Permabanned
- Joined
- 15 May 2006
- Posts
- 4,107
- Location
- London
OK, I can tweet your comments and find out if you like.
ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.
- Thread starter RoboCod
- Start date
OK, I can tweet your comments and find out if you like.
Relax yourself!
People in NI had that every day for years, wondering if a bomb would go off, a bomb by the side of the road for the army and also being gunned down just for being on the wrong side so to speak.
Did it worry us? Not a chance.
+1. It's the Islamist ideology that's responsible for the conflicts raging across the Middle East, whatever name you place upon it, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Al Shabab, the underlying platform is the same, Islam.
Watching the shills go at it hammer and tongs hopelessly trying to disassociate all things Islamic terrorism from Islam is most entertaining however.
Actually the underlying problem is bad Islam. something which only came to prominence after the cold war. The middle east has been ****ed for ages I grant you, it's all that lovely oil that everyone wants, especially the US.
"Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.""
—Jimmy Carter, state of the union address, Jan. 23, 1980"
Him and Reagen laid the foundation for Al-Qaeda to form through cia training, weaponising and funding(other sources too)
Reagen in 83
Can't be bothered looking for pics of ISIS because they is a bunch of dimwits but it came from an American military prison and they use/used American military hardware that was left behind to start their ******** (bulldung) Jihad. There are rules for Jihad by the way so please look them up. Islam had already spread throughout the rest of the world after its holy wars through science, culture, mathematics, trading, economics and more recently, immigration so there's no need for a "Jihad" These "muslims" are nothing more then a pmc fighting a proxy Jihad for American interests and using terrorism as a sideshow. Don't you bloody be comparing the two.
edit: Boko Haram and the like are a bunch of misled degenerates too but their name is right. Not academically, that's top notch, but social education is severely lacking.
Last edited:
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Words of wisdom from Corbyn?
Better than the attrocious comment by Cameron last night that if you don't vote for the bombing then you are a terrorist sympathiser
Better than the attrocious comment by Cameron last night that if you don't vote for the bombing then you are a terrorist sympathiser
Jeese is that line ever going to get old?
Surprised he didn't throw paedofile into the mix as well.
...and yet there are millions still alive in Paris - meaning that statistically, even in Paris, you are unlikely to be killed by a terrorist.
That's not the point of terrorism though the key bring in the name.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 15 May 2006
- Posts
- 4,107
- Location
- London
So how many bombers are the government planning to send? 350? anything less than 10 is a joke and will not make any difference to the amount that is already there and will just be a waste of public money. Money that could be spent on counter intelligence that would actually do more to protect the UK and particularly London. London after all will be the only target for any chemical weapon or mass shootings the ISIS cells in the UK already have planned, shame the government will not bomb cells already operating in the UK.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
And yet two people who escaped Bataclan were on the news this morning saying that the UK bombing ISIS in Syria isn't the solution......................
So it's not all bad news then
Let me put it a different way.
ISIS - inflicting suffering and grief on muslims (regardless of sect).
Turkey - want Assad dead, want kurds dead, want possibly to extend into Syria's borders.
Qatar - standing by and watching.
Oman - standing by and watching.
Saudi - standing by and watching.
Now the above may not be strictly true. However in a publicly physical aspect their involvement has been zero. Behind the scenes I would suspect they would be helping both sides as desired with intelligence. Question - how much is driven by the desire to cause additional friction on the Israeli border?
Fundamentally - it is easier to demonise the "crusading pagan armies" of the west, but behind the scenes help them. It's also cheaper for those states - they don't need to put hardware on the problem, or do they then have to cope with a large number of crazy retaliations of extremists. They can simply maintain the status quo by rounding up the smaller number of extremists and executing them.
Once ISIS's back is broken, the peace and the prosperity of the region is down to the religious leaders - putting a tin pot dictator in there usually has two issues: human rights abuse to maintain position with the minority support, and secondly the individual's absolute power corrupts absolutely.
ISIS are simply attempting to create a state by dispelling opposition - therefore attempting to move from the minority to the majority over time. The reality is (a) their self appointed calaeph becomes absolute power -> corrupts absolutely.. (b) the mid period sees the minority in power committing continued human rights abuses (rape, murder etc) in order to drive out the opposition to become the 'majority' and safeguard their control.
I, as an atheist, don't believe it is right to sit back an not help people being subjected to that abuse nor do I think it's the right strategy to support regimes that rule in that way - regardless if they're non-religious, christian, muslim or other.
To the point about being "advanced" in democracy. An organised religion has no democracy - you cannot simply vote each session. The only "voters" are religious leaders of sects. You change your religious leader. In the case where the organised religion has state control - this can have dire consequences where the respective leaders are not compromising. The entire family is outcasts, usually driven out of the area or country - such is the oppression to conform.
This is the reason I see organised religion an abuse. If individuals wish to believe, and form their own interpretations of their religion - great, I think that's good. Where the line is crossed is where people are dictated to, oppressed to follow a specific dogma or interpretation as "the true interpretation", the fanatics demand people to demonstrate their "belief" by following the dictations publicly, by casting out people that are friends to show the strength of their belief.
If there is an "evil" in the world it is the organised religion, the word of man packaged up as the word of a "all knowing all powerful all understanding" being. If there is one good in the world it is the free thought to be able to have or to have no religion that you personally believe. To be able to question without fear, to be able to know the "power" of your belief is equal to any other one person without being pressured by groups or fanatics - that is a democracy in a religious context.
I suppose we, here the UK, are lucky to see that for what it is - just look at the CofE and how it's created. Then look at the Vatican and look at Islam and other religions - and then finally look at non-belief. Being able to take the different perspectives I think is something that makes the UK unique.
It's interesting that a large number of islamic rich families send their kids abroad to western schools and universities - the child picks up these perspectives, as well as understanding the perspective at home, however it appears that the parents value the freedom of thinking and understand how that this can contribute to their success.
Last edited:
So fast forward 8 months and suppose ISIS have been severely crippled by our bombing campaign.
The moderates take control of ISIS areas and start to plan their final push on Damascus. How are we going to stop these moderates killing everyone who still supports Assad and the war just continuing to rage? More of the same just without the super extremists...
Russia will just step up it's bombing of the moderates to protect Assad, what will we do then?
The moderates take control of ISIS areas and start to plan their final push on Damascus. How are we going to stop these moderates killing everyone who still supports Assad and the war just continuing to rage? More of the same just without the super extremists...
Russia will just step up it's bombing of the moderates to protect Assad, what will we do then?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 15 May 2006
- Posts
- 4,107
- Location
- London
And yet two people who escaped Bataclan were on the news this morning saying that the UK bombing ISIS in Syria isn't the solution......................
So it's not all bad news then
Anyone with an once of intelligence knows that the UK bombing Syria has no chance in hell of working unless they use battlefield nukes on ISIS strong holds, but that has no chance in hell of happening as the UK government is too weak.
How many planes do you think we have?
My knowledge of planes is limited, even though I live next to the Typhoon base
, but I'm sure we don't have any specific 'bombers' just multirole attack fighters of which our entire amount in service is 131 Typhoons and 98 Tornados - and I'm sure they have got other places to be as well!We wouldn't be sending that many planes or forces out there.
Why is the number of planes relevant? It's the number of bombs dropped that hit their target.
Believe it or not, planes can fly more than once!
Everyone thinks "nukes" are a single point solution.
Setting a nuke off = radioactive pollution, causing serious land damage, collateral and human damage for hundreds of years.
Then you have the public outrage, the crazed radicalisation of those that are affected by the fallout for years after.
Does it break the back of the will? Perhaps, but in the case of ISIS that is not the will of the nation just the crazy lunatics that exist in small areas when fighting.
If you're suggesting a MOAB* (or the russian FOAB - they always want to go one better!), then you don't have the long term radiation but you still have the associated damage listed above - including the generations of affected families rather than the crazies..
Dropping a mega/kiloton grade weapon on an area is likely to cause a withdrawal of cooperation from the surrounding states.
* - there's a ground penetrating 'moab' too, only two to a B2 though..
Last edited:
It's the middle east, its got nothing of any import... Otherwise we wouldn't be using the area as our personal weapon testing ground.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2011
- Posts
- 4,418
- Location
- Cambridgeshire
By ISIS strongholds I presume you mean cities? Sounds like a wonderful idea. If we want to take it to its logical conclusion, "we'd have far fewer wars if there weren't any more people".
I support bombing as part of a larger campaign against ISIS (involving political intervention and support of existing ground troops), however I'm not sure wiping the entirety of the area off the map is a proportional response to the level of threat.
Last edited: