Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Isis burn pilot alive..

Options
1…2425262830

Comments

  • Options
    #812
    Shurimgreat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,133 ✭✭✭Shurimgreat


    The thing about ISIS is that they can't keep a secret and chat and talk among themselves.

    The Jordanians had an inkling from their intel on the ground in Raqqa that their pilot was probably killed. Hence their unwillingness to complete a deal.

    The truth about the American hostage will probaby come out too. Eavsdropping on phonecalls and radio communications in the region would also tell a lot.

    Sooner or later the Americans will find out. And I wouldn't want to be the ISIS commander who gave any orders in that case. No-one has a longer arm than America.


  • Options
    #813
    Tugboats
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,011 ✭✭✭Tugboats


    Shurimgreat wrote: »
    The thing about ISIS is that they can't keep a secret and chat and talk among themselves.

    The Jordanians had an inkling from theiri intel on the ground in Raqqa that their pilot was probably killed. Hence their unwillingness to complete a deal.

    The truth about the American hostage will probaby come out too. Eavsdropping on phonecalls and radio communications in the region would also tell a lot.

    Sooner or later the Americans will find out. And I wouldn't want to be the ISIS commander who gave any orders in that case.

    I said before that the American response has been very timid to their citizens getting beheaded. The same can be said for UK and Japan. This is especially true when you compare it to Jordan.
    If the west step up over this woman they will have lots of questions to answer as to why they didn't respond when the beheadings first started


  • Options
    #814
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    Continually blaming someone else rather than those involved does to some extent absolve them of their own agency in their actions.

    Where have I absolved ISIS of blame? You're arguing against a position I haven't taken. You know what that's called don't you?
    Are you saying that what Daesh are doing is an inevitable conclusion of the invasion of Iraq?

    Not inevitable but hardly surprising either. Look at the mess that was left in Afghanistan after 'we' used 'Kalashnikov-Islamism' to give the USSR a bloody nose. Remember that? Remember when the Mujahideen were our best buds? Rich Saudis funding Islamist nutters?


  • Options
    #815
    Shurimgreat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,133 ✭✭✭Shurimgreat


    Karl Stein wrote: »
    Where have I absolved ISIS of blame? You're arguing against a position I haven't taken. You know what that's called don't you?



    Not inevitable but hardly surprising either. Look at the mess that was left in Afghanistan after 'we' used 'Kalashnikov-Islamism' to give the USSR a bloody nose. Remember that? Remember when the were our best buds? Rich Saudis funding Islamist nutters?

    Not surprising that they are beheading people or burning them in cages or marrying 9 year olds, all in the name of Allah?

    The fact remains most violence (ie 99%) in the middle east is muslim against muslim. Saying the west is totally to blame for that is ludicrous. At some stage people of particular faiths have to take account for it.

    Not to mention the fact that we still have the same old people trying to make out life was a paradise in Iraq before 2003 and if only the Americans hadn't intervened, which is of course complete nonsense. Saddam did a great job filling mass graves all by himself. Its too easy to ignore that.

    A thousand years ago Sunni was oppressing Shia, or vice versa depending who was in power. It will be the same a thousand years from now. Stop blaming the west.


  • Options
    #816
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Shurimgreat wrote: »
    Not surprising that they are beheading people or burning them in cages or marrying 9 year olds, all in the name of Allah?

    Strawmen everywhere. Why bother quoting me if you're going to ignore it in favour of arguing against a position I haven't taken?
    The fact remains most violence (ie 99%) in the middle east is muslim against muslim.

    If you want to break it down to the religion of those carrying out violence then ISIS have a long lonnnnnnng way to go before they come anywhere close to the Christian on Muslim violence of the Iraq 2003 invasion.
    Not to mention the fact that we still have the same old people trying to make out life was a paradise in Iraq before 2003 and if only the Americans hadn't intervened, which is of course complete nonsense.

    Another strawman.
    A thousand years ago Sunni was oppressing Shia, or vice versa depending who was in power. It will be the same a thousand years from now.

    That's one of the most stupid predictions I've ever read.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #817
    DEFTLEFTHAND
    Registered Users Posts: 16,500 ✭✭✭✭DEFTLEFTHAND


    What method of execution will they perform next? Apparently they opened up to supporters on the net to suggest new horrific methods.

    These people have no honour, even the brits gave their deserters a cigarette and a chance to write letter to their mother in WW1 before they lined them and put a bullet in their head.


  • Options
    #818
    porsche959
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭porsche959


    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    Continually blaming someone else rather than those involved does to some extent absolve them of their own agency in their actions.

    Are you saying that what Daesh are doing is an inevitable conclusion of the invasion of Iraq?
    Are you saying that the people who make up Daesh had NO other choices than the ones they made?

    And, once again, you confuse setting geo-political events in their historical context with "blaming someone else rather than those involved". You have a habit of this kind of thing, don't you?


  • Options
    #819
    Shurimgreat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,133 ✭✭✭Shurimgreat


    porsche959 wrote: »
    And, once again, you confuse setting geo-political events in their historical context with "blaming someone else rather than those involved". You have a habit of this kind of thing, don't you?

    He's right though. Where do you set the time limit? A year? 10 years? 1000 years?

    Some people seem to believe life in the middle east began in 2003 and nothing that happened before that mattered.

    The whole issue around middle eastern violence has always been complicated. Its just in the last 10 years a torch has been shone on it like never before.

    No-one really cared when Saddam was anihalating the Marsh Arabs or hundreds more similar massacres.

    When the Americans get involved, suddenly everyone cares and there's a "body count".

    No-one cares about Saddams "body count". He's not American so it doesn't matter.

    Always keep the focus on America, never anyone else. At this stage its very old hat.

    If you want to do the blame game for middle eastern violence there is more than enough blame to go around. Starting with the French-British division of the region post WW1 would I suggest be a good start.


  • Options
    #820
    Shurimgreat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,133 ✭✭✭Shurimgreat


    Karl Stein wrote: »

    That's one of the most stupid predictions I've ever read.

    You think they will have ironed out their differences by then do you? Get real!


  • Options
    #821
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Shurimgreat wrote: »
    You think they will have ironed out their differences by then do you? Get real!

    Who is they? Muslims is it?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #822
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Shurimgreat wrote: »
    Careful, you might upset the Irish Anti War movement with that kind of rhetoric.


    Why would I care?


  • Options
    #823
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    Karl Stein wrote: »
    Where have I absolved ISIS of blame? You're arguing against a position I haven't taken. You know what that's called don't you?

    I didn't say you completely absolved Daesh of blame, read what I said again. I understand that you may not intend to absolve them to any extent at all but you have to look at what you've been actually been posting and what those posts say about the issue.

    America invaded, yes we all know that (and I don't see anyone here actually saying that that was the right thing to do) but the men of Daesh didn't HAVE to do what they did in the last couple of years. There were any number of other ways they could have acted but they decided to go on a manic spree of destruction and nihilism. The decided that of their own free will, it wasn't like Newtons third law of motion or something.

    Karl Stein wrote: »
    Not inevitable but hardly surprising either. Look at the mess that was left in Afghanistan after 'we' used 'Kalashnikov-Islamism' to give the USSR a bloody nose. Remember that? Remember when the Mujahideen were our best buds? Rich Saudis funding Islamist nutters?

    Sure, the USA/CIA/Pakistani messing about in Afghanistan was disastrous. But also the USSR messing about in Afghanistan was disastrous too. The soviet leadership knew that Taraki's reforms were going too far, they knew that afghanistan was a basket case and not suitable for the rate at which the afghan government was trying to impose the socialist way of life on the people there, they knew that military intervention in Afghanistan was stupid yet they still went ahead and did it. Reading books like Afghansty you can sense the palpable dread in the politburo over getting involved but they still went ahead. They weren't even jingoistic reckless nutters like Rumsfeld or Cheney but they still embarked on a war that killed 15k soviet troops, unknown numbers of Afghans (probably hundreds of thousands) and left the country covered in landmines that have maimed thousands for the last 3 decades.

    See, there's more than one side to a story but if you bang on and on and on about only one side then it makes you look unbalanced.


  • Options
    #824
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    porsche959 wrote: »
    And, once again, you confuse setting geo-political events in their historical context with "blaming someone else rather than those involved". You have a habit of this kind of thing, don't you?

    You have a habit of deflection and allowing people to blame others for their actions don't you? Humans have free will, they aren't automatons, Daesh didn't have to go on a manic campaign of murder and rape but that is the option that they chose to pursue.


  • Options
    #825
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    Daesh didn't have to go on a manic campaign of murder and rape but that is the option that they chose to pursue.

    This is such a ridiculous line to take. The west didn't have to invade Iraq - they chose to. The West didn't have to support radical Islamists in Syria - they chose to and so on, and so on.


  • Options
    #826
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,325 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    I'm not the one calling for war, You would think that the posters in here who think ISIS should be wiped out by ANY means nessesary would be one of the first to volunteer

    I've no problem with military action as appropriate. I volunteered about 14 years ago, I'm still at the government's disposal. I'll represent the reasonable lads here calling for action. (i.e. Nuking them isn't reasonable)
    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    As someone who has served in the armed forces and took part in an actual war i think i may have a tad more experience than you. It's really not that hard to shoot a gun.

    As someone who served in the same branch as you, I am disappointed that that is your stated view of our Crunchy counterparts.


  • Options
    #827
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,524 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    I've no problem with military action as appropriate. I volunteered about 14 years ago, I'm still at the government's disposal. I'll represent the reasonable lads here calling for action. (i.e. Nuking them isn't reasonable)



    As someone who served in the same branch as you, I am disappointed that that is your stated view of our Crunchy counterparts.

    Are you saying it is hard to shoot/fire a gun?


  • Options
    #828
    Wurzelbert
    Registered Users Posts: 1,804 ✭✭✭Wurzelbert


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    As someone who has served in the armed forces and took part in an actual war i think i may have a tad more experience than you. It's really not that hard to shoot a gun.

    anything serious like foreign legion, sas or so? or just peacekeeping? when i was in the german army we were not allowed to fight any wars...so while i have no actual combat experience, i can confirm that it is indeed possible to turn idiots into dangerous gunmen with just a little drill...in fact, a five year-old with a loaded ak is dangerous already, not least to himself...though to be good at it and an effective soldier - especially in offensive operations - takes a little more...


  • Options
    #829
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,325 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Are you saying it is hard to shoot/fire a gun?

    I'm saying it's hard to be a competent infantryman. There's a reason professional infantry are better than conscript infantry, and it's not marksmanship.

    It's not as if the CSS on a Challenger is particularly hard to use either. Tanking, however, takes a bit of thought, just like infantry work does.


  • Options
    #830
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,524 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    I'm saying it's hard to be a competent infantryman. There's a reason professional infantry are better than conscript infantry, and it's not marksmanship.

    It's not as if the CSS on a Challenger is particularly hard to use either. Tanking, however, takes a bit of thought, just like infantry work does.

    I agree, anyone can pull a trigger but it takes a whole new meaning to actually aim at another human and still fire. Shouldn't really be an issue for some of the more gung ho lads in these threads though, they have many years of extensive training on call of duty to fall back on and sure if they get shot and killed they will always come back to life behind a nice safe wall or car :D


  • Options
    #831
    Wurzelbert
    Registered Users Posts: 1,804 ✭✭✭Wurzelbert


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    I'm not the one calling for war, You would think that the posters in here who think ISIS should be wiped out by ANY means nessesary would be one of the first to volunteer

    no need to call for war anyway, it is already happening...and i am sure is will be happy to read that the folks on boards have made a majority decision against wiping them out...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #832
    Tugboats
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,011 ✭✭✭Tugboats


    Wurzelbert wrote: »
    no need to call for war anyway, it is already happening...and i am sure is will be happy to read that the folks on boards have made a majority decision against wiping them out...

    No point in talking to Timberrrr. He's a strange one. The weasel has a go at people "calling" for war and earlier in the thread he calls for this
    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Train and equip the Kurds and other countries in modern warfare and let them take care of the business end of things. These middle eastern countries are oil rich and should also invest in training troops and educating their people.

    maybe in his own weird head if it's ME guns and bullets it's not considered a war


  • Options
    #833
    ireland.man
    Registered Users Posts: 1,080 ✭✭✭ireland.man


    Tugboats wrote: »
    No point in talking to Timberrrr. He's a strange one. The weasel has a go at people "calling" for war and earlier in the thread he calls for this



    maybe in his own weird head if it's ME guns and bullets it's not considered a war

    Any replies yet Tug?


  • Options
    #834
    Tugboats
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,011 ✭✭✭Tugboats


    ireland.man wrote: »
    Any replies yet Tug?

    None yet. You will be the first to know if an email comes


  • Options
    #835
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    Karl Stein wrote: »
    This is such a ridiculous line to take. The west didn't have to invade Iraq - they chose to. The West didn't have to support radical Islamists in Syria - they chose to and so on, and so on.

    You're saying that Daesh didn't have any other choice than to do what they've done? Seriously?

    "The West" didn't invade Iraq, the US and UK and selected allies invaded Iraq and yes they chose to do that, they had other options which they should have taken.

    I'd like to see your evidence for the west supporting radical Islamists in Syria, most of their support seems to have come from gulf arabs. But yes, if "The West" did support radical islamists then of course there were other choices to take.

    I find your idea that things were inevitable and that actors had no agency is extremely linear and limited. I thought I was discussing with someone who was relatively reasonable but perhaps on this evidence, not.


  • Options
    #836
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    I agree, anyone can pull a trigger but it takes a whole new meaning to actually aim at another human and still fire. Shouldn't really be an issue for some of the more gung ho lads in these threads though, they have many years of extensive training on call of duty to fall back on and sure if they get shot and killed they will always come back to life behind a nice safe wall or car :D

    So who exactly is it on this thread that is calling for war? As far as I can see no one has been "gung ho" for the last two thirds of this thread at least and most that were did so seemingly as an emotional reaction to the barbarity of what Daesh did to the Jordanian pilot.


  • Options
    #837
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,524 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    So who exactly is it on this thread that is calling for war? As far as I can see no one has been "gung ho" for the last two thirds of this thread at least and most that were did so seemingly as an emotional reaction to the barbarity of what Daesh did to the Jordanian pilot.

    Read the thread yourself, i'm not trawling back through the garbage they posted to satisfy your curiosity


  • Options
    #838
    Tugboats
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,011 ✭✭✭Tugboats


    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    So who exactly is it on this thread that is calling for war?.

    Timberrrrr is but doesn't really like to admit it.
    Thanks


  • Options
    #839
    jimgoose
    Registered Users Posts: 20,172 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    So who exactly is it on this thread that is calling for war?...

    I am.


  • Options
    #840
    Tugboats
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,011 ✭✭✭Tugboats


    jimgoose wrote: »
    I am.

    Signed up yet?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #841
    jimgoose
    Registered Users Posts: 20,172 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    Tugboats wrote: »
    Signed up yet?

    Too old. Bigger fan of ICBMs anyway. ;)


Advertisement