ISIS are pure evil.

Playboy

Ignorant etc. wrote: »

Here we return to the age-old phenomena of anti-semitism. Jewish suffering is to be downplayed, sure what harm would a Hamas-missile do to an Israeli anyway :rolleyes:? And we must play up the suffering of Palestinians and Iraqis because they are Muslim.

Tell me the death tolls of both Israeli citizens and Palestinians over the last couple of decades. Then rethink your comment because it is very obvious which side has suffered more is continuing to suffer.

FifaPlaya

irish gent wrote: »

Yes but you know The USA and uk backed ISIS at one time weird !!

They were once part of the muhajideen once fighting the soviets in afghanistan

humanji

Ignorant etc. wrote: »

Yeah, and there was no link between Mussolini and Hitler, no link between the UVF and UDA and no link between the provos and the Real IRA... jog on.

The thread is not about Israel, Gaza or Hamas. Stick to the topic.

comongethappy

FifaPlaya wrote: »

They were once part of the muhajideen once fighting the soviets in afghanistan

Maybe their dads were?
That was along time ago..... & I'm pretty sure ISIS wasn't born out of Pashtun/Afghani people.

I thought they were from Arabia in their origin?

FifaPlaya

comongethappy wrote: »

Maybe their dads were?
That was along time ago..... & I'm pretty sure ISIS wasn't born out of Pashtun/Afghani people.

I thought they were from Arabia in their origin?

The muhajideen wern't pushtoon but foreign fighter which the us gov hired as mercineries

chicken foot

Ignorant, history will tell the story, I hope you are still alive and able to see how wrong you are. You've just condoned the slaughter of children, you "pal", are as sick in the head as an ISIS supporter.

I can honestly, hand on heart say that I categorically condemn the killing of innocents on both sides of the divide, Hamas & IDF casualties are to be expected. The reason for the huge support for Gaza is because of the unmistakable and undeniable fact that they are suffering catastrophically compared to Israels "3" civilian deaths!

Go now and rot in your opinion as you wade through the blood of babies, you are one disturbed individual!

Ignorant etc.

chicken foot wrote: »

Ignorant, history will tell the story, I hope you are still alive and able to see how wrong you are. You've just condoned the slaughter of children, you "pal", are as sick in the head as an ISIS supporter.

I can honestly, hand on heart say that I categorically condemn the killing of innocents on both sides of the divide, Hamas & IDF casualties are to be expected. The reason for the huge support for Gaza is because of the unmistakable and undeniable fact that they are suffering catastrophically compared to Israels "3" civilian deaths!

Go now and rot in your opinion as you wade through the blood of babies, you are one disturbed individual!

They drew first blood.

Anyway, back on topic. I really worry about what a US invasion would do. The most recent US invasion got rid of Hussein, admittedly a monster but how much do America wish they still had him now and gave this golden opportunity to ISIS. What would another invasion give fruit to?

SEPT 23 1989

Ignorant etc. wrote: »

They drew first blood.

Anyway, back on topic. I really worry about what a US invasion would do. The most recent US invasion got rid of Hussein, admittedly a monster but how much do America wish they still had him now and gave this golden opportunity to ISIS. What would another invasion give fruit to?

I would like the west to take the gloves off for the first time since WW2,no bullsh1t about having to be fired upon to fire back etc,if they get reports of ISIS fighters in an area level the place

comongethappy

Ignorant etc. wrote: »

The most recent US invasion got rid of Hussein, admittedly a monster but how much do America wish they still had him now and gave this golden opportunity to ISIS.

Is it false revisionism to assume Sadam would have resisted ISIS any better?

Was the Saddam Iraqi army any more competent than the current crop?
In leadership, command & control, equipment & moral they were terrible.

Had he remained untouched, Saddam would be 76 today.... He may well have been dead naturally anyway?
What chance would his categorically insane sons had in destroying ISIS?

Its worth considering also the many who would flock to the ISIS banner to overthrow the Hussein dynasty.

I'm probably wrong, but I don't think Sadam today would have fared much better than the Maliki administration.

pablomakaveli

comongethappy wrote: »

Is it false revisionism to assume Sadam would have resisted ISIS any better?

Was the Saddam Iraqi army any more competent than the current crop?
In leadership, command & control, equipment & moral they were terrible.

Had he remained untouched, Saddam would be 76 today.... He may well have been dead naturally anyway?
What chance would his categorically insane sons had in destroying ISIS?

Its worth considering also the many who would flock to the ISIS banner to overthrow the Hussein dynasty.

I'm probably wrong, but I don't think Sadam today would have fared much better than the Maliki adminise.

Saddam was Sunni and Iraq under him was Sunni dominated so ISIS would struggle to get a foothold. The only reason they have managed to do so now is because under Maliki Iraq has become the opposite with Shias dominating which gave ISIS their support amongst Iraqi Sunnis.

Ignorant etc.

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

I would like the west to take the gloves off for the first time since WW2,no bullsh1t about having to be fired upon to fire back etc,if they get reports of ISIS fighters in an area level the place

You can't just level the place, that would make us in the West as bad as ISIS because it would just cause an overwhelming genocide. It would also solve nothing. The Christians (and any other peoples that stand in their way) who are victims of ISIS would be wiped out as well. Likewise, peaceful Muslims who will also likewise sooner or later come under ISIS' path of destruction. It would also send shockwaves around the world and could well give rise to other terror groups, perhaps even worse than ISIS.

comongethappy wrote: »

Is it false revisionism to assume Sadam would have resisted ISIS any better?

Was the Saddam Iraqi army any more competent than the current crop?
In leadership, command & control, equipment & moral they were terrible.

Had he remained untouched, Saddam would be 76 today.... He may well have been dead naturally anyway?
What chance would his categorically insane sons had in destroying ISIS?

Its worth considering also the many who would flock to the ISIS banner to overthrow the Hussein dynasty.

I'm probably wrong, but I don't think Sadam today would have fared much better than the Maliki adminise.

I think Hussein kept the problems we see now in Iraq under control though. Morally he was absolutely redundant, but I do wonder how many militants who now make up ISIS celebrated the day he died. With Hussein, the threat was limited, incursions into Kuwait and so on, with ISIS it looks possible that we are heading for another world war but against an enemy even more dangerous than Hitler's Germany.

unseenfootage

comongethappy wrote: »

Is it false revisionism to assume Sadam would have resisted ISIS any better?

Was the Saddam Iraqi army any more competent than the current crop?
In leadership, command & control, equipment & moral they were terrible.

Had he remained untouched, Saddam would be 76 today.... He may well have been dead naturally anyway?
What chance would his categorically insane sons had in destroying ISIS?

Its worth considering also the many who would flock to the ISIS banner to overthrow the Hussein dynasty.

I'm probably wrong, but I don't think Sadam today would have fared much better than the Maliki administration.

As tyrannical as Saddam was he kept everyone in check.


AQI/ISI was formed as a direct result of the illegitimate invasion by the America and the coalition of the willing.

I think it is safe to conclude that had America confined their operations to Afghanistan alone, the Middle East would have been a much safer place today. The Syrian revolution would have died down in it's infancy since much of the jihadist activity has been influenced by the then ISI who made inroads into Syria a few years ago.

Minjor

conorhal wrote: »

I would have hoped that basic decency would not have allowed it. When did it become acceptible to post snuff? I think we all understand that an innocent man met a grusome end without having to watch it. I'm baffled that youtube mainstream snuff and anybody would give a creeps like these headchopper scum the oxygen of publicity needs to think agan because they are only doing exactly what IS want, propagating their propaganda.

I wasn't talking about the execution, I wouldn't watch that willingly.

People are left to draw their own conclusions from the VICE documentary, it's presented in a balanced way.

I'd debate whether the execution video has the effect of propaganda, most decent people see it for what it is, and know what IS are like at this stage.

AbusesToilets

irish gent wrote: »

Yes but you know The USA and uk backed ISIS at one time weird !!

The US and UK did not back IS, they backed moderate rebels groups in Syria that comprised the Free Syrian Army. They trained members of these groups in Jordan.

unseenfootage

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Saddam was Sunni and Iraq under him was Sunni dominated so ISIS would struggle to get a foothold. The only reason they have managed to do so now is because under Maliki Iraq has become the opposite with Shias dominating which gave ISIS their support amongst Iraqi Sunnis.

Precisely.

It is worthy to note that although ISIS spearheads the uprising against Maliki, there is a united front consisting of ex baathists, Islamic sunni kurds and other sunni groups.

Maliki was severely criticized even by the shia cleric Muqtada Sadr for his oppression of Iraqi sunnis.

comongethappy

Minjor wrote: »

I'd debate whether the execution video has the effect of propaganda, most decent people see it for what it is, and know what IS are like at this stage.

I think those who may be influenced by ISIS or jihadis in the first place will seek out the video anyway....

For everyone else I think the populace need to wake up & see what is going on.

Something so shocking & tragic may be needed to awaken the west from its torpor.

FloatingVoter

ISIS are pure evil. It doesn't need 5 pages of debate. People who behead children and bury people alive are not what you want your daughter to bring home.

This is a list that would also include: Jimmy Saville, Charles Manson, the German lad with the moustache, Stalin, the Ku Klux Klan, Fred West and numerous others.

Ignorant etc.

The only thing about ISIS is that they will, in all probability, fight themselves out.

They, from what I can tell, want to take over the whole of Iraq and Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Israel, Palestine, the UAE, Qatar, Jordan, Lebanon, Cyprus, Turkey, Iran, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia, Austria, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Mali, Ethiopia, Sudan, Somalia, Mauritania etc.

All within five years?

Whilst all those countries are doing what? Letting them I suppose .

Are they smoking something?

Sierra Oscar

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The US and UK did not back IS, they backed moderate rebels groups in Syria that comprised the Free Syrian Army. They trained members of these groups in Jordan.

The problem is that many of these former moderate rebels are now flocking to ISIS. Entire brigades that were once associated with the FSA have pledged allegiance to ISIS. The weaker the FSA becomes the more likely that ISIS will continue to attract more fighters, and the weaponry that was supplied to the switching factions by outside states will follow with them.

Ignorant etc.

FloatingVoter wrote: »

ISIS are pure evil. It doesn't need 5 pages of debate. People who behead children and bury people alive are not what you want your daughter to bring home.

This is a list that would also include: Jimmy Saville, Charles Manson, the German lad with the moustache, Stalin, the Ku Klux Klan, Fred West and numerous others.

ISIS are worse though, they have a sh1t flag.

comongethappy

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

The problem is that many of these former moderate rebels are now flocking to ISIS. Entire brigades that were once associated with the FSA have pledged allegiance to ISIS.

Thats an unforseen consequence of the US funding the FSA.

Its not fair to say that the US directly & intentionally funded & armed ISIS.... it simply isn't true. (Not that you are saying that).

Though funding & arming S Arabia & Qatar is another matter.

unseenfootage

comongethappy wrote: »

Thats an unforseen consequence of the US funding the FSA.

Its not fair to say that the US directly & intentionally funded & armed ISIS.... it simply isn't true. (Not that you are saying that).

Though funding & arming S Arabia & Qatar is another matter.

It's more like Saudi and Qatar is funding USA.

Eoin247

I just watched the video of that journalist being beheaded, and it was far worse than I thought it would be.

I thought it would just be a single sweep with a sword or something. But those animals used a ****ing short blunt knife to literally slowly saw his head off.

It makes my blood boil that these people are allowed to thrive. The Arab nations should make a coalition of nations with some aid from the west to wipe out these monsters!

AbusesToilets

Part of the issue is that the US held off backing the FSA for so long, denied it arms and training. Gave the extremist groups an opportunity to take the lead and become the dominant party in Syria. People are more likely to back a winner, as they perceive it.

Thinkingaboutit

Ignorant etc. wrote: »

The only thing about ISIS is that they will, in all probability, fight themselves out.

They, from what I can tell, want to take over the whole of Iraq and Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Israel, Palestine, the UAE, Qatar, Jordan, Lebanon, Cyprus, Turkey, iran, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia, Austria, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Mali, Ethiopia, Sudan, Somalia, Mauritania etc.

All within five years?

Whilst all those countries are doing what? Letting them I suppose .

Are they smoking something?

Islamic State and its self proclaimed caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi have proven themselves superior to all comers in Iraq and Syria. The much vaunted Peshmerga proved embarrassing weak. Only US airstrikes helped restore any sort of equilibrium. IS seem to have taken care that their hell on earth is self supporting with taxation and oil sales. They might utter vain and vague threats to take Rome, but overall their savagery seems grounded in the possible.

Ignorant etc.

Eoin247 wrote: »

I just watched the video of that journalist being beheaded, and it was far worse than I thought it would be.

I thought it would just be a single sweep with a sword or something. But those animals used a ****ing short blunt knife to literally slowly saw his head off.

It makes my blood boil that these people are allowed to thrive. The Arab nations should make a coalition of nations with some aid from the west to wipe out these monsters!

When they start picking a fight with Iran, which is within their five year plan and is likely to come sooner than others with Iran being both a border country and a Shi'ite one, I don't fancy their chances too much.

Sierra Oscar

comongethappy wrote: »

Thats an unforseen consequence of the US funding the FSA.

Its not fair to say that the US directly & intentionally funded & armed ISIS.... it simply isn't true. (Not that you are saying that).

Though funding & arming S Arabia & Qatar is another matter.

Yes it would be unfair to say that the US has been intentionally funding and arming ISIS. The US has been going out of its way to try and stop ISIS.

However it has happened unintentionally, and it is not as if people were not warning that this would happen. For anyone following the conflict for the last few years it has been pretty evident that the FSA has been plagued with problems, most notably that it is a rag bag collection of different groups with the aim of toppling Assad but not having much of a plan for a post Assad Syria. Even when military aid has been supplied they have demonstrated that they cannot put it to effective use.

The jihadist groups in contrast are well disciplined and able to perform some very impressive military maneuvers. ISIS has been overpowering the FSA in a number of locations and taking military supplies - often still in storage - that came from western sates.

It is paining policy formulators to admit it, but ISIS cannot be adequately targeted in Syria without the support of the Syrian government. Similarly the Syrian government cannot defeat ISIS without more external support. It is a big problem that could take a long time to overcome.

Ignorant etc.

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

Islamic State and its self proclaimed caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi have proven themselves superior to all comers in Iraq and Syria. The much vaunted Peshmerga proved embarrassing weak. Only US airstrikes helped restore any sort of equilibrium. IS seem to have taken care that their hell on earth is self supporting with taxation and oil sales. They might utter vain and vague threats to take Rome, but overall their savagery seems grounded in the possible.

In Iraq they are taking on a fragile fragmented government which has been subjected to civil war for years and is already weakened by invasion. Equally, in Syria they are taking on a regime weakened by civil war. It is absolutely inevitable that they will sooner or later attack Iran. They hate Shia Muslims just as much as they hate "infidels" and Iran borders the area they are currently taking. Iran is a stable country with a stable government. The Iranian President and the Ayatollah also don't tolerate much. Iran also has a reasonably strong military. Of course, this doesn't avoid the nightmare of the current situation and it doesn't avoid the nightmare that would be an expanded Iran. However, it does suggest that, eventually, ISIS will either be wiped out or will have to retreat behind its own borders.

DeadHand

Ignorant etc. wrote: »

with ISIS it looks possible that we are heading for another world war but against an enemy even more dangerous than Hitler's Germany.

Come now, don't overstate the danger.

Hitler's Germany at the outbreak of war had one of the most powerful navies in the world, arguably it's most powerful airforce, enjoyed the most advanced technology of the day and huge industrial/manufacturing power. It had an unrivalled land army and and massive pools of manpower. It had or would soon have several relatively powerful allies.

ISIS lacks any of that. No navy. No airforce. No industrial base. No powerful, external allies they are, in fact, despised by all surrounding factions. Lightly armed and armoured land forces still significantly outnumbered by most of their enemies.

ISIS, as it stands, can't even take all of Iraq or Syria. They're being held by a numerous and commited but underequipped Peshmerga (a glorified militia, in reality), various other militias/guerrilla groups, the notoriously brittle Iraqi army (with the so far fairly limited help of the USAF and RAF) and Assad's beleaguered Syria (he hasn't gone away, you know). Not forgetting Hezbollah or the Lebanese army.

If they absolutely had to, Turkey, Israel or Iran are regional powers that have the military muscle to crush ISIS with relative
ease.

While ISIS are a grave threat to the peoples of the Middle East, to compare them to the global behemoth that was the Third Reich is fantasy.

ISIS can't last. Not surrounded as they are on all sides by powerful forces intent their destruction, not facing the stiff resistance they are in their "homeland", not with the internal strife that is bound to surface eventually among the Sunnis between Saddam's Baathist old guard and the newer, jihadist element.

I predict that this time next year they will be reduced to just another guerrilla group hiding out in caves. Not that things will be much better in the Middle East. That region will still be a mess long after anyone reading this is dead.

 

FloatingVoter

The trouble this shower are causing is bringing back memories of Hitler's Germany. The Third Reich did not have a navy capable of taking on the Royal Navy. Plans were in place but 1939 was way too early, he honestly thought he'd bull**** his way into Poland.. Cue declaration of war, he flukes France with less tanks that the other side. Due to them being in the wrong place and having crap leadership. Dunkirk was the alarm clock going off.
If the west keeps dithering this crowd of maniacs could have haf the middle east under their thumbs before Professor Obama gets his head out of his ass.