ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

That is a much more complicated story - even without our input there are huge factional issues across the middle east and Syria was a problem waiting to happen - there was no way all the different elements that ended up there could have been reconciled. I can't remember the exact figures but a fairly moderate proportion of the population there ended up there as refugees in the first place.

Then let them happen why wade in and paint ourselves a target?

Isis is goading the west to attack them, this was apparent since they killed the first American hostage. It didn't gain them anything but missiles.

Missiles that took lives, more fuel for there cause.
 
They had plenty of intentions regardless of ability and until recently ISIS didn't really have the ability to attack the west directly either that was mostly the preserve of AQ.

They were fighting the northern alliance, they left Osama and his men alone to do what they want they might have paid lip service to him but intentional jihad was not there sole purpose to exist.

Yes with the mess in Iraq ( thanks to you know who) and the supporting of rebels in Syria we created a perfect ground for isis to exploit.
 
What's wrong with nuclear weapons? :confused:

I just see them as penicillin against ISIS. :p

Are you trolling now or no personal insults, even disguising them as a question. Thank you.

One thing needs to be clear, bombing Syria in any form is not likely to eradicate terrorist attempts in the UK. The biggest threat to our nation comes from radicalised British citizens. If anything, the inevitable death of civilians that comes from bombing will increase the likelihood of home grown attacks. The most important thing for us is the continued improvement of security in the UK.

ISIS are not the most difficult problem we face. Removing them from existence should be relatively easy with or without UK help. The only reason I see for us to get involved with Syria is diplomatic obligation.

It is once they are gone when things are likely to get more difficult. Russia is a strong ally of Assad and we are very anti-Assad. At the moment, we are more anti-ISIS than anti-Assad so that problem is not yet as detrimental as it could be once the nations involved in the war against ISIS have finished their first objective. There is going to be a lot of heated discussion between those nations about how Syria rebuilds once ISIS is gone, with several of them having seriously conflicting interests.

There is also the problem of Turkey. They don't want ISIS to be destroyed for a number of reasons including them being a source of cheap oil.
 
Are you trolling now or ...?

One thing needs to be clear, bombing Syria in any form is not likely to eradicate terrorist attempts in the UK. The biggest threat to our nation comes from radicalised British citizens. If anything, the inevitable death of civilians that comes from bombing will increase the likelihood of home grown attacks. The most important thing for us is the continued improvement of security in the UK.

ISIS are not the most difficult problem we face. Removing them from existence should be relatively easy with or without UK help. The only reason I see for us to get involved with Syria is diplomatic obligation.

It is once they are gone when things are likely to get more difficult. Russia is a strong ally of Assad and we are very anti-Assad. At the moment, we are more anti-ISIS than anti-Assad so that problem is not yet as detrimental as it could be once the nations involved in the war against ISIS have finished their first objective. There is going to be a lot of heated discussion between those nations about how Syria rebuilds once ISIS is gone, with several of them having seriously conflicting interests.

There is also the problem of Turkey. They don't want ISIS to be destroyed for a number of reasons including them being a source of cheap oil.

Sort of trolling! :D As I know what the real problem is. ;) You might think it's a worthy cause but remember the rule against trolling. Thank you.

But keeping stump and away from suspension and thread lock.
 
I'm not suggesting he spoke to anyone to arrive at that conclusion. I agree if he did there's a risk of bias, but a lot of it read simply as am observation rather than an interview of specific individuals.

So he went there, didn't speak to anyone and jumps to those conclusions :rolleyes:
 
Excellent, another positive step in excluding the ISIS sleeper cells from Western lands, Canada rumoured to be turning away single fighting age men in their refugee resettlement plan from December 1st.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/23/canada-syrian-refugee-resettlement-plan-no-single-men

Get ready for the loony ******* response, I predict :

THIS IS SO RACIIIIIIIIIIIIIST!
NAZISSSSS!

Quebec premier Philippe Couillard seemed to corroborate that report ahead of a meeting with Trudeau and Canada’s provincial leaders where the refugee plan was high on the agenda.

“All these refugees are vulnerable but some are more vulnerable than others – for example, women, families and also members of religious minorities who are oppressed,” he said, although he rejected the notion of “exclusion” of single men.
 
Excellent, another positive step in excluding the ISIS sleeper cells from Western lands, Canada rumoured to be turning away single fighting age men in their refugee resettlement plan from December 1st.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/23/canada-syrian-refugee-resettlement-plan-no-single-men

Get ready for the loony ******* response, I predict :

THIS IS SO RACIIIIIIIIIIIIIST!
NAZISSSSS!

You do no that Canada's PM Justin Trudeau is one of the most Liberal Western leaders on the planet? Makes you look a bit silly when you accuse opponents of being liberal retards, when its the liberals doing it.
 
So he went there, didn't speak to anyone and jumps to those conclusions :rolleyes:

Even if that were true, it would still be more valid that most of the conclusions jumped to by people here who have no first hand experience whatsoever.

But it's okay, you've successfully and fully discredited the source by using the rolleyes smiley. I humbly accept the article is utterly worthless as a source, and shall instead revert to the opinion that more air strikes are effective because everyone here said they are definitely having a net detrimental effect on ISIS. Carry on.
 
Bombing will strengthen them, just watch you'll see.

What have we achieved in fifteen years of the war on terror? We've gone from a few groups of small terrorists hiding in the mountains to terrorists controlling whole swaths of land big enough to be a country.

Hundreds of thousands of civilians have been killed, do you think when a bomb kills a family that there relatives will care it was a accident?

That's where all the terrorists are coming from.

And were just creating tonnes more, unlike the poor folk in them countries we actually have great education systems and strong justice with economic stability.

What's our response to Paris attacks, more bombing?!

Our politicians really are pathetic, stupid and impotent. We're just heading for more bloodshed.

When the bombings don't work we'll end up sending armies and walk into the trap isis has set.
OK, so if we don't do nothing, you can't complain when the government want to snoop everything. We need to protect ourselves, if we aren't taking it to them, then we have to be able to protect against them when they take it to us, because they won't just sit in their land doing nothing.
 
Then let them happen why wade in and paint ourselves a target?

Isis is goading the west to attack them, this was apparent since they killed the first American hostage. It didn't gain them anything but missiles.

Missiles that took lives, more fuel for there cause.

The only alternative anyone can seem to offer for the situation is to simply do nothing. For some reason I think that isn't going to work.
 
Guess you have to consider the alliance aspect at that point. If we end up going to war in the future "well you didnt help us last time".

oh you mean because we got helped so much in the past :D half these allies don't even support our Falklands claim?

we are not going to war anyway as long as we have nukes and trident no one is attacking


because they won't just sit in their land doing nothing.
Maybe dave should have thought about that when he let all the refugees start coming over or when brits want to flee to syria and he stops them, oh wait, he probably did... can strip our rights and privacy away a little and use the public's irrational fear of terrorist attacks.
 
Last edited:
I went out for a night in Birningham last night - lads mega lash wheeeeeeeey. Lads.

Anyway, on my travels our taxi passed a mosque - it was completely covered in lights showing the French flag.
 
I went out for a night in Birningham last night - lads mega lash wheeeeeeeey. Lads.

Anyway, on my travels our taxi passed a mosque - it was completely covered in lights showing the French flag.

Love a good night in Birmingham :)

That's a nice touch by the mosque.
 
Back
Top Bottom