who is into her animals...
 
dowie said:
few (East London) muslim ex-colleagues from a tech firm who seem to think everything is a jewish conspiracy, one carribean guy who is massively into alternative black history (black africans were the true Egyptians apparently) and some HR girl who is into her animals...
Click to expand...

I was gonna clear out my friends list but it doesn't seem so bad now. :p
 
well I did have one person posting EDL/Britian First memes too but a whole bunch of people have got him to shut up now...

you can't, as a white person, really tell a Caribbean person to STFU about the true Israelites being black Africans etc.. or posting a Kenyan flag in response to people posting the 'colonial oppressor' flag.
 
Curio said:
This is what I don't understand. The CIA have brilliant people (read up on SAD/SOG) who should be absolutely ideal for finding the ISIS leadership on the ground and taking them out, gathering intel, recruiting informants, etc, etc, while keeping civilian casualties to a minimum. Airstrikes are a waste of time and are just counter-productive. Forget about the 30,000 ISIS "soldiers" - concentrate on the "brains" of the group and cause discontent and infighting within the rest. Surely a surgical approach is what we need? The Bin Laden take-down being the perfect example - CIA SF tracked him down and gathered intel, called in SEALS to take him out. They didn't just drop a bomb on his compound precisely because there would have been too much collateral damage. Why not do more of that? :confused:
Click to expand...

I don't think it was for collateral damage reasons, they just needed to know that they had their man. The Pakistan authorities couldn't be trusted to provide them with that info hence they effectively invaded the country instead.
 
Well they believed that elements of Pakistani armed forces/Intelligence services were colluding with him and helping to keep him safe in the first place.

It doesn't send out a good message when the CIA agent who helped capture him is still in a Pakistani prison.
 
jonneymendoza said:
watch this:

http://www.mensxp.com/special-featu...ted-and-you-d-hate-usa-after-watching-it.html

Basically The americans are the main culprits of the rise of ISIS by them leaving all there weaponised vehicles in Iraq from the previous civil war and supplying ISIS with other weapons!
Click to expand...

I think you will find that those weapons and vehicles were left in the hands of the new Iraqi army. The army that turned tail and ran at the first sight of ISIS. Abandoning all their weapons and equipment in the process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom