Isis burn pilot alive..

Tony EH

Sociopath2 wrote: »

You're still missing the point. As I pointed out to you earlier, it is not on the same scale.

It is, however, a similar question of dealing with an aggressive, ideologically driven force. Germany was let become a threat because of inaction by those who should have opposed it. We are in a similar situation with ISIS. Ideological based opponents are not easily defeated, regardless of size. I gave a rough estimate of the kind of forces needed to do so. It's no small number.

We now have to decide does someone intervene, at great cost, or attempt a different approach, taking the risk that ISIS may become a greater threat.

FFS...

The NUMBER ONE country Germany was a threat to was the Soviet Union. A nation which every western country either despised or feared. Germany in the 30's shared the hatred of Russia, but was more militant about her hatred. The ruling powers of Western Europe during the 30's considered Communist Russia to be the greater threat to peace and stability than they did the nazis or Germany and both Britain and France were happy to let Hitler progress until their about face in 1938.

None of which is applicable to the scenario we have with ISIS, so please stop Godwinning the discussion with nonsense about Germany.

And EVERY opponent in a war is an "ideological enemy".

evo2000

Its a mess situation with ISIS and it does require some sort of a military intervention, bottom line you simply cannot allow a group of radicals to go around burning and killing indiscriminately, at this point in time no amount of reasoning will do any good, why would they listen to anyone when they are winning? and at the height of there power,

Can you claim a complete victory over them? no but you certainly can weaken them enough so that they can be controlled, or maintained its abit of a israeli esque tactic but it would work, or atleast better the situation.

What other options are there? sit back grab the popcorn and watch and hope for the best? lets not forget 911 and the likes these sort of people have shown before they are well capable of causing destruction on home soil.

evo2000

Egginacup wrote: »

Spoken like a true slope-shoulder who would never have half a testicle to go anywhere near the odd angry shot.

Your the only slope shoulder here, do yourself favor and dont bother replying if you cant do so without insulting people.

BMMachine

I sit here reading this thread and one thing strikes me.

How insanely easy it is for people not to pay attention to actual problems and how easy it is for them to be distracted by their own moral outrage.
Its no wonder that corruption is rife and that terms are dictated to us about how our society should be run. Its no wonder that the planet can and will be polluted until choking point in the name of profit.
You dare call these people on their complete lack of education or understanding of the complicated situation and they turn to easy to say things like "tin foil hat" all because they would prefer to appear right in their own head and not change their viewpoints towards anything actually productive.
Its no small wonder that this forum is well renown for being full of idiots and useless unrealised over zealous opinions based on nothing but the smug smell produced by their own crap.

Yeah go and 'nuke' the middle east because you are all so morally outraged by ISIS. Its not like it has been TIME PROVEN not to work, but sure, its okay, drop bombs, destroy lives, cities and economies - you won't be affected so why care?

Sociopath2

Egginacup wrote: »

Spoken like a true slope-shoulder who would never have half a testicle to go anywhere near the odd angry shot.

I'm an ex soldier and have seen the consequences of what I'm talking about first hand.

My contributions to this thread have been pointing out the reality of what an effective military operation would entail and what it would cost to defeat ISIS. I'm not advocating it as a first resort but I do believe the military option is sometimes the correct one. When it is it can't be done in half measures.

Any response to that?

FloatingVoter

Karl Stein wrote: »

Utter hysterical bollocks.

These guys are deliberately trying to draw western troops (or their proxies) into their theatre of capability exactly because they know they cannot take their fight outside where 'we've' made a complete balls of.

The 'OMG WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE' histrionics is exactly the response they are trying to effectuate.

You're like putty in their hands. Well done.

Cherry-picking quotes is the job of tabloid sub-editors. Use complete quotes and make a statement or argument backed up by facts.

WakeUp

Sociopath2 wrote: »

Western troops are the most capable of waging a successful campaign but ME states should provide the manpower to prevent it being painted as the west invading. Syria, Jordan, Iran and KSA need to step up.

This. if the Americans/ British/west go into the middle east again like they did in Iraq it will make a bad situation a thousand times worse. why arent the countries that are directly threatened by jihadiland not doing more. the Saudis have about 200 F-15s they have eurofighters and tornados, UAE who just pulled their fighter jets because they burned that pilot have maybe 150 F-16s and French mirage 2000s and thats without even mentioning what the Turks, Egyptians,Jordanians, Iranians could bring to the fight. its a lot of fire power. so why is the west taking the lead with the military stuff and airstrikes why arent the arab/islamic nations dishing out the whooya. the west should stay out of this it isnt our fight. not yet anyways. and really, wicked and all as the caliphate heathens are, lessons need to be learned from the disaster that was the Iraq war. why arent the regional players doing more. they should be.

______________________________________________________________________________

The crisis ISIS has created for the West and the Arab world cannot be effectively addressed until there is a broader understanding of what ISIS wants. The first thing we need to recognize is that ISIS is not waging a war against the West.

This is above all a war within Islam: a conflict of Sunni against Shia, but also a war by Sunni extremists against more moderate Muslims—between those who think the Muslim world should be dominated by a single strand of Wahhabism and its extremist offshoot Salafism and those who support a pluralistic vision of Muslim society. The leaders of ISIS seek to eliminate all Muslim and non-Muslim minorities from the Middle East—not only erasing the old borders and states imposed by Western powers, but changing the entire ethnic, tribal, and religious composition of the region.

The primary target are Shias, who are dominant in Iran, Iraq, and Bahrain, command a strong plurality in Lebanon, and form small minorities in almost every other Arab state. Shia-Sunni tensions have existed since the early days of Islam, but until ISIS, they had never reached the extent that one group is literally trying to exterminate the other. Among the group’s many atrocities, in late October, Human Rights Watch reported that ISIS had executed some 600 Shias during its takeover of Mosul last summer. Even Al-Qaeda’s anti-Shia pogroms in Afghanistan did not go this far.

The ideology that has produced such a perverse interpretation of Islam is Wahhabism—a Sunni sectarian view of Islam that is the official creed of Saudi Arabia and some of the Arabian Gulf states. The eighteenth-century founder of Wahhabi teachings, Muhammed Abd al-Wahhab (1703-1791), was neither a jihadist nor a promoter of violence and hatred. He was part of the anti-colonial revivalist movement within Islam at that time and his only abhorrence was Sufism, the mystical side of Islam

Accepting that ISIS is primarily waging a war within Islam requires a different kind of strategy than the US is pursuing. Firstly, the Arab states who are most directly affected by ISIS’s rise to power should be leading the coalition, not the Pentagon. American leadership of the coalition—which is already being perceived as support for the Assad regime—is a sure formula for inflaming anti-Americanism throughout the Muslim world. Arab rulers are under pressure from their own people for joining a US-led coalition, tension which is too easy for ISIS to exploit.

Jordan and Saudi Arabia are the two states best equipped to lead the coalition, but their nervous royal rulers are at odds with one another and hesitant to do so without greater US commitment. Turkey, another natural leader and member of NATO, has been at odds with the Americans over the Kurdish issue and the failure to remove Bashar al-Assad of Syria. The US is clearly vital for the success of the coalition and especially in coordinating its military activity against ISIS, but its main goal should be preparing the Arabs to assume leadership.
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2014/dec/02/isis-what-us-doesnt-understand/

evo2000

BMMachine wrote: »

I sit here reading this thread and one thing strikes me.

How insanely easy it is for people not to pay attention to actual problems and how easy it is for them to be distracted by their own moral outrage.
Its no wonder that corruption is rife and that terms are dictated to us about how our society should be run. Its no wonder that the planet can and will be polluted until choking point in the name of profit.
You dare call these people on their complete lack of education or understanding of the complicated situation and they turn to easy to say things like "tin foil hat" all because they would prefer to appear right in their own head and not change their viewpoints towards anything actually productive.
Its no small wonder that this forum is well renown for being full of idiots and useless unrealised over zealous opinions based on nothing but the smug smell produced by their own crap.

Yeah go and 'nuke' the middle east because you are all so morally outraged by ISIS. Its not like it has been TIME PROVEN not to work, but sure, its okay, drop bombs, destroy lives, cities and economies - you won't be affected so why care?

When you call people out on there education,insult them and then proceed to back it up with absolutely nothing, you ll tend to get reactions like that...you talk like your so much smarter and better than everyone else but your actually not... your just a critic and as they say its alot easier it is to be critical than to be correct!

Tugboats

BMMachine wrote: »

I sit here reading this thread and one thing strikes me.

How insanely easy it is for people not to pay attention to actual problems and how easy it is for them to be distracted by their own moral outrage.
Its no wonder that corruption is rife and that terms are dictated to us about how our society should be run. Its no wonder that the planet can and will be polluted until choking point in the name of profit.
You dare call these people on their complete lack of education or understanding of the complicated situation and they turn to easy to say things like "tin foil hat" all because they would prefer to appear right in their own head and not change their viewpoints towards anything actually productive.
Its no small wonder that this forum is well renown for being full of idiots and useless unrealised over zealous opinions based on nothing but the smug smell produced by their own crap.

Yeah go and 'nuke' the middle east because you are all so morally outraged by ISIS. Its not like it has been TIME PROVEN not to work, but sure, its okay, drop bombs, destroy lives, cities and economies - you won't be affected so why care?

Good idea. When the bombs start falling then you can pretend to morally outraged by the death and destruction it causes. Everyone's a winner on after hours at least...

Egginacup

rolliepoley wrote: »

These people teach their Children to kill before they can walk, they breed their own successors.

source?

BMMachine

Sociopath2 wrote: »

I'm an ex soldier and have seen the consequences of what I'm talking about first hand.

My contributions to this thread have been pointing out the reality of what an effective military operation would entail and what it would cost to defeat ISIS. I'm not advocating it as a first resort but I do believe the military option is sometimes the correct one. When it is it can't be done in half measures.

Any response to that?

where you out in Afghanistan destroying the Taliban and Al-Qaeda? If so you did a really effective job.
Or where you in Iraq and leave the country in civil war where a power vacuum has sown the seeds for extremist groups like ISIS?
Military intervention in these countries has done very little to curb what they intended to do - stop rogue groups like Al-Qaeda to be able to function effectively. What military support of Israel has done is increase tensions on a massive scale and also give Israel a blank cheque to do what they want with people they don't like

evo2000

Egginacup wrote: »

source?

Are you taking what was said there litterally? and do you really need a source for that ?....

Karl Stein

old_aussie wrote: »

Get off the playstation!

I don't own a games console and don't play war games unlike our 'Call of Duty' kids who're erect at the thought of big explosions and gun battles from the safety of their media devices.

What, you haven't heard of the Twin Towers in the USA,

Aaand we're back to square one. One of the principle motivations Al-Qaeda gave for the attacks was US scumbaggery in the Middle East, infidel troops in 'holy lands', the US's reflexive support for Israel etc.

So the solution to radicalising these nutters is more of the above is it?

The world isn't the ridiculous goodies v baddies cartoon people like you are fed from sources like Faux News and Sky.

BMMachine

Tugboats wrote: »

Good idea. When the bombs start falling then you can pretend to morally outraged by the death and destruction it causes. Everyone's a winner on after hours at least...

you have to quite easily be one of the most clueless persistent posters on the thread. You have nothing to add but misinformation, fear and bloodlust.
You have little to no understanding of the world, humanity or how society works. Your opinion isn't valid in complicated issues like this.

evo2000 wrote: »

When you call people out on there education,insult them and then proceed to back it up with absolutely nothing, you ll tend to get reactions like that...you talk like your so much smarter and better than everyone else but your actually not... your just a critic and as they say its alot easier it is to be critical than to be correct!

you were dealt with yesterday. why are you still posting? read above as to the realities of what you offer

evo2000

BMMachine wrote: »

where you out in Afghanistan destroying the Taliban and Al-Qaeda? If so you did a really effective job.
Or where you in Iraq and leave the country in civil war where a power vacuum has sown the seeds for extremist groups like ISIS?
Military intervention in these countries has done very little to curb what they intended to do - stop rogue groups like Al-Qaeda to be able to function effectively. What military support of Israel has done is increase tensions on a massive scale and also give Israel a blank cheque to do what they want with people they don't like

And what effect will your idea of doing absolutely nothing have?

Iwasfrozen

BMMachine wrote: »

I sit here reading this thread and one thing strikes me.

How insanely easy it is for people not to pay attention to actual problems and how easy it is for them to be distracted by their own moral outrage.
Its no wonder that corruption is rife and that terms are dictated to us about how our society should be run. Its no wonder that the planet can and will be polluted until choking point in the name of profit.
You dare call these people on their complete lack of education or understanding of the complicated situation and they turn to easy to say things like "tin foil hat" all because they would prefer to appear right in their own head and not change their viewpoints towards anything actually productive.
Its no small wonder that this forum is well renown for being full of idiots and useless unrealised over zealous opinions based on nothing but the smug smell produced by their own crap.

Yeah go and 'nuke' the middle east because you are all so morally outraged by ISIS. Its not like it has been TIME PROVEN not to work, but sure, its okay, drop bombs, destroy lives, cities and economies - you won't be affected so why care?

You speak a lot about education. What is your educational background?

I only ask because you've accused me and many others of being uneducated.

Sociopath2

Tony EH wrote: »

FFS...

The NUMBER ONE country Germany was a threat to was the Soviet Union. A nation which every western country either despised or feared. Germany in the 30's shared the hatred of Russia, but was more militant about her hatred. The ruling powers of Western Europe during the 30's considered Communist Russia to be the greater threat to peace and stability than they did the nazis or Germany and both Britain and France were happy to let Hitler progress until their about face in 1938.

None of which is applicable to the scenario we have with ISIS, so please stop Godwinning the discussion with nonsense about Germany.

And EVERY opponent in a war is an "ideological enemy".

Appeasement and inaction then were factors in allowing a conflict develop. If you want to deny that, then there's no point arguing with you.

An example of a non-ideological enemy, Argentinian troops in the Falklands. Mainly conscripts, no pervading ideology driving them, no indoctrination of any sort. That type of enemy will surrender or fall back when overwhelmed. That's not what anyone will be facing in ISIS. More likely to hold out and fight to the last man. Not good tactics but makes it costly taking any position from them.

BMMachine

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You speak a lot about education. What is your educational background?

I only ask because you've accused me and many others of being uneducated.

accuse? no you are completely uneducated in the matters of that part of the world. that permeates through with every post you make.

you don't need to know and I don't have to or want to tell you. I expect you to use that as a stick but hey, its very hard to predict your reactions its not like you all talk and sound the same and have the same inane, backwards and harmful viewpoints is it? no way, that couldnt be it. you are you and you have to be right!


hence the problem with the internet and anyone being able to weight into an debate, no matter how far above the debate is from their station

evo2000

BMMachine wrote: »

you have to quite easily be one of the most clueless persistent posters on the thread. You have nothing to add but misinformation, fear and bloodlust.
You have little to no understanding of the world, humanity or how society works. Your opinion isn't valid in complicated issues like this.



you were dealt with yesterday. why are you still posting? read above as to the realities of what you offer

And yet again you said a grand total of nothing there bar describing yourself to a tee, ive never seen someone so dumb and yet be so convinced there so much more educated than everyone else..

I was dealt with? right... might want to go back and read it again like a good lad.

evo2000

People think military action is so bad, but if we leave them unchecked we will eventually have to deal with them some where along the line, they arent just gonna up and disappear and they are showing every sign of getting worse and escalating there antics, how much worse will it have to get before it will be a viable option i wonder? Perhaps another 911 or something of that tragic magnitude to happen..

Iwasfrozen

BMMachine wrote: »

accuse? no you are completely uneducated in the matters of that part of the world. that permeates through with every post you make.

you don't need to know and I don't have to or want to tell you. I expect you to use that as a stick but hey, its very hard to predict your reactions its not like you all talk and sound the same and have the same inane, backwards and harmful viewpoints is it? no way, that couldnt be it. you are you and you have to be right!


hence the problem with the internet and anyone being able to weight into an debate, no matter how far above the debate is from their station

My station? What exactly is my station? Or better yet what's yours?

BMMachine

evo2000 wrote: »

And yet again you said a grand total of nothing there bar describing yourself to a tee, ive never seen someone so dumb and yet be so convinced there so much more educated than everyone else..

I was dealt with? right... might want to go back and read it again like a good lad.

but your solution and view of increasing military presence in the area is time proven to be wrong. It hasn't worked at all and will continue not to work.
So, by your continued view of "we need to nuke/kill/burn those people" all you are doing is promoting extremely harmful and backwards ideals that have proven not to work in the name of your own moral outrage and inflexibility to think productively.

I linked a video you can find easily enough. As I said then, you can watch it and get a little bit of education about this whole mess if you want, but if you pursue to just sit there thanking the posts of pro-militant/death people while adding absolutely f**k all in return then yes, your opinion will continue not to matter

BMMachine

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

My station? What exactly is my station? Or better yet what's yours?

on this matter, far above you because you don't know wtf you are talking about when it comes to the middle east, as proven by however many times you have posted here. also your refusal to actually go and learn and research anything about it is what annoys me most.

Tony EH

Sociopath2 wrote: »

Appeasement and inaction then were factors in allowing a conflict develop. If you want to deny that, then there's no point arguing with you.

...and you clearly know **** all about period, so yes there is no point in talking to me about it.

Sociopath2 wrote: »

An example of a non-ideological enemy, Argentinian troops in the Falklands. Mainly conscripts, no pervading ideology driving them, no indoctrination of any sort. That type of enemy will surrender or fall back when overwhelmed. That's not what anyone will be facing in ISIS. More likely to hold out and fight to the last man. Not good tactics but makes it costly taking any position from them.

Argentina's ideology and Great Britain's were rather different during the early 1980's.

BMMachine

evo2000 wrote: »

People think military action is so bad, but if we leave them unchecked we will eventually have to deal with them some where along the line, they arent just gonna up and disappear and they are showing every sign of getting worse and escalating there antics, how much worse will it have to get before it will be a viable option i wonder? Perhaps another 911 or something of that tragic magnitude to happen..

and there you go.

in your own words. you dont know why 9/11 happened do you? you dont know how these fundamentalists started do you? you have no idea about the power and political structures across this vast area do you?
do you think these people went "how about we be evil today?" go and learn then come back to me. if you are still spouting the same thing then after then yeah, whatever. tbh, you would probably do that out of spite anyway because thats pretty darn common nowadays

Iwasfrozen

BMMachine wrote: »

on this matter, far above you because you don't know wtf you are talking about when it comes to the middle east, as proven by however many times you have posted here. also your refusal to actually go and learn and research anything about it is what annoys me most.

Don't assume I lack knowledge on Islam or the Middle East. You claim educational authority but as of yet you haven't told me what your educational background is. If you can't substantiate your claim why should I take it seriously?

Tony EH

evo2000 wrote: »

Perhaps another 911 or something of that tragic magnitude to happen..

You do know that the events of Sept 11 2001 were a response to American interference in Middle Eastern affairs, don't you?

evo2000

BMMachine wrote: »

but your solution and view of increasing military presence in the area is time proven to be wrong. It hasn't worked at all and will continue not to work.
So, by your continued view of "we need to nuke/kill/burn those people" all you are doing is promoting extremely harmful and backwards ideals that have proven not to work in the name of your own moral outrage and inflexibility to think productively.

I linked a video you can find easily enough. As I said then, you can watch it and get a little bit of education about this whole mess if you want, but if you pursue to just sit there thanking the posts of pro-militant/death people while adding absolutely f**k all in return then yes, your opinion will continue not to matter

I never said anything about nukes.

All you do is come on here and repeat constantly to anyone that will listen how intelligent you are and how everyone else is uneducated and knows nothing,

You did it last night and it had zero results aside from making you look seriously daft and yet here you are again doing the same thing, expecting different results,

But what do i know, im only a mere mortal in comparison to your ungodly intelligence! maybe we ll eventually believe how smart you are if you keep screaming it at us!

BMMachine

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Don't assume I lack knowledge on Islam or the Middle East. You claim educational authority but as of yet you haven't told me what your educational background is. If you can't substantiate your claim why should I take it seriously?

and I don't need to.

the fact that you think more military action needs to take place proves that you lack knowledge on the area. It proves that you have no idea the harm it causes (long and short term), its complete ineffectiveness in completing what it sets out to do and how these military interventions are used by the locals in their own power struggles and politics.
All these things are time proven to be true btw. Afghanistan being probably the best example.

evo2000

Tony EH wrote: »

You do know that the events of Sept 11 2001 were a response to American interference in Middle Eastern affairs, don't you?

And ? doesnt matter now what it was a response to, its not like interfering less now will prevent another attack.