ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

[balky12]

"He (the Prophet) also went on to describe terrorist groups such as ISIS that would try to hijack the Islamic faith. At this time of dissension, he said there would appear "a group of young people who would be immature in thought and foolish." They would speak beautiful words but commit the most heinous of deeds. They would engage in so much prayer and fasting that the worship of the Muslims would appear insignificant in comparison. They would call people to the Quran but would have nothing to do with it in reality. The Quran would not go beyond their throats, meaning they wouldn't understand its essence at all, merely regurgitating it selectively. The Prophet then went on to describe these people as "the worst of the creation.""

I'm not too clued up on the whole Islamic/ Muslim faith thing. What I took from that though, seeing as it is a prophecy, is that the religion is destined to fail, or at least always breed bad eggs (Seeing as it has been prophesised.)

 

[Randomface74]

I know we easily could. I'm questioning the idea that we see targets we can't hit... when I thought we only had offensive aircraft operating in Iraq.

I think it's to do with targets crossing the border and not being able to follow them.

 

[agnes]

Hold on... Why has Russell Brand called it bul****? What's his reasoning?

 

[Xordium]

Brand is beyond contempt for me. He's said some stupid ****, but that is bang out of order.

Agreed.

 

[RoboCod]

Presumably sometimes we see a target and want to bomb it, but can't - and for no good reason. It's a no-brainer really, until the BBC put it on the front page.

Exactly that.

Do we have assets over Syria which are capable of delivering munitions?

Yes.

 

[Amp34]

Champagne socialist Russell Brand has called Fridays one minute silence total bulls**t.

It's a political decision with little to do with the victims.

 

[Amp34]

The mission objective is.

No bombing in syria if the assad regime may benefit from t.

it's not even secret they've openly told us


You may remember me from such threads as the libya thread saying how it was wrong to bomb gaddafi

Didn't need hindsight then and don't now.

Just because we disagree with another countries rulers doesn't mean we should sit back and refuse to bomb isis incase it benefits those rulers.

It's not assad and his cronies making peoples lives a misery it's the terrorist uprising.

you know those moderate muslims we gave supplies too, the ones that later pledged allegiance to ISIS

You may also remember me from the syria thread posting all the articles about how ISIS were taking all the oil refineries and factories from the so called "rebels" without any fights taking place, and also posting the news articles about the joint missions the "rebels" were doing with the terrorist groups.

doesn't take a genius to figure this stuff out just an open mind and no grudges held against a countries leader because omg they aren't a democracy

Doesn't seem to matter when it comes to some other countries with disgusting human rights and no democracy like saudi arabia.

want to trade with saudi arabia ? https://www.gov.uk/government/world/organisations/uk-trade-investment-saudi-arabia
don't worry our embassy will help you


did gaddafi and assad pee in someones corn flakes?

I totally agree with you regarding the idiocy of the attacks of Libya and Syria, I'd also as Iraq into it. They were massive "mistakes" that were obvious from the start (see threads on here for my input on that, along with the millions that marched before the Iraq war)... On the other hand we should get more involved with helping to clean up our mess in the Middle East. We should potentially start sending I the troops and working with the governments of both countries to push ISIS back.

That said, if we do we should be honest in what will happen. If we attack them they will ramp up attacks on us. There will be deaths on both sides unfortunately and I'm sure it will cause bombings and killings of westerners around the world because of if, along with the deaths of innocent Iraqis and Syrians, unfortunately that is the nature of war.

 

[scorza]

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.

Don't really see the point of airstrikes against Islamic State in Syria, unless you were going to take punitive action like firebombing Raqqa but I guess we won't do that.

 

[Ricochet J]

Will airstrikes on Syria involve Typhoons or Eurofighters operating from our Cyrpus base?

 

[sven256]

Lets be honest ISIS are dead in the water.

They are losing ground everywhere and are resulting to desperate suicide missions. It's more their ideology that needs to be worried about also the other groups who are now seemingly being painted as more moderate by the media who in reality are just as bad.

 

[arknor]

We should potentially start sending I the troops and working with the governments of both countries to push ISIS back.

the oppressed muslins our troops would be sent to aid don't want our help and it would likely push more people towards isis.

the don't trust the west

They are losing ground everywhere

Not in syria they aren't
in iraq are they really? look at the maps
in libya they are gaining ground as well as other parts of africa

 

[wildman]

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

how do you actually go to war with a nationless mobile army ? Unless you mean go to war with Syria and every other middle east country that has IS pockets and turn the entire region to glass ??

What needs to happen is that the so called tin pot dictators in these countries should go hell for leather against IS even if it means literally gassing entire regions. The west should keep it's so called "civilised beaks" out and let all the Ghengis Khan's get on with taking each other out. Western destabilisation of the entire region has lead us to where we are today with these fanatic nutjobs..........

 

[sven256]

the oppressed muslins our troops would be sent to aid don't want our help and it would likely push more people towards isis.

the don't trust the west


Not in syria they aren't
in iraq are they really? look at the maps
in libya they are gaining ground as well as other parts of africa

They are losing far more ground in Syria than anywhere else. They are getting beaten back in the west by al-islam and al nusrats, from the north by the YPG and in the south the NDF and SAA are beginning to push back.

The maps are irrelevant to some degree. They always show certain factions with masses of land, When i reality all they are controlling is 2 sheep and a goat as no one is living there.

As as for Lybia as stated these are not a part of ISIS, its more like people sharing their ideology then stating they are linking with them. These are also in very small numbers in comparison.

 

[Johno please?]

Western destabilisation of the entire region has lead us to where we are today with these fanatic nutjobs..........

lol at people who think the region was stable before we intervened, people keep saying this crap and its still crap everytime its posted.

 

[scorza]

I totally agree with you regarding the idiocy of the attacks of Libya and Syria, I'd also as Iraq into it.

Then you also have to include Bosnia and Kosovo imo - we should have let the Serbs ethnically cleanse these areas rather than let them become hotbeds of jihadism.

 

[Amp34]

the oppressed muslins our troops would be sent to aid don't want our help and it would likely push more people towards isis.

the don't trust the west


Not in syria they aren't
in iraq are they really? look at the maps
in libya they are gaining ground as well as other parts of africa

That's why we need to work with the national leaders and alongside what's left of the national army. Rather than going in as invaders we need to work together with the country. We didn't do that last time (in fact the polar opposite).

I wouldn't anticipate a column of armour on its own going on the rampage, rather a few vehicles and platoons fighting alongside (or in) Iraqi units, so showing a united front.

 

[Amp34]

Then you also have to include Bosnia and Kosovo imo - we should have let the Serbs ethnically cleanse these areas rather than let them become hotbeds of jihadism.

So do you believe we were still right to attack Iraq and Libya, and that we are not at least a (fairly major) part of the reason these countries are in the state they are in now?

Also, do you have any evidence of the rampant jihadistm in Serbia? I must have missed that when I was there last year... Or is a bit like your no go areas in the UK?

 

[Von Smallhausen]

Champagne socialist Russell Brand has called Fridays one minute silence total ********.

Anything to get some attention. It's disrespectful to the dead at the very least.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

Will airstrikes on Syria involve Typhoons or Eurofighters operating from our Cyrpus base?

Possibly but I'd have thought Saudi would allow strikes from its bases.

 

[ThestigGT999]

ISIS attack in Tunisia, lets bomb them in syria (or bomb Assad) and not bomb them in libya Great logic

/S