Isis burn pilot alive..

DarkJager

Skylinehead wrote: »

Because 200,000 people live there? People who advocate nuking these places are arguably, somehow, worse than ISIS.

A ground force would sustain countless casualties trying to remove IS from Raqqa. The only sensible option is to destroy it. Obviously there will be a large loss of civilian life, but the annihilation of IS is top priority.

Skylinehead

DarkJager wrote: »

A ground force would sustain countless casualties trying to remove IS from Raqqa.

Not 200,000 though.

The only sensible option is to destroy it. Obviously there will be a large loss of civilian life, but the annihilation of IS is top priority.

Why? IS hasn't even killed anywhere near that many people itself. Why is it ok for us to kill thousands of innocent people and not IS?

You're absolutely braindead.

Wurzelbert

DarkJager wrote: »

A ground force would sustain countless casualties trying to remove IS from Raqqa. The only sensible option is to destroy it. Obviously there will be a large loss of civilian life, but the annihilation of IS is top priority.

how? the thermonuclear option maybe?

ireland.man

Tugboats wrote: »

Dismiss it as its only 2 all you want. These 2 hostages(or maybe more?) are far more important to ISIS then thousands of locals from Iraq and Syria. These hostages can be used to spread fear and propaganda . Throwing a gay muslim from a building rooftop just doesn't interest the West and grab the headlines.

Last nights video looked like their main event or at least its coming close to it which suggests their biggest weapon is in short supply. You talk about cutting off their finances and securing boarders but removing the opportunity of them getting hostages is equally important.

I'm not dismissing 2 people's lives but I'm including all 100,000 other hostages they have and are mistreating. You're choosing to focus on two and ignoring every non-'famous' hostage. How in gods name can you justify ignoring some hostages in favour of others?

AudreyHepburn

I'm not a violent person nor do I advocate violence as an answer to any problem....usually.

However I make an exception for ISIS and the like...these people are completely inhumane and deserve to be treated as such. Violence is, sadly, the only language they understand and I would have no hesitate in supporting any act, violent or otherwise, against them.

RIP that poor pilot. I'm not even going to read the articles on it, never mind look at the video....the mere thought of it is horrific enough.

07Lapierre

ISIS...some people just can't be reasoned with..

http://youtu.be/efHCdKb5UWc

DarkJager

Skylinehead wrote: »

Not 200,000 though.


Why? IS hasn't even killed anywhere near that many people itself. Why is it ok for us to kill thousands of innocent people and not IS?

You're absolutely braindead.

Why don't you suggest an alternative so instead of personally attacking me? Or do you think that allowing this organisation to continue existing without any intervention is acceptable?

RobYourBuilder

Wurzelbert wrote: »

better not, depending on what can be done about it legally and all...

Our lads want 'disenfranchised' Jihadis to liase with the Gardai. Sweden want to give them jobs and help them integrate. I'm of the opinion that you can't reasonate with people who have the mentality of an 11th century tribal warlord.

Make them persons non grata.

Skylinehead

DarkJager wrote: »

Why don't you suggest an alternative so instead of personally attacking me? Or do you think that allowing this organisation to continue existing without any intervention is acceptable?

Actually, it's more acceptable than condemning hundreds of thousands of innocent people to their deaths. Anything is better than that horror. If you actually believe that to be a legitimate approach to the situation, you're a despicable human being.

cerastes

porsche959 wrote: »

I think that's a bit of a stretch, there is no moral equivalance between an air pilot following legitimate orders and ISIS which has no legitimacy and is not recognised by any government on the planet.

Just because he was following orders does not make it moral or just. I very much get that he was unlikely to be able to disobey these orders. But given the seemingly rapid success of ISIS, either bombing isnt effective or something else is going on and as it seems likely they are being supported by someone. An innocent child there, or their family (or anyone else) doesnt care if the pilot was "just following orders" or if their Govt is legitimate (we'll probably have someone/the same posters on complaining about Saudi/Qatar/UAE and their own records of rights or how they are barely legitimate).
Point is, you will have created a whole new group of people willing to follow brutal orders, they have lost their own, who did it? point them in the right direction and hey presto, un ending war.

evo2000 wrote: »

That would make sense if the burning of the pilot was a stand out incident, but its not it s a drop in the ocean the next installment of how barbaric ISIS can get,

Its a drop in the Ocean of the barbarity and cruelty of any side willing to get involved, it started somewhere and it shouldnt have been, further involvement as it has been is not appearing to be successful, unless there is some other plan?

conorhal wrote: »

It takes a special kind of stupid to draw a moral equivilence between sombody fighting IS and the soldiers of IS.
Sure dem Royal Airforce chaps, where't dey just as bad as the Waffen SS demselves?

Eh, No.

Its nice you see it so simply, how do you think the US turned around the insurgency in iraq? not by fighting with all sides, but by supporting those most moderate (such as it was, but likely very much composed of the sunni former ranks of the iraqi army they had disbanded) and paying, funding and arming them to fight the more extreme elements.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

rather than being all high and mighty about this, how about offering some sort of opinion on how ISIS should be dealt with.

ISIS are genocidal thugs who think nothing of murdering and raping innocent men, women and children because they don't fit in with their perverted view of Islam.

There are always moderate elements waiting in the wings, not powerful enough to deal with the brutality and force of whoever is holding the reins, in this case ISIS. Unfortunately western govts have a bad reputation for pulling the plug on support for anyone like this, and leaving them hang out to dry.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

How about you stop trying to excuse people being burned alive?

Ok, so lets not excuse one guy burned alive and it was obviously horrific, and as some posters have suggested, nuke em all! which will burn thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands alive? even a moderate version of that? have you seen pictures of victims of bombings in iraq, horrific stuff, adding fuel to fire doesnt usually work out well, how do you propose to get rid of every last one? ethnic cleansing?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Moronic post, you're comparing the morality of accidental civilian deaths during war to public execution of a man by burning him alive.

accidental? you think anyone cares if its accidental if they see their child blown to bits, or mrotally wounded and in agony, they just know you dropped the bombs. Do you have children? or a family? would you really not care if someone dropped bombs that burned them in an agonising death and then tell me you'd consider using accidental in how you'd describe it?

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

What do people think should be done with the 5,000 European based ISIS fighters? Should they be allowed to return?

My initial thought is no, but then if they are returning despondent as many seem to be, allowing them to return to spread this despondency is a malignancy and truth that will undermine support in europe for this kind of radicalism, probably more effectively as they have seen what a caliphate means, better than being lectured to by politicians. Im not saying dont keep an eye on them, debrief them, determine if they are a threat, are they from this region or now just seeking asylum? if returning passport holders, maybe they are eligible to return, but they might prove more useful than just hanging them as some have suggested.

kidneyfan wrote: »

They should be encouraged to return and then hanged.

That worked out well in 1916, turned an unsupportive population into one who even now believes it was a popular revolution.
Some may not be eligible to return or maybe shouldnt be allowed, depending on any crimes that can be determined, if thats possible, others may have better use to undermine radicalism as if they have returned unhappy they will have seen first hand its wrongs, that will be cheaper and more effective than bombing more people to pieces and then creating a never ending cycle of their families and witnesses willing to join the fight against the west.
Stop bombing and supporting these groups, there was not as significant a humanitarian crisis before an insurgency was supported in Syria, or before iraq was invaded, wars have proved futile and ineffective at bringing peace and democracy, look at iraq or libya, I honestly can say, however bad their leaders were, they were no significant or even any threat to the west in military terms.
So what has the purpose of nearly fifteen years of war been? seems likes its purpose was not to bring democracy or peace, the populations were generally better off in these countries before all this started as were they in the west, no threat from the west, no threat to the west. The only consistent thing that seems to exist since all this is instability, I think its intentional, and it cumulates in whatever are the latest deaths, as it happens this pilot.

Its funny how I feel some of the posters demanding violent retribution, would likely be or have already been the same who would protest the brutality and lack of democracy of the likes of certain middle eastern gulf states, and yet now the same kind of posters are calling for the same kind or even worse brutality to be unleashed on what is likely to be mostly innocent populations with no choice but to exist where ISIS operate, so fcuk yeh, lets bomb em all, hang them, nuke em.
ISIS it seems cannot be negotiated with, but there must be some there that can, whos fighting these guys now? kurds, syria, maybe these are the people to support, doesnt (or didnt) syria have quite moderate values? women going around in quite western clothing, no strict interpretation of islam? yet the west seems to be supporting the radical extremists???

Tugboats

ireland.man wrote: »

I'm not dismissing 2 people's lives but I'm including all 100,000 other hostages they have and are mistreating. You're choosing to focus on two and ignoring every non-'famous' hostage. How in gods name can you justify ignoring some hostages in favour of others?

The western hostages are a propaganda tool for isis. Releasing videos every day of a local Syrian fruit seller or a gay lad getting executed wont inspire the next Jihadi John in a London council house to board a flight to Syria.

As i said the shock value increased in their latest video and it will be interesting to see what moves they make in the coming months. Apparently they have increased the amount they pay fixers to bring them hostages so they may well be getting desperate. Its vital to keep aid workers and reporters away imo

Wurzelbert

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

Our lads want 'disenfranchised' Jihadis to liase with the Gardai. Sweden want to give them jobs and help them integrate. I'm of the opinion that you can't reasonate with people who have the mentality of an 11th century tribal warlord.

Make them persons non grata.

is there an option - in the constitution or wherever - to declare an irish citizen persona non grata and no longer let him into the country? i know there is a similar discussion going on in germany...
and i completely agree with the 11th century tribal warlord mentality part...so basically - in theory anyway - we would need a couple of laws changed and the death penalty reinstated around here..

BoJack Horseman

Wurzelbert wrote: »

is there an option - in the constitution or wherever - to declare an irish citizen persona non grata and no longer let him into the country? i know there is a similar discussion going on in germany...
and i completely agree with the 11th century tribal warlord mentality part...so basically - in theory anyway - we would need a couple of laws changed and the death penalty reinstated around here..

The 'withdrawal of passports' is being looked into, hopefully to be passed in the summer.

Death penalty was abolished by plebecite.

RobYourBuilder

Basis for Revocations of naturalised Irish Citizenship:

The Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1956, section 19, states the Minister may revoke a certificate of naturalisation if he is satisfied:


a) You obtained it through fraud, misrepresentation or concealment of material facts or circumstances 


b) You have, through an overt act, failed in your duty of fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State 


c) You were ordinarily resident outside Ireland (other than in public service) for a continuous period of 7 years and, without a reasonable excuse, did not register your name and a declaration of your intention to retain Irish citizenship with an Irish diplomatic mission or consular office or with the Minister for Justice and Equality on an annual basis


d) You are also, under the law of a country at war with the State, a citizen of that country 


e) You have, by any other voluntary act other than marriage or registration of civil partnership, acquired citizenship of another country 

seamus

Wurzelbert wrote: »

is there an option - in the constitution or wherever - to declare an irish citizen persona non grata and no longer let him into the country?

No. The minister for justice has the power to revoke citizenship, but I believe this only applies to naturalised citizens. Afaik, people who have citizenship through birth or descent cannot have it revoked.

There are also international rules against making a person stateless, so it couldn't be legislated for anyway.

This is kind of a stable door/horse situation anyway. The kind of idiots who go halfway across the world to join a war can't exactly be considered mentally stable, so the threat of losing their citizenship likely wouldn't weigh heavily on their minds. Chances are they expect to go across, fight and then live there in the glory of Islamic state.

It's only once they get over there they realise they don't belong and try to come home. At that stage the revocation of citizenship accomplishes little except encourage them to stay with ISIS and fight - because they have nowhere else to go.

A more sensible approach would be legislation which simply made it illegal to travel for such purposes. When you get home, you go to jail. It's preferable to living in a warzone, so people will take that option.

If possible, you then revoke their citizenship and send them home after serving their time in jail. If not, you then place limits on their ability to travel outside of the country for the next ten years.

Wurzelbert

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

Basis for Revocations of naturalised Irish Citizenship:

okay, that looks like it could be made to work if enforced properly...on the other hand, what they do in syria does not really affect “the state”...so i dunno...

Timberrrrrrrr

DarkJager wrote: »

It's called an opinion. And for the record, I would happily back up my statement and personally execute these scum if given a chance with no legal repercussions. I mean that 100%.

So why not hop on a plane to Turkey, cross the border into Syria and join the militias that are fighting?

Tugboats

seamus wrote: »

No. The minister for justice has the power to revoke citizenship, but I believe this only applies to naturalised citizens. Afaik, people who have citizenship through birth or descent cannot have it revoked.

There are also international rules against making a person stateless, so it couldn't be legislated for anyway.

This is kind of a stable door/horse situation anyway. The kind of idiots who go halfway across the world to join a war can't exactly be considered mentally stable, so the threat of losing their citizenship likely wouldn't weigh heavily on their minds. Chances are they expect to go across, fight and then live there in the glory of Islamic state.

It's only once they get over there they realise they don't belong and try to come home. At that stage the revocation of citizenship accomplishes little except encourage them to stay with ISIS and fight - because they have nowhere else to go.

A more sensible approach would be legislation which simply made it illegal to travel for such purposes. When you get home, you go to jail. It's preferable to living in a warzone, so people will take that option.

We hardly jail murderers and rapists I don't think putting a member of Isis in jail for about 20 minutes is a good plan

Timberrrrrrrr

DarkJager wrote: »

A ground force would sustain countless casualties trying to remove IS from Raqqa. The only sensible option is to destroy it. Obviously there will be a large loss of civilian life, but the annihilation of IS is top priority.

So again,


Kill THOUSANDS of innocent men, women and children to save a few innocent people?

This is your answer to stopping the murder,


More murder :rolleyes:

RobYourBuilder

Across western Europe, the prisons are a hotbed for extremist Islamic beliefs. That's where one of the Paris shooters became radicalised. Jailing them might just exasperate the problem.

crockholm

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

Our lads want 'disenfranchised' Jihadis to liase with the Gardai. Sweden want to give them jobs and help them integrate. I'm of the opinion that you can't reasonate with people who have the mentality of an 11th century tribal warlord.

Make them persons non grata.

Unfortunately Örebro municipality might have a recruitment headache as their Jihadis have a terrible knack of dying over there-2 didn't make it past the first interveiw in january and last week Another was made unavailable due to an inability to breathe;)

ChunkyLover54

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So again,


Kill THOUSANDS of innocent men, women and children to save a few innocent people?

This is your answer to stopping the murder,


More murder :rolleyes:

Can you post at least one comment that consists of more than just sarcasm?

Rikand

BMMachine wrote: »

okay, I don't have a solution. Why would I?

What I do know is that millions of kilo's of explosives haven't solved one damn thing in the middle east. why would another couple of million ?
You think Al-Qaeda is 'defeated'? Did you know that the invasion of Afghanistan by the west just ratified their power and ambition in the eyes of many extreme Islamists, especially in neighbouring Pakistan.. or do you guys have the same delusion that the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan was just because, ya know, all dem terrorists live there? If you do think that, watch the video I linked earlier, it will explain the history of that region far better than I could.

all of you going "BOMB THEM MORE!" are just playing into the hands of vast areas of political establishment. Its very easy to have an enemy and sell that enemy to a public that wants one, especially when that enemy is as vague and confusing as "terrorism". If you want to have no understanding, then by all means just eat up what you are given and react in inane and stupid ways on the internet. If you want to understand the deep web and history of these and other societies, do some research, its not all as it seems. Humanity and societies, especially those that are so distant from us like the middle-east can be quite alien to us but when you break things down and start seeing and learning, all that goes away.

Yes, this latest act is absolutely evil and it is in the long string of evil acts from this particular group. There is no one denying that, its just we need to think about what we do rather than jump in and make an even bigger mess

Ah sure Hitler was a grand lad when he was over in Poland making an arse of things, you know, you could keep him on the long finger and not worry because he was all the way over there....

I'm sure ISIS will be no different!

DarkJager

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So again,


Kill THOUSANDS of innocent men, women and children to save a few innocent people?

This is your answer to stopping the murder,


More murder :rolleyes:

Or allow IS to continue existing with that area as their stronghold until they decide it's time to extend their caliphate again? To destroy a cancer, a few good cells also have to die.

Timberrrrrrrr

ChunkyLover54 wrote: »

Can you post at least one comment that consists of more than just sarcasm?

It's not sarcasm it's disbelief that the people on here with their faux outrage at the horrible murder of a few innocent people want to kill THOUSANDS of innocent people to stop said murders!

ireland.man

Tugboats wrote: »

The western hostages are a propaganda tool for isis. Releasing videos every day of a local Syrian fruit seller or a gay lad getting executed wont inspire the next Jihadi John in a London council house to board a flight to Syria.

As i said the shock value increased in their latest video and it will be interesting to see what moves they make in the coming months. Apparently they have increased the amount they pay fixers to bring them hostages so they may well be getting desperate. Its vital to keep aid workers and reporters away imo

The higher 'shock value' of a Western media focused individual being executed over a local shopkeeper is all due to people only caring about some victims and not others- typical of this thread.

Timberrrrrrrr

DarkJager wrote: »

Or allow IS to continue existing with that area as their stronghold until they decide it's time to extend their caliphate again? To destroy a cancer, a few good cells also have to die.

So you advocate murdering thousands of innocents? You realise this makes you just as blood thirsty than any ISIS member right?

Royal Irish

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So again,


Kill THOUSANDS of innocent men, women and children to save a few innocent people?

This is your answer to stopping the murder,


More murder :rolleyes:

What is your opinion on what western governments should do to stop the Islamic State?

Timberrrrrrrr

Royal Irish wrote: »

What is your opinion on what western governments should do to stop the Islamic State?

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.

cerastes

ChunkyLover54 wrote: »

Can you post at least one comment that consists of more than just sarcasm?

It holds up some strange beliefs or outrages to light, someone outraged at burning someone to death? Their answer to burn bomb and shoot what may likely be innocent civilians in a vain attempt, if not costly one to kill a few extremists hiding among them doesn't sound either reasonable or is surprisingly violent for someone outraged by similar violence? Maybe that poster can reply just when he's crossing the border into Syria?

seamus

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So you advocate murdering thousands of innocents? You realise this makes you just as blood thirsty than any ISIS member right?

Ah yeah, but they're only towelheads. The children would end up becoming terrorists themselves.

Everyone knows that massive acts of brutality are really good at quashing terrorism, just look at Iraq...no wait, what about.....em.....well, you know what I mean, it's just common sense!

Tugboats

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.

So you support military action by the Kurds and middle eastern countries? Weren't you giving out earlier about the loss of civilian life by the use of military action?

Timberrrrrrrr

Tugboats wrote: »

So you support military action by the Kurds and middle eastern countries? Weren't you giving out earlier about the loss of civilian life by the use of military action?

I'm talking about a well planned boots on the ground (not western troops as this will cause more problems than solve) action by troops from that region, not an invasion by western troops, not carpet bombing towns and cities filled with innocent civilians and certainly not nuking the area as some fools on here have advocated.

lazybones32

I think Jordan has the right attitude towards these 'creatures': if they execute one of yours, kill two of theirs. Go on a serious hostage-grab and get enough to last a few months of executions...

Personally, I'd bury the f**kers with pig-flesh and put that on Youtube...isil like Youtube, don't they?

My inhumanity may offend some of the more delicate members of Society, who want to discuss solutions while weeping for the children but human history shows that power and ruthlessness is a universally understood language. And it gets results.

Timberrrrrrrr

lazybones32 wrote: »

I think Jordan has the right attitude towards these 'creatures': if they execute one of yours, kill two of theirs. Go on a serious hostage-grab and get enough to last a few months of executions...

Personally, I'd bury the f**kers with pig-flesh and put that on Youtube...isil like Youtube, don't they?

My inhumanity may offend some of the more delicate members of Society, who want to discuss solutions while weeping for the children but human history shows that power and ruthlessness is a universally understood language. And it gets results.

So you advocate the actions of ISIS? Because that's exactly the language they are using.

lazybones32

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I'm talking about a well planned boots on the ground (not western troops as this will cause more problems than solve) action by troops from that region, not an invasion by western troops, not carpet bombing towns and cities filled with innocent civilians and certainly not nuking the area as some fools on here have advocated.

Learn any lessons from Afghanistan in the 80's? Iraq? Training and arming a native force can have serious consequences down the line but you recommend trying it again?

Timberrrrrrrr

lazybones32 wrote: »

Learn any lessons from Afghanistan in the 80's? Iraq? Training and arming a native force can have serious consequences down the line but you recommend trying it again?

It's a middle eastern problem so let them sort it out. You want western troops to go in? How did that work in Afghanistan? Iraq?

Sure lets just bomb em all and let their god sort em out right?

Skylinehead

DarkJager wrote: »

To destroy a cancer, a few good cells also have to die.

To expand on that analogy, to kill a cancer we have to kill the person outright. But hey, the cancers dead!

BoJack Horseman

Skylinehead wrote: »

To expand on that analogy, to kill a cancer we have to kill the person outright.

Your right.

The only way to destroy ISIS is to destroy the entire planet.

Royal Irish

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I'm talking about a well planned boots on the ground (not western troops as this will cause more problems than solve) action by troops from that region, not an invasion by western troops, not carpet bombing towns and cities filled with innocent civilians and certainly not nuking the area as some fools on here have advocated.

The Peshmerga seem to be having the most success fighting ISIS toe to teo but unfortunately the Kurds are only protecting their own lands and people, and they wont fight ISIS in Syria and parts of Iraq that isn't Kurdish.

Agreed about western troops intervening. It would only make ISIS stronger as there would be a massive influx of foreign fighters for "Jihad".

I doubt any middle eastern countries will commit to anything more than just airstrikes.

Skylinehead

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Your right.

The only way to destroy ISIS is to destroy the entire planet.

You should probably follow the conversation if you're going to jump in with ridiculous remarks. I was referring to his lovely idea of nuking a city of 200,000 innocent people to kill a few terrorists.

DarkJager

Skylinehead wrote: »

You should probably follow the conversation if you're going to jump in with ridiculous remarks. I was referring to his lovely idea of nuking a city of 200,000 innocent people to kill a few terrorists.

Pretty sure I didn't say anything about a nuke but please quote me if you find it!

Magico Gonzalez

Invaded Iraq, crushed the army, crushed the regime. What happened next? Into the vacuum flooded sectarian violence, chaos and radicalisation.

So, we invade Libya, blowing it to bits from above. How's that panning out right now? Anyone want to guess what state Libya is in now? Anyone want to believe it was less safe and less stable beforehand?

Syria - we support the rebels, we have the regime. Turns out the rebels are the bad guys AND the regime are the bad guys.

Solution?

Let's support the bad guys that we always thought were bad guys because now we've discovered some bad guys who are really are bad guys.

What this would achieve. Dead civilians. Dead soldiers. Dead hostages. Complete instability in the region. Another terrorist military grouping would emerge and expand. Should they ever get into Lebanon next door to Israel you're probably looking at the start of WW3.

I haven't a clue what the solution is, but time and time again in this region it is clearly demonstrated to us (look at the mess we've made of Iraq, look at what we caused in Iran) that intervening, knocking over democracies and dictators alike has the same consequence. Something worse rushing into the void.

ireland.man

Here's the (terrible) thing, I think a resurgent Assad, bolstered by Iran and Hezbollah, with the Peshmerga pressuring the other side and internal discontent amongst the Sunni tribes who previously supported ISIS will be their undoing. ISIS doesn't have the funds to administer a large region, only enough to conquer new land. Their brutality is turning people against them already. The worst thing that could happen is for the West to cause more civilian causalities and continue to hand ISIS their propaganda on a plate.

Tugboats

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I'm talking about a well planned boots on the ground (not western troops as this will cause more problems than solve) action by troops from that region, not an invasion by western troops, not carpet bombing towns and cities filled with innocent civilians and certainly not nuking the area as some fools on here have advocated.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

It's a middle eastern problem so let them sort it out. You want western troops to go in? How did that work in Afghanistan? Iraq?

Sure lets just bomb em all and let their god sort em out right?

There would still be civilian casualties no matter how well planned. Its not Call of Duty.

Then you say its a middle eastern problem but you earlier you said you wanted western governments to fund it and train fighters. In the eyes of Isis and potential recruits this would nearly be the same thing as western boots on the ground.

You're all over the place

Skylinehead

DarkJager wrote: »

Pretty sure I didn't say anything about a nuke but please quote me if you find it!

You didn't specifically mention nuke no, but you do mention razing Raqqa to the ground. Which is the same damn thing at the end of the day. And you tried to justify killing all the people in the place, which again is the same result. You're just nitpicking now to justify your barbarism.

Timberrrrrrrr

Tugboats wrote: »

There would still be civilian casualties no matter how well planned. Its not Call of Duty.

Then you say its a middle eastern problem but you earlier you said you wanted western governments to fund it and train fighters. In the eyes of Isis and potential recruits this would nearly be the same thing as western boots on the ground.

You're all over the place

Boots on the ground operation = limited civilian casualties

Carpet bombing/nuking cities = mass murder on the idiotic scale, do you not see the difference?

Personally i would see the west pull out of the region and leave it to the middle eastern governments but then that would just give ISIS free range in the region hence why i said training and equipment would be needed.

Magico Gonzalez

ireland.man wrote: »

Here's the (terrible) thing, I think a resurgent Assad, bolstered by Iran and Hezbollah, with the Peshmerga pressuring the other side and internal discontent amongst the Sunni tribes who previously supported ISIS will be their undoing. ISIS doesn't have the funds to administer a large region, only enough to conquer new land. Their brutality is turning people against them already. The worst thing that could happen is for the West to cause more civilian causalities and continue to hand ISIS their propaganda on a plate.

ISIS are pretty well funded, estimates at the end of last year put their income in the order of 1 to 3m per day. Once they take over territory they demand money, they sell oil to smugglers. There are some who believe those charming princes in Saudi Arabia might be funding ISIS as a proxy to fight their sectarian wars.

Remember there is a sectarian elements to this as well, inter muslim violence still growing in the region.

Do not underestimate how messy this is going to get.

ireland.man

Magico Gonzalez wrote: »

ISIS are pretty well funded, estimates at the end of last year put their income in the order of 1 to 3m per day. Once they take over territory they demand money, they sell oil to smugglers. There are some who believe those charming princes in Saudi Arabia might be funding ISIS as a proxy to fight their sectarian wars.

Remember there is a sectarian elements to this as well, inter muslim violence still growing in the region.

Do not underestimate how messy this is going to get.

Trust me, I'm very, very pessimistic about how this will develop.

But really a few million a day isn't enough to run those regions to any proper pre-war level. In fact simple finance may well be ISIS biggest weakness. 3m can get you a lot of weapons and soldiers but can't provide a single running, well stocked hospital or school system in a single city, never mind the region.

liam24

Magico Gonzalez wrote: »

Invaded Iraq, crushed the army, crushed the regime. What happened next? Into the vacuum flooded sectarian violence, chaos and radicalisation.

So, we invade Libya, blowing it to bits from above. How's that panning out right now? Anyone want to guess what state Libya is in now? Anyone want to believe it was less safe and less stable beforehand?

Syria - we support the rebels, we have the regime. Turns out the rebels are the bad guys AND the regime are the bad guys.

Solution?

Let's support the bad guys that we always thought were bad guys because now we've discovered some bad guys who are really are bad guys.

What this would achieve. Dead civilians. Dead soldiers. Dead hostages. Complete instability in the region. Another terrorist military grouping would emerge and expand. Should they ever get into Lebanon next door to Israel you're probably looking at the start of WW3.

I haven't a clue what the solution is, but time and time again in this region it is clearly demonstrated to us (look at the mess we've made of Iraq, look at what we caused in Iran) that intervening, knocking over democracies and dictators alike has the same consequence. Something worse rushing into the void.

This is an Irish forum, and 'we' had nothing to do with it.