Isis burn pilot alive..

jimboblep

Egginacup wrote: »

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?

Wow angry little fella aint ya

Tony EH

Sociopath2 wrote: »

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.

The level of resistance is directly proportionate to the threat to their life that the combatant is facing. Soldiers on a battlefield fight to stay alive. That's usually their main motivation for fighting.

The vast majority of soldiers ideologies, or perceived ideologies go out the window when the bullets start to fly at them. That's on a man for man level.

That doesn't mean, however, that the "enemy" becomes ideologically the same as each other.

BMMachine

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

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 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.

my thing would be that this is okay, as long as the west doesn't intervene. I think that If the region can sort out its problems without direct western military support (funding is probably a different matter as economies and markets work entirely differently) than it will be the better for it.
The problem here is Israel. They will demand western intervention as they will fear reprisals from the Saudi's, Jordanians, Syrians and Egyptians (popular, aren't they ) and the west will likely oblige.
The key imo is for the west not to provide another enemy for extremists to rally against. Its a long hard process and tbh, I doubt it can get there as the west will stick its nose in again

Tony EH

evo2000 wrote: »

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?

Not US military intervention, no. It needs to be sorted from within the region.

US bombing etc will ONLY make things worse. The precedent is there for all to see.

Tony EH

Tugboats wrote: »

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

:rolleyes:

I've already said Jordan are an unknown quantity. They may well make things worse if they go in all guns blazing and end up exporting ISIS and their crazies elsewhere.

They're not really off to a great start by executing 5 people for the death of the pilot, are they.

Those type of actions do nothing but stir problems.

What's needed is a coordinated effort from MIDDLE EASTERN countries that have a unified and clear goal regarding ISIS. The issue is defining that goal.

evo2000

Tony EH wrote: »

Not US military intervention, no. It needs to be sorted from within the region.

US bombing etc will ONLY make things worse. The precedent is there for all to see.

Who inside the region is gonna take on ISIS and win without outside help? so far the only ones i see taking it too em effectively is the kurds.

BMMachine

evo2000 wrote: »

Who inside the region is gonna take on ISIS and win without outside help? so far the only ones i see taking it too em effectively is the kurds.

yeah the kurds, smooth military machine them. Can you give us a breakdown on their effectiveness?

evo2000

Tony EH wrote: »

:rolleyes:

I've already said Jordan are an unknown quantity. They may well make things worse if they go in all guns blazing and end up exporting ISIS and their crazies elsewhere.

They're not really off to a great start by executing 5 people for the death of the pilot, are they.

Those type of actions do nothing but stir problems.

What's needed is a coordinated effort from MIDDLE EASTERN countries that have a unified and clear goal regarding ISIS. The issue is defining that goal.

And whats molly coddling them going to do, infairness its ****in ISIS there dealing with, they arent gonna go "ahh well lads infairness they didnt execute ours so lets be fair and stop executing theres" if they were dealing with logical people id agree with what your saying but ISIS is there to bring death nothing less brutal death at that to anyone in there way.

I reckon its gonna get a whole lot worse before it gets better.

Sociopath2

Egginacup wrote: »

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?

Please spare me your hysterics. Read my posts again, they are fairly detailed.

I am not advocating US military intervention as a first resort. I have a much better understanding of what that involves than you. I agree with a lot of what many posters on your side of the fence say, including Tony EH, however we do differ on many points.

Angry bile filled soapboxing is hard to debate with.

You want to deride my experience and post of view? Please tell me what your particular experience, background etc. is that qualifies your view?

Tugboats

evo2000 wrote: »

Who inside the region is gonna take on ISIS and win without outside help? so far the only ones i see taking it too em effectively is the kurds.

Jordan may go crazy who knows. Their air strike today killed 55 people and the king is rumoured to be flying a jet tomorrow

Egginacup

evo2000 wrote: »

First of all calm your tits,

Of course it was better off before america decimated it but unless you ve a time machine thats pretty much irrelevant, ok so you re against any outside help do you think they are better off left to there faith then and the west should turn a blind eye to it ?

I think your view of doing nothing is quite warped

What do you suggest be done? or are you another one of these people taht just criticizes and insults while adding nothing of value to the topic,

I've an idea and I'm sure you will agree.
Now I trust that you are a fan of a quaint little notion called "accountability". If not then just say so because you don't like rules applying to you when they ought to be applied to others.

The Germans invaded France, Belgium, The Netherlands in 1914 and so began a wretched 4 year debacle. After it was all over the Germans were forced to pay war reparations. I'm quite certain that you think that this was correct.
After the disaster of World War 2 the Germans again laid waste to most of Europe and Russia, had all of their eastern lands confiscated, were partitioned, sanctioned and to this day still pay war reparations.

Again...I'm sure you would probably agree with this state of affairs.
What tickles me however is that these atrocities and appalling episodes were a hell of a lot longer ago than 12 years ago.

The US invaded and destroyed Vietnam, slaughtered over 2 million civilians, was charged to pay reparations after the Vietnamese defended their country and ousted the Americans and the Americans have not yet paid a thin dime.

The US have visited the same kind of slaughter upon Iraq and not paid a red cent. In fact won't even accept the 100,000's of refugees that they created, nor provide a smidgen of aid to the millions they have displaced. They will not even pay any aid money to the governments who are straining under the burgeoning masses of refugees from newborns to toddlers to widows to pensioners who are living in filth along borders beside the land where they once had something.

So if you think in some glib way that looking at things through that reality is a bit uncomfortable and that we should "fcuk 'em" and just put it all behind us and move on....get in a time machine, as you so childishly put it, being impossible, then is that your nauseating dismissal of everything that you don't like to think about?

Have you ever even stood up for anyone or anything?

"Millions dead but that's all in the past now, let's move on" ?

Sociopath2

Tony EH wrote: »

:rolleyes:

I've already said Jordan are an unknown quantity. They may well make things worse if they go in all guns blazing and end up exporting ISIS and their crazies elsewhere.

They're not really off to a great start by executing 5 people for the death of the pilot, are they.

Those type of actions do nothing but stir problems.

What's needed is a coordinated effort from MIDDLE EASTERN countries that have a unified and clear goal regarding ISIS. The issue is defining that goal.

On that we can agree. Jordan will need the backing of other regional powers if it wants to have any hope of successfully combating ISIS. If it goes in on its own all guns blazing it'll be easy for ISIS to draw it into a prolonged insurgency and isolate it as the region's new bad guy. You can't spin propaganda like that if it's a unified front of all the regional powers.

Tugboats

Egginacup wrote: »

I've an idea and I'm sure you will agree.
Now I trust that you are a fan of a quaint little notion called "accountability". If not then just say so because you don't like rules applying to you when they ought to be applied to others.

The Germans invaded France, Belgium, The Netherlands in 1914 and so began a wretched 4 year debacle. After it was all over the Germans were forced to pay war reparations. I'm quite certain that you think that this was correct.
After the disaster of World War 2 the Germans again laid waste to most of Europe and Russia, had all of their eastern lands confiscated, were partitioned, sanctioned and to this day still pay war reparations.

Again...I'm sure you would probably agree with this state of affairs.
What tickles me however is that these atrocities and appalling episodes were a hell of a lot longer ago than 12 years ago.

The US invaded and destroyed Vietnam, slaughtered over 2 million civilians, was charged to pay reparations after the Vietnamese defended their country and ousted the Americans and the Americans have not yet paid a thin dime.

The US have visited the same kind of slaughter upon Iraq and not paid a red cent. In fact won't even accept the 100,000's of refugees that they created, nor provide a smidgen of aid to the millions they have displaced. They will not even pay any aid money to the governments who are straining under the burgeoning masses of refugees from newborns to toddlers to widows to pensioners who are living in filth along borders beside the land where they once had something.

So if you think in some glib way that looking at things through that reality is a bit uncomfortable and that we should "fcuk 'em" and just put it all behind us and move on....get in a time machine, as you so childishly put it, being impossible, then is that your nauseating dismissal of everything that you don't like to think about?

Have you ever even stood up for anyone or anything?

"Millions dead but that's all in the past now, let's move on" ?

Another history lesson. What can be done tomorrow to stop gay Muslims being thrown off rooftops, women shot in the back of the head and aid workers getting their heads chopped off?

evo2000

Egginacup wrote: »

I've an idea and I'm sure you will agree.
Now I trust that you are a fan of a quaint little notion called "accountability". If not then just say so because you don't like rules applying to you when they ought to be applied to others.

The Germans invaded France, Belgium, The Netherlands in 1914 and so began a wretched 4 year debacle. After it was all over the Germans were forced to pay war reparations. I'm quite certain that you think that this was correct.
After the disaster of World War 2 the Germans again laid waste to most of Europe and Russia, had all of their eastern lands confiscated, were partitioned, sanctioned and to this day still pay war reparations.

Again...I'm sure you would probably agree with this state of affairs.
What tickles me however is that these atrocities and appalling episodes were a hell of a lot longer ago than 12 years ago.

The US invaded and destroyed Vietnam, slaughtered over 2 million civilians, was charged to pay reparations after the Vietnamese defended their country and ousted the Americans and the Americans have not yet paid a thin dime.

The US have visited the same kind of slaughter upon Iraq and not paid a red cent. In fact won't even accept the 100,000's of refugees that they created, nor provide a smidgen of aid to the millions they have displaced. They will not even pay any aid money to the governments who are straining under the burgeoning masses of refugees from newborns to toddlers to widows to pensioners who are living in filth along borders beside the land where they once had something.

So if you think in some glib way that looking at things through that reality is a bit uncomfortable and that we should "fcuk 'em" and just put it all behind us and move on....get in a time machine, as you so childishly put it, being impossible, then is that your nauseating dismissal of everything that you don't like to think about?

Have you ever even stood up for anyone or anything?

"Millions dead but that's all in the past now, let's move on" ?

Who do they right the cheque too? will it be fairly distributed amongst the population?

The winners of a war usually dont pay the losers...

BMMachine

evo2000 wrote: »

Who do they right the cheque too? will it be fairly distributed amongst the population?

The winners of a war usually dont pay the losers...

care to tell us why the Kurds are so effective? Im waiting for your key knowledge in this area

evo2000

BMMachine wrote: »

care to tell us why the Kurds are so effective? Im waiting for your key knowledge in this area

Hang on ill get a previous post for you.

evo2000

BMMachine wrote: »

care to tell us why the Kurds are so effective? Im waiting for your key knowledge in this area

Quote:
Originally Posted by BMMachine View Post
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

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...

Read that every time you decide to try and reply to anything im debating with a reasonable person.

Egginacup

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?

And all the while they think American Sniper is worthy of not only a load of money to be watched but actually deserves awards....the same awards that were bestowed upon the likes of Gielgud, Day-Lewis, Hoffman, Shaw, Streep.
A garbage movie about a garbage man, a movie that appeals only to the lowest scum who cheer for fake braggadocio, tractors crushing wrecked cars and their enlightened solution to everything is "Fuckin' nuke 'em!!" as they smash a miller bottle against their Cromagnon forehead and then look for high-fives.

:pac:

evo2000

Egginacup wrote: »

And all the while they think American Sniper is worthy of not only a load of money to be watched but actually deserves awards....the same awards that were bestowed upon the likes of Gielgud, Day-Lewis, Hoffman, Shaw, Streep.
A garbage movie about a garbage man, a movie that appeals only to the lowest scum who cheer for fake braggadocio, tractors crushing wrecked cars and their enlightened solution to everything is "Fuckin' nuke 'em!!" as they smash a miller bottle against their Cromagnon forehead and then look for high-fives.

:pac:

Real classy....

Egginacup

Tugboats wrote: »

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

You probably ganged up on someone in the past. Someone with dark skin. Hurt them, and still you run with the mob.

Tugboats

Egginacup wrote: »

And all the while they think American Sniper is worthy of not only a load of money to be watched but actually deserves awards....the same awards that were bestowed upon the likes of Gielgud, Day-Lewis, Hoffman, Shaw, Streep.
A garbage movie about a garbage man, a movie that appeals only to the lowest scum who cheer for fake braggadocio, tractors crushing wrecked cars and their enlightened solution to everything is "Fuckin' nuke 'em!!" as they smash a miller bottle against their Cromagnon forehead and then look for high-fives.

:pac:

Didnt think you would like Day Lewis? He played the part of a war mongering US president in a movie that glorified the death of hundreds of thousands

Sociopath2

Egginacup wrote: »

You probably ganged up on someone in the past. Someone with dark skin. Hurt them, and still you run with the mob.

????

What are you on about?

evo2000

Egginacup wrote: »

You probably ganged up on someone in the past. Someone with dark skin. Hurt them, and still you run with the mob.

Hey look BBMACHINE you ve got a new buddy! his just as tap d as you are!

Now you can have awesome converstaions with someone thats as highly intelligent as you are!

Egginacup "what will we have for dinner? im thinking stew"
BBMachine "UGHHHH YOUR SOOOO UNEDUCATED!"

All while wearing your favorite tin foil hat!

BMMachine

evo2000 wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by BMMachine View Post
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

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...

Read that every time you decide to try and reply to anything im debating with a reasonable person.

ok thats super duper

can you explain why the Kurds would be so effective at "taking it to 'em" ? ? ?


you go on about tinfoil hats while not being able to answer that question. Is this the action of a man thats stuck for something to say so is instead throwing around random buzz phrases?

evo2000

BMMachine wrote: »

ok thats super duper

can you explain why the Kurds would be so effective at "taking it to 'em" ? ? ?


you go on about tinfoil hats while not being able to answer that question. Is this the action of a man thats stuck for something to say so is instead throwing around random buzz phrases?

Read it again, keep reading it till it dawns on you

Sociopath2

BMMachine wrote: »

ok thats super duper

can you explain why the Kurds would be so effective at "taking it to 'em" ? ? ?


you go on about tinfoil hats while not being able to answer that question. Is this the action of a man thats stuck for something to say so is instead throwing around random buzz phrases?

"Who inside the region is gonna take on ISIS and win without outside help? so far the only ones i see taking it too em effectively is the kurds."

If this is the post you're referring to, I'm reading it as they have been the most effective force fighting so far, not that they will be.

The Iraqi army collapsed when confronted with ISIS. No other force has engaged or defeated ISIS on the scale the Peshmerga have so far.

http://www.aawsat.net/2014/12/article55339414

BMMachine

evo2000 wrote: »

Read it again, keep reading it till it dawns on you

ok, you can't answer that basic question I asked about your own opinion on the subject at hand.

point proven. you don't know what you are talking about and your opinion on the matter is worthless.

cerastes

Sociopath2 wrote: »

For any military campaign needs to aim for a decisive victory against ISIS, not just pushing them back from certain borders.

Such a campaign will require the commitment of massive resources to ensure that victory. Not committing enough resources will result in a repeat of Iraq.

There will be very high military and civilian casualties.

ISIS, being ideologically driven, are unlikely to surrender to give ground without a fight.

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.

If people want a military intervention they need to accept that it will be very messy. It's a last resort I don't want to see happen but I don't see a viable alternative at the moment.

The thing is, these types of organisations can and do melt away and then return, similar happened in iraq.
Who says the people want a bloody military conflict? why is it assumed people will accept civilian casualties? if that isnt the case then why would any person support this action in their name?

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.

I agree with your posts, I think though, its not like ISIS dont exist but they are supported and funded and armed by someone else, to meet their needs, ISIS will be disposed of when its needed.
If they truly could even exist without support, they would fade away becuase I dont think they have real support of most muslims, its just there is little that can be done to stop them by anyone there, anymore than if 50 or 100 or a 1000 armed guys turned up in anyones locality.

Egginacup wrote: »

Are you always the one who knows everything?
Now we had some fool on here earlier on yapping about the "rules" and how the "West" were the ones who knew how people should live. Some footage for you. If I was a small boy behind a rock witnessing this from the gallant "liberators" I would need no convincing to stay in school and learn the star spangled banner. I would spend my waking hours seething with the kind of hatred that nothing but my own death could extinguish:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=caa_1301350893

And if you think the victims are Taliban or some other excuse to be shot, think about the US military opening up with hundreds of rounds on family cars full of children just because the father speak Arabic and doesn't quite understand English...especially "pull over motherfucker! STOP MOTHERFUCKER!!!


If I was a small boy and some "freedom" delivering dick did this to me in my country and to my mum I'd spend my LIFE looking for some way to hurt him back:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=85a_1355341668

Burning a dead pilot is cause for outrage now is it? And The Middle East should be nukes by some of the geopolitical geniuses on here.
How about you clean up some of these corpses before you have another stab at your video game:

http://iraqatrocities.blogspot.ie/2012/07/fallujah-victims-of-white-phosphorus.html

Tugboats wrote: »

Killing them in jail is a bit of a token gesture. King Abdullahs words have got my hopes up for full scale air strikes followed by a ground invasion with Jordan troops. Anything less than this is an anti climax and I will be writing a strongly worded letter to the King

I only have 2 main reasons for favouring war

1 I love watching wars on the news I think it makes great tv. My first war was Desert Storm. I remember I couldn't wait to get home from school to find out the latest. Its all changed now with 24 hour news and internet which has further enhanced the viewing experience. Sky will have some interactive maps and military experts ready to go.

2 The war led by Jordan would confuse the hell out of the anti war protesters who only like to protest against military action taken by America. Their heads would explode if it was a middle eastern country doing the heavy lifting and I would laugh myself to sleep every night

Have the Jordanians called for war? do they support it? Id say a good reason that Jordan and Saudi tread carefully is if they go to far to what even their population are willing to accept in their name, there could be an unpopular (in the west) revolt or opposition, for that reason Id say they prefer to keep their actions under the table, as quiet as possible. Its all olut in the open now, but upsetting the apple cart isnt something those in power like to do in one go where it doesnt improve their lot significantly, and where the risks for taking any course of action could bring them down.

WakeUp wrote: »

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.
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2014/dec/02/isis-what-us-doesnt-understand/

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.ie/2015/01/us-fightingterror-group-with-fictional.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/31/weekinreview/31robertson.html

The NY times has a few articles on whether al baghdadi is real or not, Ive found variations of the name in use just through a quick bit of searching.

evo2000 wrote: »

Who do they right the cheque too? will it be fairly distributed amongst the population?

The winners of a war usually dont pay the losers...

I wanted to reply to a lot of posts, but I suggest you read some of the links and look at some of the pictures from the post from egginacup, because this is what you are asking for, even if your opinion is opposite to mine, how could not looking at these images or reading about what is really going on not at least raise an eyebrow, concern. Rather than writing a knee jerk opposition to it, just try read through some of the links, try open your mind to other possibilities.
People are being manipulated by powerful forces (not ISIS) into believing what they are told and shown,

what was the purpose of invading iraq?
what did they do to deserve this?
were they even involved in anything?
how did this improve things?
how has it worsened things?
what was the cause of this?
and who directed this all to occur?

Money and control of resources.

Syria, Iraq, libya were all better under the leaders that were there before all this started, if democracy was to be brought to the populations there, why not Saudi? or other gulf states?


I found this an interesting read
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.ie/2012/02/empires-double-edged-sword-global.html

There is a mass propogandisation going on, I cant understand how people actually believe everything they are told.
None of the places I mentioned were a credible threat to the west ever in the context they were ever proposed, ie militarily. Economically, possibly, but they had not gotten that act together since the idea of the United Arab Republic or the idea of Pan Arabism, in its absence, there has been the existence of isolated states and since, the rise of islamic fundamentalism in its current forms.
Iraq, had no WMDs for a start, and even if so, what about Israel, they wmds, what about pakistan, what about any country that has wmds? who gets to say who can have them?
Syria? Libya, in contrast, they all have oil, 2/3 said they wanted to undermine the dollar as the defacto currency of use for oil transactions.

evo2000

BMMachine wrote: »

ok, you can't answer that basic question I asked about your own opinion on the subject at hand.

point proven. you don't know what you are talking about and your opinion on the matter is worthless.

Evo2000

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...

Read that every time you decide to try and reply to anything im debating with a reasonable person.

evo2000

cerastes wrote: »

Have the Jordanians called for war? do they support it? Id say a good reason that Jordan and Saudi tread carefully is if they go to far to what even their population are willing to accept in their name, there could be an unpopular (in the west) revolt or opposition, for that reason Id say they prefer to keep their actions under the table, as quiet as possible. Its all olut in the open now, but upsetting the apple cart isnt something those in power like to do in one go where it doesnt improve their lot significantly, and where the risks for taking any course of action could bring them down.



http://landdestroyer.blogspot.ie/2015/01/us-fightingterror-group-with-fictional.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/31/weekinreview/31robertson.html

The NY times has a few articles on whether al baghdadi is real or not, Ive found variations of the name in use just through a quick bit of searching.



I wanted to reply to a lot of posts, but I suggest you read some of the links and look at some of the pictures from the post from egginacup, because this is what you are asking for, even if your opinion is opposite to mine, how could not looking at these images or reading about what is really going on not at least raise an eyebrow, concern. Rather than writing a knee jerk opposition to it, just try read through some of the links, try open your mind to other possibilities.
People are being manipulated by powerful forces (not ISIS) into believing what they are told and shown,

what was the purpose of invading iraq?
what did they do to deserve this?
were they even involved in anything?
how did this improve things?
how has it worsened things?
what was the cause of this?
and who directed this all to occur?

Money and control of resources.

Syria, Iraq, libya were all better under the leaders that were there before all this started, if democracy was to be brought to the populations there, why not Saudi? or other gulf states?


I found this an interesting read
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.ie/2012/02/empires-double-edged-sword-global.html

There is a mass propogandisation going on, I cant understand how people actually believe everything they are told.
None of the places I mentioned were a credible threat to the west ever in the context they were ever proposed, ie militarily. Economically, possibly, but they had not gotten that act together since the idea of the United Arab Republic or the idea of Pan Arabism, in its absence, there has been the existence of isolated states and since, the rise of islamic fundamentalism in its current forms.
Iraq, had no WMDs for a start, and even if so, what about Israel, they wmds, what about pakistan, what about any country that has wmds? who gets to say who can have them?
Syria? Libya, in contrast, they all have oil, 2/3 said they wanted to undermine the dollar as the defacto currency of use for oil transactions.

Fair bita reading in that... ive replied to alot of what your saying before tho if you go back and read id just be repeating myself.

You have some good points aswell, but i think in the long run military intervention will be the only solution to gain ground with ISIS.