ISIS are pure evil.

crockholm

Gringo180 wrote: »

Bit of a coincidence so that these fundamentalist groups have started to wage war on us after our first invasion of Iraq and has got worse after our second invasion?? I don't recall of ever hearing of an attack by these jihadists on American soil before invading Iraq?

The first attack on WTC

Gatling

Gringo180 wrote: »

Bit of a coincidence so that these fundamentalist groups have started to wage war on us after our first invasion of Iraq

Ehhhhhhh no .


That's filling in the blanks that's not there .

If that's the case why not blame russia

Gringo180

crockholm wrote: »

The first attack on WTC

The first invasion of Iraq was in 1990, the first world trade bombings was 1993.

Gringo180

Gatling wrote: »

If that's the case why not blame russia

Please elaborate.

Macavity.

P_1 wrote: »

One thing that I can't understand is why the victims of these beheadings read out those statements condemming the west before those animals behead them. If you're going to die would your last message not be one condemming the barbarians who are about to chop your head off?

A beheading, although barbaric, is a relatively quick death. It's clean compared to what could be done to them. Which is most likely what they are threatened with. Not to mention they could threaten to kill other hostages if they don't cooperate.

Gatling

Gringo180 wrote: »

The first invasion of Iraq was in 1990, the first world trade bombings was 1993.

Pan Am flight 103 1988 predates the both

1983 Marines barracks in beirut

Madrid 1985

The list goes on

crockholm

Gringo180 wrote: »

The first invasion of Iraq was in 1990, the first world trade bombings was 1993.

AFAIK the motive for the attack was the US support of Israel-not the first gulf war

Gringo180

Gatling wrote: »

Pan Am flight 103 1988 predates the both

1983 Marines barracks in beirut

Madrid 1985

The list goes on

The backing of the Israelis

The blowing out of the sky of Iran Air killing 290 people

The propping up of the Shah, one of the most brutal dictators of the 20th century

Military presence on the Arab peninsula

The list goes on.

Gatling

Gringo180 wrote: »

The backing of the Israelis

The blowing out of the sky of Iran Air killing 290 people

The propping up of the Shah, one of the most brutal dictators of the 20th century

Military presence on the Arab peninsula

The list goes on.

Nice try

Beats the first gulf war

Roger Hassenforder

Gringo180 wrote: »

The backing of the Israelis

The blowing out of the sky of Iran Air killing 290 people

The propping up of the Shah, one of the most brutal dictators of the 20th century

Military presence on the Arab peninsula

The list goes on.

some serious whataboutery there dude.
You asked for Islamic attacks pre-US invasion of Iraq.
Some were provided.
You lost.

Gatling

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

.
You asked for Islamic attacks pre-US invasion of Iraq..

I suggest you read again carefully

Gringo180

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

some serious whataboutery there dude.
You asked for Islamic attacks pre-US invasion of Iraq.
Some were provided.
You lost.

If you care to read my original post again I said terror attacks on American soil pre the first invasion of Iraq. I still haven't been provided with any.

WakeUp

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

they will have their wish but unlike previous campaigns the western forces will be allowed take the gloves off and fight like they did when they went up against nazi Germany

get their wish where though have people thought this through. western troops cant be sent into Syria, perhaps Iraq but not Syria. not unless a deal is made with Assad and the current geopolitical climate changes. in the eyes of the west Syria/Iran/Russia are evil. yet those three countries have an alliance and defence pact of sorts. so sending western troops into Syria could trigger something a lot bigger and more destructive than we can even begin to imagine. to take out isis they need to be tackled in Syria. air strikes alone wont do that. and western troops on the ground wont be happening for the reasons Ive just outlined. Syria/Iran and Russia wont have that not even close. so whats the plan.

LordNorbury

I reckon there is going to be a serious day of reckoning very soon for these four beheadings, the latest obviously being Alan Henning, one of these mornings we are going to wake up to news that an overnight bombing campaign has completely flattened Raqqa.

WakeUp

LordNorbury wrote: »

I reckon there is going to be a serious day of reckoning very soon for these four beheadings, the latest obviously being Alan Henning, one of these mornings we are going to wake up to news that an overnight bombing campaign has completely flattened Raqqa.

what do you mean flatten Raqqa?...I would hazard a guess that wont be happening. and its about the worst thing that could be done if I think you mean what I think you mean/ the smart thing to do here is make a deal with Assad and let his army with Iranian/Russian support crush them on the ground. that would be the correct approach. but of course Assad has to go according to the west in their wisdom. but the thing is he isnt going anywhere. if isis is to be tackled effectively its time for some realism.

Macavity.

LordNorbury wrote: »

I reckon there is going to be a serious day of reckoning very soon for these four beheadings, the latest obviously being Alan Henning, one of these mornings we are going to wake up to news that an overnight bombing campaign has completely flattened Raqqa.

I highly doubt it tbh.

Gatling

Flatten raqqua let's see what happens then isis numbers will soar with nut jobs seeking revenge for the innocent and helpless Muslim women and kids murders by the infidels

LordNorbury

WakeUp wrote: »

what do you mean flatten Raqqa?...I would hazard a guess that wont be happening. and its about the worst thing that could be done if I think you mean what I think you mean/ the smart thing to do here is make a deal with Assad and let his army with Iranian/Russian support crush them on the ground. that would be the correct approach. but of course Assad has to go according to the west in their wisdom. but the thing is he isnt going anywhere. if isis is to be tackled effectively its time for some realism.

It'll either be subjected to high level bombing overnight to the point where the town will have been completely flattened, without any consideration for collateral damage or innocent life, or else a large US special ops ground force will be deployed around the town and also simultaneously dropped/parachuted into the town in the middle of the night, the purpose being to surround it in the first instance, and to kill all ISIS combatants in the town.

Option 2 will obviously involve US causalities but less Syrian civilian casualties than option 1, which would kill a large number of civilians and very few if any US military personnel. I don't think Obama is capable of sorting this problem out, his leadership and direction since day one has been appalling and weak, but any other US president would have acted as I have envisaged, either already or else the plans would be at an advanced stage.

But I think make no mistake about it, what has been happening up until now I don't think will be allowed to continue for much longer, and it is going to take a much larger event I think to disrupt ISIS, who are practically inside Baghdad now.

It sounds cruel and disconnected to say, "just flatten Raqqa", but ISIS are killing thousands of Iraqi people every week, it was reported they killed 1,000 Iraqi soldiers last week alone, as they sit just outside Baghdad, so I reckon there is going to be a large scale event in the very near future that is going to knock ISIS for six, and I reckon it will be a ground invasion of Raqqa or I suspect the town will be razed to the ground.

This guy I think is on the money when it comes to calling the absolute and total balls that Obama is making of this and the very fundamental strategic errors he is making:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnkHWL7lkmE

renegademaster

LordNorbury wrote: »

I reckon there is going to be a serious day of reckoning very soon for these four beheadings, the latest obviously being Alan Henning, one of these mornings we are going to wake up to news that an overnight bombing campaign has completely flattened Raqqa.

and what will they do afterwards when the terror continues?

Gatling wrote: »

Flatten raqqua let's see what happens then isis numbers will soar with nut jobs seeking revenge for the innocent and helpless Muslim women and kids murders by the infidels

god willing says Obama

LordNorbury wrote: »

It'll either be subjected to high level bombing overnight to the point where the town will have been completely flattened, without any consideration for collateral damage or innocent life, or else a large US special ops ground force will be deployed around the town and also simultaneously dropped/parachuted into the town in the middle of the night, the purpose being to surround it in the first instance, and to kill all ISIS combatants in the town.

Option 2 will obviously involve US causalities but less Syrian civilian casualties than option 1, which would kill a large number of civilians and very few if any US military personnel. I don't think Obama is capable of sorting this problem out, his leadership and direction since day one has been appalling and weak, but any other US president would have acted as I have envisaged, either already or else the plans would be at an advanced stage.

But I think make no mistake about it, what has been happening up until now I don't think will be allowed to continue for much longer, and it is going to take a much larger event I think to disrupt ISIS, who are practically inside Baghdad now.

It sounds cruel and disconnected to say, "just flatten Raqqa", but ISIS are killing thousands of Iraqi people every week, it was reported they killed 1,000 Iraqi soldiers last week alone, as they sit just outside Baghdad, so I reckon there is going to be a large scale event in the very near future that is going to knock ISIS for six, and I reckon it will be a ground invasion of Raqqa or I suspect the town will be razed to the ground.

This guy I think is on the money when it comes to calling the absolute and total balls that Obama is making of this and the very fundamental strategic errors he is making:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnkHWL7lkmE

you really think Obama is making a balls of this? I reckon he's well on course for the endless war on terror

WakeUp

LordNorbury wrote: »

It'll either be subjected to high level bombing overnight to the point where the town will have been completely flattened, without any consideration for collateral damage or innocent life, or else a large US special ops ground force will be deployed around the town and also simultaneously dropped/parachuted into the town in the middle of the night, the purpose being to surround it in the first instance, and to kill all ISIS combatants in the town.

Option 2 will obviously involve US causalities but less Syrian civilian casualties than option 1, which would kill a large number of civilians and very few if any US military personnel. I don't think Obama is capable of sorting this problem out, his leadership and direction since day one has been appalling and weak, but any other US president would have acted as I have envisaged, either already or else the plans would be at an advanced stage.

But I think make no mistake about it, what has been happening up until now I don't think will be allowed to continue for much longer, and it is going to take a much larger event I think to disrupt ISIS, who are practically inside Baghdad now.

It sounds cruel and disconnected to say, "just flatten Raqqa", but ISIS are killing thousands of Iraqi people every week, it was reported they killed 1,000 Iraqi soldiers last week alone, as they sit just outside Baghdad, so I reckon there is going to be a large scale event in the very near future that is going to knock ISIS for six, and I reckon it will be a ground invasion of Raqqa or I suspect the town will be razed to the ground.

This guy I think is on the money when it comes to calling the absolute and total balls that Obama is making of this and the very fundamental strategic errors he is making:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnkHWL7lkmE

the colonel is a fool. Im not having a go at you personally so please dont think I am. but that chap is an idiot who doesnt know what he is talking about, blatant American whooya dumb ass arrogance is what is emanating from his mouth. he reckons Turkey are crucial yet fails to mention Syria/Iran/Russia. the only people that can defeat isis on the ground are the Syrians not the Americans or the west or anyone else but the Syrians. bombing isis into dust in Syria will not defeat them but embolden them and it will gain sympathy for them. The US and its allies are part of the problem in the middle east not the overall solution. which the colonel fails to grasp or perhaps he does and he is just following the script. western warmaking in that part of the world has failed, in an epic overt fashion which we are quite clearly seeing. I mean surely they cant be that stupid as to think they alone can take a hammer to this and sort it out. because they cant.

Roger Hassenforder

Gringo180 wrote: »

If you care to read my original post again I said terror attacks on American soil pre the first invasion of Iraq. I still haven't been provided with any.

oops my bad.
try this link, cant post the table, but it might whet your appetite.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/americanattacks.htm

Drakares

kryogen wrote: »

Really? Christians do not and have never, murdered people, millions of people never mind thousands, raped women and kids and mutilated people in the name of Christianity?

Seriously?

Some people have a pretty weird grasp on history and reality.

We're talking about Muslims and Christians now. Not 200 years ago. The "Catholic Problem" has been more or less solved with time since people became more scientifically informed and the church became less strict.

Are you saying it's all well and good now that Islam has it's turn to start killing people since the Catholic Church has done it?

Stop twisting my words to suit your argument. If you can't form any coherent argument then don't post at all. It is stupid and you should feel bad.

BuilderPlumber

WakeUp wrote: »

get their wish where though have people thought this through. western troops cant be sent into Syria, perhaps Iraq but not Syria. not unless a deal is made with Assad and the current geopolitical climate changes. in the eyes of the west Syria/Iran/Russia are evil. yet those three countries have an alliance and defence pact of sorts. so sending western troops into Syria could trigger something a lot bigger and more destructive than we can even begin to imagine. to take out isis they need to be tackled in Syria. air strikes alone wont do that. and western troops on the ground wont be happening for the reasons Ive just outlined. Syria/Iran and Russia wont have that not even close. so whats the plan.

I think the West needs to settle its differences with Syria, Iran and Russia and join forces with these to tackle the common enemy that is ISIS. The West made a bad mistake with supporting the 'Arab Spring' and encouraging it. Instead of a spring, it is more a winter. If asked to name one country that improved since the Arab Spring, you'd be hard pressed to name it. Tunisia just maybe but as for Libya, Syria, Egypt, etc. things have got a lot worse.

As for the West's future alliances with rebel groups: a clear thought should be worked out on what such groups are. There is no reason why the West should be enemies of Assad. Assad has never done anything to the West and has never been a threat so why does the West hate him? On the other hand, the anti-Assad rebels are full of terrorists who hate the West and want to turn Syria into a Taliban-style state complete with terrorist training camps and facilities.

LordNorbury

WakeUp wrote: »

the colonel is a fool. Im not having a go at you personally so please dont think I am. but that chap is an idiot who doesnt know what he is talking about, blatant American whooya dumb ass arrogance is what is emanating from his mouth. he reckons Turkey are crucial yet fails to mention Syria/Iran/Russia. the only people that can defeat isis on the ground are the Syrians not the Americans or the west or anyone else but the Syrians. bombing isis into dust in Syria will not defeat them but embolden them and it will gain sympathy for them. The US and its allies are part of the problem in the middle east not the overall solution. which the colonel fails to grasp or perhaps he does and he is just following the script. western warmaking in that part of the world has failed, in an epic overt fashion which we are quite clearly seeing. I mean surely they cant be that stupid as to think they alone can take a hammer to this and sort it out. because they cant.

Disagree, the Japanese were bombed into submission in WW2, same can happen here and should happen here in my view.

Obama doesn't understand the nature of what is going on here, he's fiddling around with blowing up a tent here and a jeep there, a complete waste of time.

kryogen

Drakares wrote: »

We're talking about Muslims and Christians now. Not 200 years ago. The "Catholic Problem" has been more or less solved with time since people became more scientifically informed and the church became less strict.

Are you saying it's all well and good now that Islam has it's turn to start killing people since the Catholic Church has done it?

Stop twisting my words to suit your argument. If you can't form any coherent argument then don't post at all. It is stupid and you should feel bad.

Hi Johnny, to quote yourself seems to be the simplest way I can think to respond to you.

johnny wrote:

Stop twisting my words to suit your argument. If you can't form any coherent argument then don't post at all. It is stupid and you should feel bad.

Thanks.

kryogen

LordNorbury wrote: »

Disagree, the Japanese were bombed into submission in WW2, same can happen here and should happen here in my view.

Obama doesn't understand the nature of what is going on here, he's fiddling around with blowing up a tent here and a jeep there, a complete waste of time.

The Japanese were not bombed into submission, they were nuked into it. That is the drastic measure that was required to get them to stop fighting, some still fought. Do you think nuking is the answer here?

Gatling

LordNorbury wrote: »

Disagree, the Japanese were bombed into submission in WW2, same can happen here and should happen here in my view.

Obama doesn't understand the nature of what is going on here, he's fiddling around with blowing up a tent here and a jeep there, a complete waste of time.

2 Atomic bombs Will do that

There is nothing that can be done even remotely close to that without setting up for total jihad from the Muslim world.

The same Muslims asking to bomb isis will quickly turn about face and start crying the west is massacring innocent Muslims

Larry Wildman

The only way to deal with these jihadists and those who shelter them is to wipe them out.

I'd be on the side of those advocating the use of nukes.

It's time for the US to unleash the power of the atom on our friends in the Middle East.

kryogen

Larry Wildman wrote: »

The only way to deal with these jihadists and those who shelter them is to wipe them out.

I'd be on the side of those advocating the use of nukes.

It's time for the US to unleash the power of the atom on our friends in the Middle East.

You have no issue with the wiping out of millions of innocents (potentially) and having a lasting negative affect on a region for decades to come because of a band of terrorists who can be dealt with using more conventional methods

You are also of the opinion that it would be the best thing long term, it would not cause the rest of the world to turn on the US big time and bring more people to the cause against them after such a grossly un proportionate response.

What do you think gives them the right to "unleash the power of the atom" on an entire region?

Edit: Sweet jesus I just saw the username, forget it, I dont even want you to respond, the status quo for the soccer forum applies here for me with you and I have no interest in interacting with you.

Fratton Fred

Gringo180 wrote: »

The first invasion of Iraq was in 1990, the first world trade bombings was 1993.

There was no invasion of Iraq in 1990, the Iraqi army was forced out of Kuwait.