Isis burn pilot alive..

BMMachine

evo2000 wrote: »

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!

yes, i looked seriously daft in telling you to go learn about something you very clearly know nothing about.

and yeah, what do you know about the middle east and radical Islam? I'll give you a hint - f & a

Tony EH

evo2000 wrote: »

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

Oh jesus christ...

There aren't facepalm gifs on the internet.

:pac:

Iwasfrozen

BMMachine wrote: »

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.

Military invasions haven't worked in the past granted but a US co-ordinated Arab led (sunni) coalition from Jordan and Saudi Arabia could provide structures to replace the power vacuum these barbarians thrive in.

leo2a6

Bashar Al Assad has been burning civilians for 4 years, starving his people, killing 100s of 1000s using sarin, scuds, tnt barrils, torturing, raping...
All documented by international experts, journalists, etc...

But everybody focusing on IS, which is only a barbaric consequence of Assad's & Maliki's barbaric actions...

evo2000

BMMachine wrote: »

yes, i looked seriously daft in telling you to go learn about something you very clearly know nothing about.

and yeah, what do you know about the middle east and radical Islam? I'll give you a hint - f & a

Go back and read how many people were pointing out ****ing dumb you sounded go back and have a read, your honestly deluded, all you do is call people stupid and uneducated its annoying do the smart thing and leave the thread if thats all you want to do.

Sociopath2

Tony EH wrote: »

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



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

It was, but how many of those troops were ideological driven?

How many were there because they were conscripts and had no option, or because they were professional soldiers and it was their job?

The Royal Marine garrison on the island surrendered after some brief firefights. They didn't fight to the last man and the last round. That's because they were professional soldiers.

You still don't understand the different motivations driving ISIS or any other mutant fundamentalist and a professional soldier.

Karl Stein

evo2000 wrote: »

People think military action is so bad...

ISIS planners are not stupid. They know if they can provoke a large scale reaction, by burning people alive, it would involve a hammering from the air first and foremost. ISIS fighters would run like **** to their bunkers and caves until the initial 'softening' up abated.

Then, when the bombing subsided, these guys would be out with Hi-Def cameras filming dead children being dug out of rubble. Within hours they'd have it slickly edited and all over every Islamist website on the internet. Cue thousands of disgruntled young men all over the world signing up to fight, local populations rallying around the resistance, millions of dollars pouring in from Saudi and Qatari benefactors, perhaps reprisals from extremists in the EU and everything becomes exponentially worse.

Want to hand these guys a propaganda victory like that?

Or maybe, just maybe it would be better to let them stew in their medieval ****-holes so that the rest of the region can see just how bad their lives could get if these guys gain support/ground.

evo2000

Tony EH wrote: »

Oh jesus christ...

There aren't facepalm gifs on the internet.

:pac:

You realize ISIS release constant videos vowing to spill blood on american soil? unless you ve a time machine you can facepalm yourself because its abit late to be worrying about stirring em up!

Tugboats

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?

Nothing will be achieved if one keeps going back to the past. That can't be changed. The issue is what should be done tomorrow? The main plans on this thread are

1 Bomb them

2 middle east is none of our business but America should fund and train Kurds and others forces. These forces should carry out a military campaign with limited civilian casualties. Boarders should be secured and funding cut off.

3. Build a school and feed them. Let UN peacekeepers protect the builders and teachers

Tony EH

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Military invasions haven't worked in the past granted but a US co-ordinated Arab led (sunni) coalition from Jordan and Saudi Arabia could provide structures to replace the power vacuum these barbarians thrive in.

Why would any Sunni power base trust the US after the lies about Saddam Hussein, Iraqi WMDs and her subsequent actions there?

evo2000

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Military invasions haven't worked in the past granted but a US co-ordinated Arab led (sunni) coalition from Jordan and Saudi Arabia could provide structures to replace the power vacuum these barbarians thrive in.

Exactly at the moment the main problem is its a half finished job..

rolliepoley

Egginacup wrote: »

source?

It was a figure of speech, go look on the internet and watch their offspring learn how to kill.

evo2000

Tony EH wrote: »

Why would any Sunni power base trust the US after the lies about Saddam Hussein, Iraqi WMDs and her subsequent actions there?

It would benefit them more than backing the wrong horse like ISIS staying passive wont do them any good either.

Tony EH

Sociopath2 wrote: »

It was, but how many of those troops were ideological driven?

How many were there because they were conscripts and had no option, or because they were professional soldiers and it was their job?

That doesn't matter. They were the enemy and were fighting for a Nation who's ideology was quite different to that of Great Britain's.

Egginacup

Sociopath2 wrote: »

ISIS and Nazism:

Both aggressive, ideologically driven forces.
Both seeking to create enlarged homelands based on religious/racial purity and superiority.
Both prepared to engage world powers militarily.
Both bordered by states with significant numbers of potential sympathisers.
Both willing to mass murder minorities and perceived opponents.

See any comparison there? I could go on. You're obsession with the scale of the conflict is very short sighted.

Just like the Nazis, ISIS are unlikely to surrender or cede ground without serious opposition. Any operation to defeat them will need serious resources and commitment.

Conventional military wisdom stated an attacking force needed a 3 to 1 advantage in numbers to defeat a defending force. When a conventional army is engaging a guerrilla force that may be as high as 10 to 1.

Military doctrine has changed over the years but giving ISIS a strength of 30k, it would take an estimated force of 90k to 300k to decisively defeat them.

As for "blowing up **** far from our borders", I'll take that as you admitting you don't understand the nuances of global, particularly ME, politics.

I don't see an other viable alternatives to dealing with ISIS at present. The one option I see as possible will be very messy and not one I'd like to see come to pass, but leaving ISIS unchecked is unthinkable.

My first post in this thread earlier was simply that there would be no clean military solution but it may well be the only one.

First off....why are you equating the Nazis to ISIS? Is that some tug at heart strings? The Nazis were a political-military faction of a greater National military movement that sought imperial expansion and resource acquisition from Central Europe spanning in directions so as to protect aforementioned imperial plunder.
ISIS, by comparison have no such agenda...unless you want to believe the farcical fantasies of caliphates and flying carpets.

Conventional military wisdom.....is the same kind of gibberish that, like insanity, espouses trying the same thing, ad infinitum, and expecting different results. I sometimes wonder if any of these "conventional military wise men" have ever read Sun Tzu, because their modis operandi is hardly to win a war but rather to not upset their betters or lose their jobs.

Military doctrine has never changed. Only bullsh1t and bullsh1tters have. You talk of numbers like you are balancing a bucket of faeces versus two buckets of piss on a weighing scales with your infantile estimates.

Wasn't it that winner Rumsfeld (the same fool who said ...."chuckle...we know where the WMD are..we found them!) who declared Al-Qaeda a few dozen "dead-enders" in 2003?
Where did he get his facts? And from where do you get yours'?

You talk about "decisively defeating" something or someone?
Shower your analysis on the rest of us non-brilliant military nobodies.
Where do those figures come from?
Are they from the same school of delusion as the arseholes like Paul Wolfowitz and his muppets who said the Iraq War would cost about $87 billion?....and they fired and hung out to dry a general who interjected that it would cost at least $450 billion...can't remember his name.

Well now the current cost is over $3 trillion and expect to go on for trillions more. Nevermind the death, the decades of sectarian carnage and political upheaval to come.

And you know what? You'd probably bitch at someone if they took a gamble with a tenner of your cash and it didn't turn out right.

Spare your crappy military projections.

Saddam Hussein is dead, and he was trying to surrender nights before the American rape and slaughter of Iraq in order to avoid a Middle East Holocaust. But that would have been no good for investors now would it?

BMMachine

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Military invasions haven't worked in the past granted but a US co-ordinated Arab led (sunni) coalition from Jordan and Saudi Arabia could provide structures to replace the power vacuum these barbarians thrive in.

Did you know that it was the Saudi's that exported the extremist elements of Islam (wahhabism) to countries like Afghanistan and Iran and Egypt and want absolutely nothing to do with controlling the areas they operate out of? Basically, the wahhabists were a problem within their country so they wanted rid of them so they could set up a western style economy for their upper class without being curtailed by the extremist nature of that sect.
The Saudi's have always been the biggest player of the game in that area and always pulling the strings of other countries.
Syria is currently fighting a war against ISIS but won't get western backing due to Assad while Jordan will also fight them to protect its economic interests and territories.
Its fiercely complicated and the last thing it needs is the unique complication that western military power provides

Tony EH

Tugboats wrote: »

Nothing will be achieved if one keeps going back to the past.

Those who forget the lessons of the past...yadda, yadda, yadda...

Iwasfrozen

Tony EH wrote: »

Why would any Sunni power base trust the US after the lies about Saddam Hussein, Iraqi WMDs and her subsequent actions there?

Saudis and Jordan are both US allies, the will be the key players.

I know the Saudis and Jordanians don't have a great track record of human rights but order is definitely better than chaos and an Arab led sunni coalition is (in my opinion) the best way to restore order to the chaos ISIS thrive in.

BMMachine

evo2000 wrote: »

Go back and read how many people were pointing out ****ing dumb you sounded go back and have a read, your honestly deluded, all you do is call people stupid and uneducated its annoying do the smart thing and leave the thread if thats all you want to do.

you mean 2 or 3 people who's opinion I couldnt give a f**k about? oh deary me, whatever will I do.

now get off the thread and start educating yourself, you are adding, and will continue to add, nothing.

Tugboats

Tony EH wrote: »

Those who forget the lessons of the past...yadda, yadda, yadda...

Great solution

Sociopath2

Tony EH wrote: »

That doesn't matter. They were the enemy and were fighting for a Nation who's ideology was quite different to that of Great Britain's.

It does, the level of resistance a combatant is willing to put up in the face of an enemy is solely down to their personal motivations. It's why the motivation, morale and disposition of an enemy unit are of such interest to military planners.

But if you want to continue to split hairs because you're wrong and don't want to back down, go right ahead.

Tony EH

evo2000 wrote: »

It would benefit them more than backing the wrong horse like ISIS staying passive wont do them any good either.

Stop and think for moment will you.

Sunni Muslims trust America about as much as they do their enemies within the region FFS.

However, the extremist factions like ISIS are tiny, while the US is the largest military force in the world and has shown itself to be the tool of unscrupulous organisations.

They may be willing to accept help in the form of weaponry etc. but I would doubt their are many Sunni's, especially in Iraq that would look upon America as their pal, after their antics with Hussein.

evo2000

BMMachine wrote: »

you mean 2 or 3 people who's opinion I couldnt give a f**k about? oh deary me, whatever will I do.

now get off the thread and start educating yourself, you are adding, and will continue to add, nothing.

Jesus the tin foil hat is back with a vengeance tonight lol you re spewing the same garbage as last night, no one wants to hear about you claiming to be so much more intelligent than the rest of us mere mortals...

You cant even manage to debate in a civil manner yet claim everyone else is dumb...

Iwasfrozen

BMMachine wrote: »

Did you know that it was the Saudi's that exported the extremist elements of Islam (wahhabism) to countries like Afghanistan and Iran and Egypt and want absolutely nothing to do with controlling the areas they operate out of? Basically, the wahhabists were a problem within their country so they wanted rid of them so they could set up a western style economy for their upper class without being curtailed by the extremist nature of that sect.

Yes, but the wahabists aren't a problem in Saudi Arabia, that ideology was instrumental in bringing the house of Saud to power and keeping them there today, any way I digress.

The Saudi's have always been the biggest player of the game in that area and always pulling the strings of other countries.
Syria is currently fighting a war against ISIS but won't get western backing due to Assad while Jordan will also fight them to protect its economic interests and territories.
Its fiercely complicated and the last thing it needs is the unique complication that western military power provides

The Jordanian King is pissed. It's rumoured he quoted Clint Eastwood today when he said "the only problem we're going to have is running out of fuel and bullets" they will definitely agree to bring in troops if America gives the go ahead.

Saudi Arabia also has skin in the game, it may have been Saudi Arabian state ideology that helped found ISIS but the Saudi Arabian government have participated in air strikes against ISIS, clearly nailing their colors to the mast. Also Saudi Arabia contains the two holiest cities in Islam, they know they will soon be a target for ISIS if they manage to spread in the region.

Both Jordan and Saudi Arabia have vested interests in removing ISIS, the ideal scenario would be Jordanian and Saudi troops on the ground while a provisional government is set up. It's obviously not perfect but as far as I can see it's the best course of action.

Tugboats

Some middle eastern reporters are saying King Abdullah will pilot a fighter jet tomorrow lol

BMMachine

evo2000 wrote: »

Jesus the tin foil hat is back with a vengeance tonight lol you re spewing the same garbage as last night, no one wants to hear about you claiming to be so much more intelligent than the rest of us mere mortals...

You cant even manage to debate in a civil manner yet claim everyone else is dumb...

knowing more about a subject than someone = tin foil hat
well done. you are the problem with modern communications. narrow minded, pig headed and absolutely unwilling to learn a thing.
when confronted with your own defective opinions you resort to spewing out easy to say buzzwords like "tin foil hat". actually, why am I even talking to you? like, its extremely obvious that you are a lowbrow

evo2000

Tony EH wrote: »

Stop and think for moment will you.

Sunni Muslims trust America about as much as they do their enemies within the region FFS.

However, the extremist factions like ISIS are tiny, while the US is the largest military force in the world and has shown itself to be the tool of unscrupulous organisations.

They may be willing to accept help in the form of weaponry etc. but I would doubt their are many Sunni's, especially in Iraq that would look upon America as their pal, after their antics with Hussein.

I reckon they would didnt one of there most influential clerics come out and ask for isis members to be crucified...

All that aside do you realistically think that the ISIS problem can be solved without any sort of a military intervention?

Tony EH

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Saudis and Jordan are both US allies, the will be the key players.

I know the Saudis and Jordanians don't have a great track record of human rights but order is definitely better than chaos and an Arab led sunni coalition is (in my opinion) the best way to restore order to the chaos ISIS thrive in.

Elements within Saudi are at the top of the list of bank rollers for ISIS. I don't think any interaction with them is that advisable. Jordan, frankly, are an unknown quantity in this matter. What they would do and how they would do it would be a matter of concern.

But yes, I agree, the solution lies in the Middle East and not with American fists, which have failed miserably every time they set foot in the region.

evo2000

BMMachine wrote: »

knowing more about a subject than someone = tin foil hat
well done. you are the problem with modern communications. narrow minded, pig headed and absolutely unwilling to learn a thing.
when confronted with your own defective opinions you resort to spewing out easy to say buzzwords like "tin foil hat". actually, why am I even talking to you? like, its extremely obvious that you are a lowbrow

According to you, you know more than everyone about the subject.

But according to everyone else you re a tit, that just goes around calling eveyone else that has a difference of opinion to you stupid, without actually backing up any of what your saying.

This the last time im saying this im not reply to you again, its pointless talking to someone so intelligent as yourself... :rolleyes:

Tugboats

Tony EH wrote: »

Elements within Saudi are at the top of the list of bank rollers for ISIS. I don't think any interaction with them is that advisable. Jordan, frankly, are an unknown quantity in this matter. What they would do and how they would do it would be a matter of concern.

But yes, I agree, the solution lies in the Middle East and not with American fists, which have failed miserably every time they set foot in the region.

Do you have any issue with Jordan or any ME country using military force against isis?