ISIS are pure evil.

Nodin

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

Cabinet Office Briefing Room A
Sounds so much less comforting under the circumstance.

If this is true it is terrible,terrible news.

A vile act. Hard to know what the thinking is behind killing Journos and aid workers in such a fashion.

DEFTLEFTHAND

They're not pure evil because no human being can ever be 'pure' evil, you go to Hell because you never repent. Lying on your death bed in a room looking up at the ceiling at the dark figures circling. Becoming uncertain in the final moments won't necessary save you, you live your life.

Many Irish sons of Christ have departed this world with a warm smile on the face, they've gone home.

P_1

What kind of person beheads somebody who was only in the area to help others?

opinionated3

fr336 wrote: »

Oh dear, this won't go down well, I'm going to agree with you before the mob arrive good luck!

....... so let's all sit back and do nothing eh??

The_Kew_Tour

Killing soldiers is one thing, killing aid workers is another.

Very sad.

Wibbs

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I would call that propaganda...

I agree, but he makes some very valid points about the "religion of peace".

Guy:Incognito

amkin25 wrote: »

So bombs created them and you are all for the answer to stopping them,which is more bombs again thats the answer yeah?

If Britain had decide to bomb Ireland during the troubles do you reckon you could have grabbed a BBC reporter over covering it and cut his head off on oconnell street?

Normal people dont do things like that. They'd have found another excuse to justify it.

dirtyden

amkin25 wrote: »

In fairness they are scumbags,but dropping bombs on civilians from the comfort of your bomber plane is also cowardly,even more so,the guy getting beheaded has probably a better shot at survival than someone in their house watching tv/sleeping when a bomb drops.

Is that a serious statement? I have re-read it three times and I still cannot understand your mindset in typing that.

Wibbs

opinionated3 wrote: »

....... so let's all sit back and do nothing eh??

Actually that might be the best plan longterm. Let them build their country/caliphate. Let them be "successful" at doing so. Let them bring in all the nutters from the rest of the area and the world to build this nation. Then deal with these fcukwits. It's better to concentrate and isolate an illness in one hospital, rather than have it spread out in the wider community.

It will also have the advantage of giving us a proper boogyman and not the ragtag bunch hiding in Afghan caves. This boogyman will bring the west closer together. Put it this way relations between Russia and the rest of the west are strained at the minute, but these ISIS bastards are hated and mistrusted by all. The bigger they get the smaller our western issues will become.

Now if and when they do build their perfect Islamic state see how long that nonsense lasts. Supporters and the mob may go along with them in war and revolution as "we're all in it together", but when some semblance of everyday reality comes back and stuff like the economy, education, jobs and food don't pan out trouble starts. It's easier to build a state than run it.

The fact is no matter how big this ISIS thing gets the US or Russia or China or Israel or indeed Europe could turn their land into a fcuking cinder if need be and could do it from the safety of a bunker somewhere. Actual keyboard warriors.

take everything

biko wrote: »

A message to US president Obama

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxzOVSMUrGM

Jaysus that's sobering.
Required viewing I would say for all libtards out there.

ireland.man

take everything wrote: »

Jaysus that's sobering.
Required viewing I would say for all libtards out there.

No matter how good the video is or your argument might be, I can't take anyone seriously when they use stupid American phrases like 'libtard', etc.

Dave!

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually that might be the best plan longterm. Let them build their country/caliphate. Let them be "successful" at doing so. Let them bring in all the nutters from the rest of the area and the world to build this nation. Then deal with these fcukwits. It's better to concentrate and isolate an illness in one hospital, rather than have it spread out in the wider community.

It will also have the advantage of giving us a proper boogyman and not the ragtag bunch hiding in Afghan caves. This boogyman will bring the west closer together. Put it this way relations between Russia and the rest of the west are strained at the minute, but these ISIS bastards are hated and mistrusted by all. The bigger they get the smaller our western issues will become.

Now if and when they do build their perfect Islamic state see how long that nonsense lasts. Supporters and the mob may go along with them in war and revolution as "we're all in it together", but when some semblance of everyday reality comes back and stuff like the economy, education, jobs and food don't pan out trouble starts. It's easier to build a state than run it.

The fact is no matter how big this ISIS thing gets the US or Russia or China or Israel or indeed Europe could turn their land into a fcuking cinder if need be and could do it from the safety of a bunker somewhere. Actual keyboard warriors.

That seems risky to me – would allow them to consolidate their resources, build a pretty good infrastructure and possibly a decent military, maybe forge ties with other states in the region once they get some legitimacy. What if they end up with a nuclear weapon?

I'd also be weary of the notion that, because they'd all be in one place, that it would make it easier to carpet bomb them. That may the case, but once they've stopped beheading civilians a response like that might be considered a bit disproportionate, particularly as they'll probably have families settled there at that point – so there'll be inevitable civilian casualties, and the US becomes the bad guy again.

I don't know what the solution is really – what Obama is trying to do now seems like a reasonable approach.

P_1

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually that might be the best plan longterm. Let them build their country/caliphate. Let them be "successful" at doing so. Let them bring in all the nutters from the rest of the area and the world to build this nation. Then deal with these fcukwits. It's better to concentrate and isolate an illness in one hospital, rather than have it spread out in the wider community.

It will also have the advantage of giving us a proper boogyman and not the ragtag bunch hiding in Afghan caves. This boogyman will bring the west closer together. Put it this way relations between Russia and the rest of the west are strained at the minute, but these ISIS bastards are hated and mistrusted by all. The bigger they get the smaller our western issues will become.

Now if and when they do build their perfect Islamic state see how long that nonsense lasts. Supporters and the mob may go along with them in war and revolution as "we're all in it together", but when some semblance of everyday reality comes back and stuff like the economy, education, jobs and food don't pan out trouble starts. It's easier to build a state than run it.

The fact is no matter how big this ISIS thing gets the US or Russia or China or Israel or indeed Europe could turn their land into a fcuking cinder if need be and could do it from the safety of a bunker somewhere. Actual keyboard warriors.

That's all well and good W. But it does pretty much throw everyone who doesn't find the idea of living under their rules as their cup of tea under the bus. Plus once they've consolidated you'd get fairly short odds on them trying to achieve their Liebensraum. Would throwing the population of, say, Jordan or Azerbaijan under the bus sit well with you?

ireland.man

P_1 wrote: »

That's all well and good W. But it does pretty much throw everyone who doesn't find the idea of living under their rules as their cup of tea under the bus. Plus once they've consolidated you'd get fairly short odds on them trying to achieve their Liebensraum. Would throwing the population of, say, Jordan or Azerbaijan under the bus sit well with you?

Since the European and American governments were so instrumental in creating the current mess in the middle east, from the earliest days in the first part of the 20th century to the last decade and a half, shouldn't they take in as refugees every single member of any community threatened by ISIS?

P_1

ireland.man wrote: »

Since the European and American governments were so instrumental in creating the current mess in the middle east, from the earliest days in the first part of the 20th century to the last decade and a half, shouldn't they take in as refugees every single member of any community threatened by ISIS?

Yes they should but realpolitik would suggest that there'd be a greater chance of Obama and Cameron appearing in a cabaret drag act before that happens.

amkin25

NightOfTheHunt wrote: »

That's assuming they are beheading people because of US airstrikes in the first place, the far more likely explanation is they are unhinged murderous psychopaths.

Not really disagreeing they are murdering psychopaths,but i think its clear that had the first Iraq war not happened they wouldn't exist in what used to be Iraq,and that war consisted mainly of airstrikes,so basically people are advocating the same thing again as the answer its kinda ironic.

ireland.man

P_1 wrote: »

Yes they should but realpolitik would suggest that there'd be a greater chance of Obama and Cameron appearing in a cabaret drag act before that happens.

That would only embolden the West's enemies...

Seriously though, am I right in assuming that those calling for more military action against ISIS are also fully in support of massively increasing refugee numbers from the communities that ISIS threatens?

Guy:Incognito

ireland.man wrote: »

Since the European and American governments were so instrumental in creating the current mess in the middle east, from the earliest days in the first part of the 20th century to the last decade and a half, shouldn't they take in as refugees every single member of any community threatened by ISIS?

Maybe all the people in those countries don't want to just piss off and live as refugees in Europe or America. Why cant they get rid of the despots and live their lives in peace in their own countries.

MagicMarker

amkin25 wrote: »

In fairness they are scumbags,but dropping bombs on civilians from the comfort of your bomber plane is also cowardly,even more so,the guy getting beheaded has probably a better shot at survival than someone in their house watching tv/sleeping when a bomb drops.

I'm sorry, did you just say that someone being beheaded has a better chance of survival than someone who's in the vicinity of a bomb exploding?

ireland.man

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Maybe all the people in those countries don't want to just piss off and live as refugees in Europe or America. Why cant they get rid of the despots and live their lives in peace in their own countries.

Of course they don't want to leave en-masse but any who do should be given immediate support to live in all countries that are involved in the wars against ISIS and previously against Saddam, right? Surely it's hypocritical to suggest you want your military to bomb ISIS to save the people over their but at the same time you would support them if they want to escape immediately by coming here as refugees?

Secondly, "why can't they get rid of their despots?" So it's the ordinary people's fault?

P_1

ireland.man wrote: »

That would only embolden the West's enemies...

Seriously though, am I right in assuming that those calling for more military action against ISIS are also fully in support of massively increasing refugee numbers from the communities that ISIS threatens?

Well I would but I can't speak for others...

P_1

amkin25 wrote: »

Someone being beheaded terrible and shocking as it is at the end of the day they chose to go into a dangerous area,had these guys stayed at home nobody was going to bomb their house,innocent kids killed in wars didn't get old enough to make any life choices like these guys had and its terrible to get beheaded no doubt,but they had better survival chances in their lives than a kid killed by an airstrike while at home.

Right lads who had 12:02 on the 14th on the "when will we get the first bit of victim blaming" sweepstake?

MagicMarker

amkin25 wrote: »

Someone being beheaded terrible and shocking as it is at the end of the day they chose to go into a dangerous area,had these guys stayed at home nobody was going to bomb their house,innocent kids killed in wars didn't get old enough to make any life choices like these guys had and its terrible to get beheaded no doubt,but they had better survival chances in their lives than a kid killed by an airstrike while at home.

Jesus.

Guy:Incognito

MagicMarker wrote: »

I'm sorry, did you just say that someone being beheaded has a better chance of survival than someone who's in the vicinity of a bomb exploding?

Only weak people roll over and die after being beheaded. The strong survive.

CaptainInsano

amkin25 wrote: »

Someone being beheaded terrible and shocking as it is at the end of the day they chose to go into a dangerous area,had these guys stayed at home nobody was going to bomb their house,innocent kids killed in wars didn't get old enough to make any life choices like these guys had and its terrible to get beheaded no doubt,but they had better survival chances in their lives than a kid killed by an airstrike while at home.

Oh dear.

amkin25

CaptainInsano wrote: »

Oh dear.

Terrible indeed a differing viewpoint,must be hard to see differing viewpoints i imagine with a mind like yours lol.

Guy:Incognito

amkin25 wrote: »

Terrible indeed a differing viewpoint,must be hard to see differing viewpoints i imagine with a mind like yours lol.

And the indigenous people that they are murdering, is that their own fault too?


Bloody Christians, having the cheek to be Christian.

CaptainInsano

amkin25 wrote: »

Terrible indeed a differing viewpoint,must be hard to see differing viewpoints i imagine with a mind like yours lol.

It is when someone is placing a portion of the responsibility of being beheaded on David Haines.
Sure the idiot probably underestimated their savagery and thought they'd spare humanitarian workers that were trying to help people, what an idiot!

ireland.man

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

And the indigenous people that they are murdering, is that their own fault too?


Bloody Christians, having the cheek to be Christian.

Wait... didn't you say "Why cant they get rid of the despots and live their lives in peace in their own countries"? Doesn't that imply some guilt or responsibility on the part of those indigenous people?

Guy:Incognito

ireland.man wrote: »

Wait... didn't you say "Why cant they get rid of the despots and live their lives in peace in their own countries"? Doesn't that imply some guilt or responsibility on the part of those indigenous people?

See your problem is cherry picking "they" to mean what you want. The "they" can just as easily be the US, Britain etc and bombing ISIS out of existence. Which im in favour of.

For clarity "they" is anyone opposed to ISIS running the place and killing anyone that doesn't agree with them or fitting their beliefs.

Now, back to these indigenous people bringing being murdered on themselves..........