ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

[RoboCod]

Let me guess, you watched the first 30 seconds.
I was referring to the way they explained how the Federal reserve bank works

Come on now, it was hardly an explanation of how the Federal Reserve worked, it was a bias, anti America, pro-ISIL video.

The last few minutes were particularly entertaining, it's about time we committed ground troops to put those daeshbags down. What's with the fascination of having the equivalent of Westlife boys singing songs about heroism anyway? "For the sake of Allah we will march to gates, of the paradise where our maidens await" Amazing, but also quite saddening that people can be so brainwashed by make-believe.

 

[RoboCod]

Type How the Federal reserve bank works anywhere, YouTube for example.
Are those 100 videos+ pro IS too?

Are you pro-ISIL?

 

[RoboCod]

No, and I do not see why you think that. I am talking about the federal bank and the way it works...
All those videos on youtube mean that all those people are now pro Isil cause they bash the federal bank system?

No, that is clearly not what I'm saying. The video you posted is quite clearly pro ISIL though.

 

[RoboCod]

Part of Syria which is currently Turkey?

If it was shot in Turkish air space, it could still come down in Syria, you surely realise that?

 

[RoboCod]

Wait a second, when did Iraq get an air force? It was destroyed in the 1991 and 2003 wars lol.

*Googles*

Ahh I see, the USA sold them some F-16's and Iran loaned them some Su-25s, well thank god ISIS didn't appropriate any of them lol.





That was a Boeing 737-297, are you saying that a MIG-29 1/10th the size would do just as well?

Fighter jets do not survive missile strikes as a rule. The have been notable exceptions (like when an F-15 had a wing blown off and used it's immense thrust/speed to make it home, or that Tornado shot down in Desert Storm that controllable long enough for the pilots to eject safely) but MIG-29s are not know for their robustness.

So despite not at all likely to happen, it is in fact likely to happen (as with the examples you have yourself above). If flying at 15k+ feet it takes a considerable amount of time to come down to earth. A damaged aircraft could quite conceivably limp a fair distance back,it isn't necessarily just going to plummet to earth like a stone. Their SOP is to bin it in friendly territory, point homebound and try not to land in bad lands or built up areas.

 

[RoboCod]

I still don't get what he is arguing, seems to be off on a tangent so I'm not following what the point is now. As Rroff said, SAMS don't have to direct hit, proximity hits are enough to class as a hit.

Also the general rule of thumb is aircraft don't fly within 10nm of a border anyway, as it is expected you're going to be shot at if you do. It isn't as if it's a case of waiting till he suddenly meets that imaginary line of the country border and he's free game. If it's clear they're on a heading into opposing airspace then the opposition may very well take defensive measures. Looking at it in terms of putting ones foot over the line is a little simplistic.

 

[RoboCod]

Post makes no sense.

 

[RoboCod]

I'll try and change out all the big words for you.

You are such a depressingly dull poster.

 

[RoboCod]

"this post makes no sense" does not mean "I don't understand" and the likes of yourself are always so keen to jump in with a smart arse comment it becomes quite dire. You're in fact so hypocritical it's comical. If the West were outright carpet bombing the ME into the stone age you'd be the first to pipe up with the usual vitriol.

I think most of these posters who bleat "nanny state" would contradict themselves that way though. The fact is we have laws and conventions. We have technological ability to apply strikes with precision that means we don't have to mercilessly kill everyone,. who wants to do that anyway? I think it's clear who the people who are quite "removed" are.

Further, the fact Russia can barely land it's cruise missiles in the correct country is telling of a force that is antiquated in places.

 

[RoboCod]

It will take brutality and collateral to deal with ISIS – Russia has a higher tolerance for that than the west. The west doesn’t want to get its hands dirty, or at least not directly, so they just arm people and then look the other way.

As for Russia not attacking ISIS, they’re attacking all opposition forces to try and restore order. I doubt they’re even differentiating between them, and just hitting the best targets as they present themselves.

Arm people and look the other way? You decide to completely ignore any statistics on missions flown, ordnance dropped or ISIL tgts destroyed then?

 

[RoboCod]

Not at all, it's just that targets that fall within our acceptle range are going to be few and far between in a conflict like this.

What are those targets? What is the range?

 

[RoboCod]

Targets that involve zero collateral.

Out of all targets then, do you know how many targets we have successfully hit and then how many targets we have not successfully hit due to the restriction of our zero expectation to civcas? Bearing in mind the statement "zero expectation" and that this is the UK policy and not US policy.

Are you effectively advocating the killing of innocent people to reach the goal?

 

[RoboCod]

I know, it means "I understand your post and know it's right, but I'm gonna be rude to you because you used some grammar wrong". Hence my passive aggressive reply talking exception to your bullying indirectly.

Ah, I see, you think we're talking about grammar like I said, dull. I'm discussing context and content here. His statement makes no sense.

Nobody needs to know every last detail to know that we don’t bomb ISIS held towns and cities as the fighters and equipment are dispersed in amongst civvies, a lot of which hate ISIS as much as us.

I'm saying that's what it will take.

Actually, you need the detail, the data/statistics to back up your statements otherwise it is mere conjecture. You don't seem to be presenting any factual data so your view point shall remain to be conjecture. You clearly don't know what we do and don't do and I can tell you that you're wrong on both accounts. I think it's quite sad that some people are quite willing to accept mass casualty of innocents to achieve the goal. Again, out of touch with reality.

 

[RoboCod]

I'm starting to suspect you're a troll or some sort of Castiel wannabe.

A troll, because I disagree with you? Yes of course. You can't admit you don't know what you're talking is all.

 

[RoboCod]

We have the firepower to destroy every ISIS held city in Iraq and Syria, so why haven't we?

Because that is ludicrous. Should we bomb Moscow? How about Pyongyang? In fact I'm not sure why I'm even entertaining any discussion with you.

This is why you are sat on your computer at home not making any of these decisions.

I'm sure if you write a strongly worded letter to IS leaders saying how sad it makes you that innocent people die because they are hiding behind them or using them as human shields they'll stop doing it.

Another advocate of killing innocent people? Since when did everyone on this forum become such blood thirsty morons? What if we swapped all these local civilians with white western people, that wouldn't be ok would it I guess? Brown people are worth less yes?

 

[RoboCod]

You didn't answer the question. Why haven't we destroyed the cities held by ISIS?

Because it would be ludicrous.

 

[RoboCod]

Lets go back to my questions too, seeing as we're intent on answering questions.

Out of all targets then, do you know how many targets we have successfully hit and then how many targets we have not successfully hit due to the restriction of our zero expectation to civcas?

 

[RoboCod]

Explain why you think it's ludicrous.

No, you explain why Russia hasn't done this?

 

[RoboCod]

What war was it that only the enemy died in again? You can be as naive and ideological as you like but sooner or later you'll meet the real world where these people use innocents as human shields and it isn't black and white. If you saw al-Baghdadi come into your shop or building I'd get out, sharpish.

The level buffoonery is strong in this one.

 

[RoboCod]

You seem to be avaoiding a simple question. Could it be because the answer is...

Sorry, but you're wrong