ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

RoboCod

RoboCod

RoboCod

Soldato
Joined
19 Jun 2004
Posts
19,437
Location
On the Amiga500
It appears that the old thread has been deleted, for reasons that I am unaware (please advise otherwise, should I be incapable of using the search function correctly).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33358267

Fallon remarking that it is illogical that we are not striking ISIL locations within Syrian borders and I agree. Looks like it's down to a vote in commons so should labour be onboard it may well happen, which I believe is likely.
 
Moses said:
What could we do that couldn't be done by the states currently bombing Syria?
Click to expand...

I reckon it's just a matter of increased number of strike assets in Syrian air space. At this time we are only striking in Iraq. No point bombing the many tentacles when you can target the mind. However, innocent lives are going to be in the middle of it all no doubt..
arknor said:
They'd prefer assads regime to be replaced by ISIS than to have assads regime retake control of the country.

Same business as usual, either go to war for all the wrong reasons, or stay out of it for all the wrong reasons
Click to expand...

That really is not the mission objective.
 
What's in a name? When it comes to how to refer to the extremist group that has terrorized Syria and northern Iraq and violently imposed a caliphate, a lot.

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is a bit of a misnomer, says France, as it lends the imprimatur of Islam to a group that the vast majority of Muslims finds despicable. "This is a terrorist group and not a state. I do not recommend using the term Islamic State because it blurs the lines between Islam, Muslims, and Islamists," France's Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said in a statement. "The Arabs call it 'Daesh' and I will be calling them the 'Daesh cutthroats.'"

The name Daesh, according to France24, is a "loose acronym" for "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" (al-Dawla al-Islamiya al-Iraq al-Sham). The name is commonly used by enemies of ISIS, and it also has many negative undertones, as Daesh sounds similar to the Arabic words Daes ("one who crushes something underfoot") and Dahes ("one who sows discord").

Samantha Rollins
Click to expand...

Moreover, while Daesh may indeed be disliked by those it is used to describe, it is, in the final analysis, still simply an acronym stemming from al-Dawla al-Islamiya fil Iraq wa’al Sham, which translates as Islamic State of Iraq and Sham (Syria). The MPs who have called for its use argue that it is pejorative because it refers to “one who sows discord”, although its use in that sense appears to have come as a result of its development as an acronym, not in advance. It is, however, close to the Arabic word which transliterates as “daes”, meaning someone who crushes.
The primary reason why Daesh appears to irritate the grand and posturing leaders of the so-called Islamic State, is the fact that it reduces the grandness and splendour of the posturing name they have given to the entity they seek to rule. In short, the very fact of it being an acronym is what lies at the heart of Daesh being disagreeable to those who purport to be the creators of a new Islamic caliphate. In that respect, Isis fulfils the same function. It is also, more prosaically, by now well-known and understood by readers; and that is not a fact which should be simply ignored.
Click to expand...
It wasn't really difficult to find answers with Google, but no it must be a conspiracy instead.
 
Last edited:
albert said:
Strange how nothings done with Palestine being constantly bombarded by Israel. Obviously to us in the West it doesn't matter about all the innocent women and children who have lost their lives due to Israeli bombs.
Another thing. This minutes silence for the 33 Tunisian victim's. Totally agree it and I participated myself. However, look at the illegal Iraq war and the 500,000 innocent people we in the West killed. No minutes silence, or apology, for them.
Click to expand...


I agree to an extent, however, those innocents lost their lives as a result of collateral damage in a war zone. They were not out right murdered. More so, that figure is not attributed to the west, many if those were killed by the taliban. You should consider facts before boasting an opinion.

Why single out Israel too? Is it part of your agenda? What about hezzbolllah and all the atrocities carried out by the Palestinians? We could go on forever.
 
Amp34 said:
I love that narrative, cowards because they try and hide their vehicle form a missile? :D

What does that make western armies?:p

Ah, wait, it's propaganda... Bad guys are always cowards, good guys are always heros... Even if they do exactly the same thing.
Click to expand...

Yep, I mean it's pretty cowardly sat a few thousand miles away killing by proxy. However, they're pilots, so they kill from a distance anyway, it's what they train to do. As soon as boots are on the ground the death toll will be rising and the campaign to pull us out will commence.

Regardless of all that, I'm happy to see ISIL members be "denied"
 
Random Guy said:
Plot was lost about 9/11/2001 and then vanished down a multi-billion (trillion?) dollar rabbit hole for the last 14 years or so.

Daesh/ISIS was enabled by the Western-backed groups in Syria (well done there) and Libya is pretty much a failed state (well done again).

Western meddling in the great game plays a big part, but hey-ho, we should all be optimistic that tomorrow will be a better day right?
Click to expand...

What about the Shia government in power at the time in Baghdad when isil started rearing their ugly heads on a larger scale, yet the Shias just shrugged them off as not really a concern... Until they got within 50 miles of Baghdad and thought they actually ought to sort their own problem out. Oh look, they were too late.

Let's continue self deprecation though because that's edgy and cool.
 
The Funktopus said:
Justification issues aside, what I find unforgivable was the complete and utter lack of clear and concise objectives, and an exit strategy. Quite simply, the invasion of Iraq just wasn't thought through.

I recall a passage in a book written by Col. Tim Collins (IIRC), the then CO of the Irish Guards, who stated that during the planning of the invasion, the American general staff were solely fixated on how they'd defeat the Iraqi army. Questions from Britsh staff officers regarding 'then what?' were pretty much ignored. And the chaos of the insurgency, and now ISIS is what ensued.
Click to expand...

I think perhaps people were a bit naive to think there ever would be an "exit strategy". We never planned Iraq to be a short term affair and the US are setup with some permanent infrastructure there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom