Isis burn pilot alive..

Timberrrrrrrr

evo2000 wrote: »

One was an accidental strike against civilians the other is a constant attacks against civilians on purpose thats the difference!

That makes it ok then?

And what about the rest of the innocent people killed by "mistake"?

Where is your outrage for these men women and children blown to bits or burned to death?

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147

Finally, on 15 October 2010, Hellfire missiles fired from a Predator or Reaper drone killed Hussain, the Pakistani Taliban later confirmed. For the death of a man whom practically no American can name, the US killed 128 people, 13 of them children, none of whom it meant to harm.

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/01/23/more-than-2400-dead-as-obamas-drone-campaign-marks-five-years/

But reports of civilian casualties began to emerge. As later reports revealed, the strike was far from a success. At least nine civilians died, most of them from one family. There was one survivor, 14-year-old Fahim Qureshi, but with horrific injuries including shrapnel wounds in his stomach, a fractured skull and a lost eye, he was as much a victim as his dead relatives.

Later that day, the CIA attacked again – and levelled another house. It proved another mistake, this time one that killed between five and ten people, all civilians.

evo2000

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

That makes it ok then?

And what about the rest of the innocent people killed by "mistake"?

Where is your outrage for these men women and children blown to bits or burned to death?

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147



http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/01/23/more-than-2400-dead-as-obamas-drone-campaign-marks-five-years/

Whats your angle with this ? what exactly are you trying to say ? are you comparing nato and ISIS and saying they re both as bad as each other or???

Timberrrrrrrr

evo2000 wrote: »

Whats your angle with this ? what exactly are you trying to say ? are you comparing nato and ISIS and saying they re both as bad as each other or???

On the scale of killing innocent people NATO is wayyyyyyyy worse.

evo2000

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

On the scale of killing innocent people NATO is wayyyyyyyy worse.

Theres a difference tho, they arent doing it on purpose, they arent roaming around butchering innocent people for the craic, its also not for the want of trying on the behalf of isis, i can only imagine the damage they do if they d nato hardware...

And even with that said, it still doesnt justify ISIS and there still needs to be something done about them.

Tugboats

Consulate of Jordan
Embassy
4 Cambridge Terrace, Dublin

If Jordan launch a military campaign will everyone be protesting here?

Sociopath2

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

That makes it ok then?

And what about the rest of the innocent people killed by "mistake"?

Where is your outrage for these men women and children blown to bits or burned to death?

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147



http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/01/23/more-than-2400-dead-as-obamas-drone-campaign-marks-five-years/

Welcome to the reality of war. There is no such thing as a surgical strike. Any war or combat operation will result in casualties, many of them civilians. You can try to militate the damage but it's an inevitable consequence.

There's no clean wars but many of them are necessary. Certain aggressive groups won't be influenced through peaceful means.

Honey Monster

Oh after hours you never surprise me. Let's make more excuses for these IS cünts, please. I have a solution to this: Kill every last one of these scumbags.

Timberrrrrrrr

evo2000 wrote: »

Theres a difference tho, they arent doing it on purpose, they arent roaming around butchering innocent people for the craic, its also not for the want of trying on the behalf of isis, i can only imagine the damage they do if they d nato hardware...

And even with that said, it still doesnt justify ISIS and there still needs to be something done about them.

I agree something needs to be done but bombing the **** out of the place is not the answer.

Galwayguy35

Tugboats wrote: »

Consulate of Jordan
Embassy
4 Cambridge Terrace, Dublin

If Jordan launch a military campaign will everyone be protesting here?

Why would anyone protest, they're going to be killing those savages.

Egginacup

evo2000 wrote: »

Theres a difference, that failed because the west played by the rules and they didnt, of course that wasnt gonna workout but if they go in and rule book out the window and take the fight to ISIS id bet you any money ISIS wouldnt be roaming freely from village to village with impunity murdering and torturing as they go!

The absolute worst thing that could be done is being passive about it

So two wars of agression, you know the supreme crime according to the Nuremberg charter, collective punishment and targeting of civilians, the deliberate targeting of photographers, reporters and press agencies, detention and torture, the wholesale use of banned weapons coupled with widespread civilian massacres is playing by the rules is it?

You haven't deployed a single braincell before writing the drivel you just did, have you?

Gatling

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I agree something needs to be done but bombing the **** out of the place is not the answer.

Then give a logical suggestion then

Timberrrrrrrr

Sociopath2 wrote: »

Welcome to the reality of war. There is no such thing as a surgical strike. Any war or combat operation will result in casualties, many of them civilians. You can try to militate the damage but it's an inevitable consequence.

There's no clean wars but many of them are necessary. Certain aggressive groups won't be influenced through peaceful means.

You realise where ISIS gets its fighters right?

Imagine it was your Mother, Father, Brother, Sister, Son or daughter that was killed by a drone strike. Now a man comes along and asks

"Hey, want to kill the people responsible for the death of your entire family"?

The reply is going to be a resounding yes for many.

Timberrrrrrrr

Honey Monster wrote: »

Oh after hours you never surprise me. Let's make more excuses for these IS cünts, please. I have a solution to this: Kill every last one of these scumbags.

Ok

How do we kill em all and where do we start? Will you be heading over to join the fight?

Tugboats

Gatling wrote: »

Then give a logical suggestion then

He gave it earlier it's genius

Timberrrrrrrr

Gatling wrote: »

Then give a logical suggestion then

I already did a few pages back.

evo2000

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Ok

How do we kill em all and where do we start? Will you be heading over to join the fight?

Will you be heading over trying to reason with them? you seem to be under the impression theres a political solution to this, these people would be more inclined to to blow themselves up once they got to the table for talks than actually listen to reason..

There wont be a clear cut victory against them, there will be civilan casualties, but in the end there will be a manageable Isis or whats left of it, and as barbaric as it sounds the powers that be will merely need to "Cut the grass" now an again! ,

They simply cannot be allowed to roam around taking lands by sheer brutality and no amount of politics will even put a dent in there plans , they only understand one language!

Sociopath2

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You realise where ISIS gets its fighters right?

Imagine it was your Mother, Father, Brother, Sister, Son or daughter that was killed by a drone strike. Now a man comes along and asks

"Hey, want to kill the people responsible for the death of your entire family"?

The reply is going to be a resounding yes for many.

Think of WWII, massive destruction required to stop Nazi Germany and Japan. It took two nuclear strikes to break Japan. That war was necessary.

The option of doing nothing effectively throws anyone in ISIS sphere of influence to the wolves.

Not every ISIS fighter is a grieving husband/son. It's far more complex.

When violence is necessary, you need to commit to using it effectively. You can't do it in half measures and you can't delude yourself that it will be clean.

Tugboats

evo2000 wrote: »

Will you be heading over trying to reason with them? you seem to be under the impression theres a political solution to this, these people would be more inclined to to blow themselves up once they got to the table for talks than actually listen to reason..

There wont be a clear cut victory against them, there will be civilan casualties, but in the end there will be a manageable Isis or whats left of it, and as barbaric as it sounds the powers that be will merely need to "Cut the grass" now an again! ,

They simply cannot be allowed to roam around taking lands by sheer brutality and no amount of politics will even put a dent in there plans , they only understand one language!

No he actually supports military action but it has to come from a middle eastern country using American dollars and bullets

jobbridge4life

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

On the scale of killing innocent people NATO is wayyyyyyyy worse.

Was that deliberate targeting? Has NATO made a point of terminating all those who don't subscribe to the 'liberal democratic' model of governance?

We quite literally have an organisation that is openly and proudly committing genocide, child marriage, throwing LGBT people to their deaths from roofs and people are still more concerned with NATO.

The mind boggles... then fries.... then accepts defeat.

Timberrrrrrrr

evo2000 wrote: »

Will you be heading over trying to reason with them? you seem to be under the impression theres a political solution to this, these people would be more inclined to to blow themselves up once they got to the table for talks than actually listen to reason..

There wont be a clear cut victory against them, there will be civilan casualties, but in the end there will be a manageable Isis or whats left of it, and as barbaric as it sounds the powers that be will merely need to "Cut the grass" now an again! ,

They simply cannot be allowed to roam around taking lands by sheer brutality and no amount of politics will even put a dent in there plans , they only understand one language!

Why would i go talk to them, i think every one of them should be killed. You keep saying there will be civilian casualties in this war, do the Japanese journos not count as civilian casualties?

Timberrrrrrrr

Sociopath2 wrote: »

Think of WWII, massive destruction required to stop Nazi Germany and Japan. It took two nuclear strikes to break Japan. That war was necessary.

The option of doing nothing effectively throws anyone in ISIS sphere of influence to the wolves.

Not every ISIS fighter is a grieving husband/son. It's far more complex.

When violence is necessary, you need to commit to using it effectively. You can't do it in half measures and you can't delude yourself that it will be clean.

Ok so you are another in favour of carpet bombing towns and cities or do you prefer the nuclear option as well?

Karl Stein

Sociopath2 wrote: »

Think of WWII, massive destruction required to stop Nazi Germany and Japan.

Germany and Japan were huge industrial powers. ISIS is not - it's a bunch of yahoos in the desert cutting people's throats and burning people alive. They have no airforce, no navy, no ability to project power in any meaningful way.

The best they could hope to achieve is drawing western troops into territory they are familiar with and would be able to sustain an insurgency from. You brave 'let's get 'em' boys are exactly their target audience.

We've a lot of over-emotional, Call of Duty, keyboard warriors commenting on this issue.

Sociopath2

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Ok so you are another in favour of carpet bombing towns and cities or do you prefer the nuclear option as well?

Is that what you took from that? Let me explain it more simply for you.

It will take a significant military effort to defeat ISIS and maintain control afterwards. Whoever does it, and I believe it is necessary, will have to commit serious resources on the ground and be prepared to fight a campaign that will have high military and civilian casualties.

That is unavoidable. Surgical air strikes do not work. It requires infantry on the ground. A lot of people will die. It is necessary to stop ISIS though and I don't see a viable alternative at the moment.

We can't just ask for a clean war that takes out ISIS but doesn't harm anyone innocent.

It's an accepted fact that militaries will kill civilians in the course of a combat operation. This is not comparable to deliberately murdering and torturing civilians and prisoners as ISIS do.

Timberrrrrrrr

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Was that deliberate targeting? Has NATO made a point of terminating all those who don't subscribe to the 'liberal democratic' model of governance?

We quite literally have an organisation that is openly and proudly committing genocide, child marriage, throwing LGBT people to their deaths from roofs and people are still more concerned with NATO.

The mind boggles... then fries.... then accepts defeat.

Africans are beating gay men to death on a daily basis, Pakistani's force their daughters to marry at young ages, Syrian government using chemical weapons and Saudis beheading women in the middle of the street. Again i agree something needs to be done about ISIS but the answer is not to kill.thousands of innocent civilians to stop the killing of a few innocent civilians.

Timberrrrrrrr

Sociopath2 wrote: »

Is that what you took from that? Let me explain it more simply for you.

It will take a significant military effort to defeat ISIS and maintain control afterwards. Whoever does it, and I believe it is necessary, will have to commit serious resources on the ground and be prepared to fight a campaign that will have high military and civilian casualties.

That is unavoidable. Surgical air strikes do not work. It requires infantry on the ground. A lot of people will die. It is necessary to stop ISIS though and I don't see a viable alternative at the moment.

We can't just ask for a clean war that takes out ISIS but doesn't harm anyone innocent.

It's an accepted fact that militaries will kill civilians in the course of a combat operation. This is not comparable to deliberately murdering and torturing civilians and prisoners as ISIS do.

Western troops on the ground is exactly what ISIS wants.

seachto7

Fox news seem to have no problem hosting the full uncut video, which is of VERY high quality in terms of production.

Sociopath2

Karl Stein wrote: »

Germany and Japan were huge industrial powers. ISIS is not - it's a bunch of yahoos in the desert cutting people's throats and burning people alive. They have no airforce, no navy, no ability to project power in any meaningful way.

We've a lot of over-emotional, Call of Duty, keyboard warriors commenting on this issue.

Have you ever served in the military? I have, so I know a bit about what I'm talking about.

ISIS are about 20k to 30k strong, have large numbers of NATO grade equipment seized from the Iraqi army and are doing a fairly good job of holding ground.

They don't need to project power in a conventional manner. Care to offer an opinion on how they should be dealt with?

BlaasForRafa

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Africans are beating gay men to death on a daily basis, Pakistani's force their daughters to marry at young ages, Syrian government using chemical weapons and Saudis beheading women in the middle of the street. Again i agree something needs to be done about ISIS but the answer is not to kill.thousands of innocent civilians to stop the killing of a few innocent civilians.

Bad things happening in other places is no excuse for the world to sit on it's hands.

RobYourBuilder

You realise where ISIS gets its fighters right?

Yeah, 5,000 or so came from EU member states.

Sociopath2

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Western troops on the ground is exactly what ISIS wants.

Where did I say western troops? They are the best equipped to deal with it but there are some ME states that might be capable, but they need to commit to a decisive victory not merely rolling them back from their or their friends borders.