ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

Lima said:
I really don't understand people such as yourself. The 2 people they killed are seen on film and in photos holding AKs with Islamic militants and you seriously think our government should have to explain and justify what it's done? Like, for reals? I bet you didn't post as much criticism of the killers in Paris, or lee rigbys murderers.

Sometimes I really do wonder what side some people are on.
Click to expand...

He already accepted that they were in a lawless region where our government couldn't get at them. So I ask him and those that oppose the decision, what would they have done in the position of power?

RDM said:
I find it really hard to care too much about this to be honest.

Joined a foreign military we are actively fighting against, plotting attacks against the UK, in an effectively stateless part of the world, they seem to me to be legitimate targets and the sort of people we should be targeting.
Click to expand...

Yup, they were 100% Legitimate.
 
satchef1 said:
Yes and no.

It really depends on whether this was an isolated incident, or something that is going to happen regularly. Some people are massively overreacting, sure. Parliament was in recess, a decision had to be made.

However, at the same time, the Prime Minister did authorise military action in Syria a year after Parliament told him not to. If it's likely to happen again in the near future then he really should be asking Parliament for permission. It wouldn't be acceptable to repeatedly go against its wishes.

By and large nobody is hugely bothered about this one incident. It's the potential for more that has people's backs up.
Click to expand...

Which is illogical, most have already said it is ludicrous that we can attack ISIL grunts in Iraq yet cannot strike their C2 nodes in Syria. Time to change policy and not blink an eyelid when this happens again.
 
Yeah there are numerous people who head over to support the Kurdish Peshmerga and fight alongside. I'm not sure what to make of it but it's dangerous and they are brave. For starters you're not quite sure you're being duped and lured into ISIL hands until you get there.
 
joeyjojo said:
UK drone strikes subject to legal challenge by Greens



Well done them I say.
Click to expand...

What a waste of time and money. Do you know what will happen in this case? Questions will be asked such as "how did you target these people?" and "how was the intelligence gathered?" and the response will be "I can't answer that".

The conclusion of the whole case will be, these were bad people, plotting bad things against the UK and it's people. It was for the safety of the UK people that these men were killed as there was no other feasible solution to remove the threat.

Bookmark this comment, come back to it months later when the money and time has been wasted.

Green party, what a bunch of absolute **** tards.
 
The government didn't fail to form policy, it must have had policy in place to carry out military action. It can't publish the policy because it will have been protectively classified. The whole point of classifying documentation is to restrict the number of people that have eyes on that information. If the information was made available, the targets would have found out and avoided prosecution.

If these people were killed in exactly the same way, but in Iraq, it would be a none story. Why? Because that happens regularly anyway!
 
Last edited:
shadow_boxer said:
Negotiating with Assad is going to be key. Without him and his regime ISIS would control even larger areas in the region.The Russians and Iranians need to come to the table to convince him to accept support to take on ISIS, who that might be from, and convince the US to arm him. In an ideal world he'd then step down but I don't see that happening in the near future, why would he after he's fought to get his county back.
Click to expand...

He has Russian aircraft based at his airfields. How much more can he show acceptance of support? :p

I don't think negotiation with Assad is key, he's a small player in the whole matter. Negotiation with Russia on the other hand, would be massive.
 
ak22 said:
Russian parliament unanimously approves use of military in Syria to fight ISIS.

About time :)
Click to expand...

Approves use of military to fight ISIL, yet fights "enemies of Assad" instead. It's all in the detail ;)

Russia simply looking after their own interests, which is understandable. Got to love the media hysteria though, it isn't really all like that.
 
ubersonic said:
The USA wants to effect regime change in Syria, and destroy ISIS/ISIL (which was created by the USA effecting regime change in Iraq/Libya) Have they learned nothing?

Oh wait, they are also getting angsty about Russia backing up the Syrian government against the rebels groups the USA are backing (which includes Al-Qaeda), similar to how Russia backed up Afghanistan's government in the 1980's against US backed islamic extremists (which later became Al-Qaeda/Taliban), that eventually defeated Russia before turning on the USA.

Yes, yes they have learned nothing...
Click to expand...

The USA are getting angsty about Russia backing the Syrian government? Please do divulge more!
 
ubersonic said:
Actually it is, Russia and Iran are the only countries bombing Syrian land and flying in Syrian airspace with the permission of Syria. All other countries are doing so in breach of international law.

After Obama announced he was going to start bombing Syrian targets Russia and Syria released statements that U.S intervention against ISIL in Syria "without the consent of the legitimate government", "in the absence of a UN Security Council decision, would be an act of aggression, a gross violation of international law" and "any action of any kind without the consent of the Syrian government would be an attack on Syria".
Click to expand...

Ok I'll bite. Whilst not strictly legal, the strikes are legitimate and justified. The strikes have been happening for the best part of a year, the Russians have only just turned up and doing the same thing – bombing positions in Syria. So whilst you may bleat on with your pro-Russian/anti-West personal campaign (that no one outside of your world cares about) the point of legality is pretty much moot. In fact it’s absolutely ludicrous that you are going to attempt to bring up morality when the people the US are bombing are the people decapitating innocents on TV in the name of a god.

Other peoples so called political agenda…I despair.
 
FoxEye said:
Well they seem pretty upset. They accused Russia of prolonging the war by intervening on Assad's side. They don't want Russia to attack non-ISIS targets who are also opposed to Assad.

At least that's what they're saying in public. Whether their real intentions match their public statements is another matter.
Click to expand...

Where did you read that?
 
ubersonic said:
I'm not pro-Russian, I'm unbiased, I don't think ANYONE should be blowing stuff up in Syria but Syrians, I just appear pro-Russian from an anti-Russian viewpoint.




So far this year US ally Saudi Arabia has decapitated twice as many "infidels" as ISIS, yet the US don't seem to care about that, funny eh?
Click to expand...

You think Assad could have done the job?
 
ubersonic said:
Yes, if it hadn't been for western intervention then the rebels would have been done with before ISIS arrived on the scene and a strong Syrian army would have been more than a match for them just as it was the rebels.
Click to expand...

So Assad, who could not quash a civilian uprising in his own nearby cities, could have swept aside a fanatical terrorist group littered with seasoned fighters and equipment? Out of interest, would you deem yourself to be well placed to make such analysis?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom