You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > isis
March 29 2024 1.55pm

isis

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 19 of 85 < 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 >

 

jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 21 Aug 14 10.51pm

Quote hellodah at 21 Aug 2014 7.27pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 21 Aug 2014 6.24pm

Quote hellodah at 21 Aug 2014 5.28pm

Cue posts from the Comrades telling us they are isolated incidents etc, etc ... 'high-spirited' kids etc - how having someone murdered in the street or blown up now and again is worth the tremendous benefits of having 'diversity'.

Cue right wing reactionary knee jerk tar brushing.


Comrade Martin right on cue with weasel words that criticism of Islamic extremism is 'tar brushing'.

It is when you imply that its applicable to all Muslims. I'm wondering when the guy I work for will decide to go Hezbollah on the MOD site.

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 21 Aug 14 10.55pm

Quote elgrande at 21 Aug 2014 7.48pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 21 Aug 2014 6.33pm

Quote legaleagle at 20 Aug 2014 7.52pm

Quote ASCPFC at 20 Aug 2014 5.09pm

Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 20 Aug 2014 4.57pm

Quote ASCPFC at 20 Aug 2014 4.46pm

I'm surprised by all the calls to wipe them out. I would ask exactly who would you wipe out? People in these situations, when confronted by a force with overwhelming firepower, simply fade away and are driven underground. They begin using guerilla tactics and organising and funding themselves as an Islamic terrorist organisation. Before you know it the problem has spread worldwide to every city/airport/train station/school/university - you get the picture.
My suggestion would be to combine a hard response with a deal of some kind. Maybe there could be some legitimate Muslim state run by ISIS where people could go and choose to live under Sharia law etc. if they so wished? Part of the deal could be to hand over anyone proven guilty of atrocities to be tried under international law at the Hague, or some such thing; rather than renditioning. The hard part would be getting them to talk which is why I would first assemble a huge force so they would know we mean business.


using your logic though a huge force would be pointless as we wouldnt be able to do anything anyway.

Where would you put this state? What country should give up their teritory to house these animals? Maybe somewhere with international jurisdiction like the Antartic?

Yes a lot of these people would melt away but as with Pol Pot (to a degree), once the fear of them is removed, the people will rise against anyone who tries to disappear.

You cannot be rational with these people. That is why we are always destined to lose unless we do something more drastic.


Not really, a huge force would be necessary to get them to the negotiating table. Why else would they bother? They are pretty much doing what they want at present bar the odd air-strike. As for where would the state be, the obvious answer is more-or-less where it is already. I don't really like the idea of some radical Islamic state but if so many people seem to be attracted to it then who are we to stop them? Inevitably there will just be an escalation of the conflict until some solution is found.
The doing something more drastic would be something akin to the US in Vietnam, the UN in Korea or everyone in Afghanistan. It would pretty likely never end and cause perhaps millions of casualties. This is not a conventonal force like the Iraqi army in Desert Storm. These are committed, well funded and highly manouverable forces who can quite easily disappear when needed. Dare I say it, I really wouldn't like to see the outcome of a massive US intervention. I say protect the borders of what they already have so they can't expand, step up airstrikes and pressure and then see what the diplomats can come up with when the heat dies down a bit.


Edited by ASCPFC (20 Aug 2014 5.10pm)

The major difference with Vietnam,Afghanistan,Korea etc is that they were essentially national liberation movements.Here,the underlying ideology is not nationalist but a multinational religious one.So,whether any binding "deal"could be cut (if one gets over whether that's a good idea or not) is,in my view,unlikely. The mere fact of "diplomatic" semi-recognition would give the underlying ideology incredible legitimacy (and support) all over the place...

In terms of "sealing off" the territory they already have,do we just,as a part,leave any shia, christians,apostates still located there etc to their grisly fate?

ISIS are more or less a 'national liberation movement', albeit one about the establishment of a Muslim Caliphate, their focus is primarily on the region of the Sunni North of Iraq and Eastern Syria.

Which is a real problem, because they have a long term goal and achievable strategy, where as Al-Queda were purely 'terrorists' striking at the West, ISIS could quite conceivably establish themselves. They're also a lot more attractive to jyhadists for that reason - as they're representing something real to fight for.

Their successes are also appealing to a number of less Islamic militants, such as Baathists and more nationalist insurgents in that Iraqi region, as they have a realistic hope of success. Especially with the prospect of Shia militants

Those insurgents are fairly well established, know the area very well.


Yes Jamie you might be right,but give a couple of years living under their strict muslim laws,they will soon miss all their little western toys.

I suspect that when the dust settles that the area will divide up with ISIS in Syrian parts, and the Sunni nationalists claiming the Iraqi parts. Both factions have a mutual interest in each other prosperity.

Likely as not the old Baathists will hold sway over the Iraqi areas, and it'll serve ISIS interest to have a buffer zone that protects their primary holdings of interest in Syria (the Oil fields they seized).


 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Y Ddraig Goch's Profile Y Ddraig Goch Flag In The Crowd 22 Aug 14 8.47am Send a Private Message to Y Ddraig Goch Add Y Ddraig Goch as a friend

Quote jamiemartin721 at 21 Aug 2014 6.33pm

Quote legaleagle at 20 Aug 2014 7.52pm

Quote ASCPFC at 20 Aug 2014 5.09pm

Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 20 Aug 2014 4.57pm

Quote ASCPFC at 20 Aug 2014 4.46pm

I'm surprised by all the calls to wipe them out. I would ask exactly who would you wipe out? People in these situations, when confronted by a force with overwhelming firepower, simply fade away and are driven underground. They begin using guerilla tactics and organising and funding themselves as an Islamic terrorist organisation. Before you know it the problem has spread worldwide to every city/airport/train station/school/university - you get the picture.
My suggestion would be to combine a hard response with a deal of some kind. Maybe there could be some legitimate Muslim state run by ISIS where people could go and choose to live under Sharia law etc. if they so wished? Part of the deal could be to hand over anyone proven guilty of atrocities to be tried under international law at the Hague, or some such thing; rather than renditioning. The hard part would be getting them to talk which is why I would first assemble a huge force so they would know we mean business.


using your logic though a huge force would be pointless as we wouldnt be able to do anything anyway.

Where would you put this state? What country should give up their teritory to house these animals? Maybe somewhere with international jurisdiction like the Antartic?

Yes a lot of these people would melt away but as with Pol Pot (to a degree), once the fear of them is removed, the people will rise against anyone who tries to disappear.

You cannot be rational with these people. That is why we are always destined to lose unless we do something more drastic.


Not really, a huge force would be necessary to get them to the negotiating table. Why else would they bother? They are pretty much doing what they want at present bar the odd air-strike. As for where would the state be, the obvious answer is more-or-less where it is already. I don't really like the idea of some radical Islamic state but if so many people seem to be attracted to it then who are we to stop them? Inevitably there will just be an escalation of the conflict until some solution is found.
The doing something more drastic would be something akin to the US in Vietnam, the UN in Korea or everyone in Afghanistan. It would pretty likely never end and cause perhaps millions of casualties. This is not a conventonal force like the Iraqi army in Desert Storm. These are committed, well funded and highly manouverable forces who can quite easily disappear when needed. Dare I say it, I really wouldn't like to see the outcome of a massive US intervention. I say protect the borders of what they already have so they can't expand, step up airstrikes and pressure and then see what the diplomats can come up with when the heat dies down a bit.


Edited by ASCPFC (20 Aug 2014 5.10pm)

The major difference with Vietnam,Afghanistan,Korea etc is that they were essentially national liberation movements.Here,the underlying ideology is not nationalist but a multinational religious one.So,whether any binding "deal"could be cut (if one gets over whether that's a good idea or not) is,in my view,unlikely. The mere fact of "diplomatic" semi-recognition would give the underlying ideology incredible legitimacy (and support) all over the place...

In terms of "sealing off" the territory they already have,do we just,as a part,leave any shia, christians,apostates still located there etc to their grisly fate?

ISIS are more or less a 'national liberation movement', albeit one about the establishment of a Muslim Caliphate, their focus is primarily on the region of the Sunni North of Iraq and Eastern Syria.
Which is a real problem, because they have a long term goal and achievable strategy, where as Al-Queda were purely 'terrorists' striking at the West, ISIS could quite conceivably establish themselves. They're also a lot more attractive to jyhadists for that reason - as they're representing something real to fight for.

Their successes are also appealing to a number of less Islamic militants, such as Baathists and more nationalist insurgents in that Iraqi region, as they have a realistic hope of success. Especially with the prospect of Shia militants

Those insurgents are fairly well established, know the area very well.



I am sorry Jamie but that is a load of bollocks. They want more than an islamic state. That is just the start, anyone who believes differently quite frankly is living in cloud cuckoo land. If they are allowed to establish a calihate it will be little more than an extremely large terrorist camp. Think Afghanistan x 100

 


the dignified don't even enter in the game

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View redandblue4life's Profile redandblue4life Flag Auckland city ! 22 Aug 14 8.52am Send a Private Message to redandblue4life Add redandblue4life as a friend

It's time we acted we should be there helping destroy these evil basterds killing innocent women and children every day ! Get into them and f*** em up I say !

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 22 Aug 14 9.07am

Quote redandblue4life at 22 Aug 2014 8.52am

It's time we acted we should be there helping destroy these evil basterds killing innocent women and children every day ! Get into them and f*** em up I say !

i am inclined to agree, politically though i can't see it happening. It would likely cost the conservatives the next election, and without US troop numbers its high risk, ISIS will switch to guerrilla warfare tactics and militarily we lack sufficent troops to pacify the area sufficiently to prevent them operating. Reliance on the Iraqi army to do that is questionable. Probably the best. The insurgent groups in that area will be happy to just hit targets and rack up casulties untill its politically untenable to stay there.

the best we can do is provide assistance to the Iraqi military provide air support and special ops support

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 22 Aug 14 9.16am

Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 22 Aug 2014 8.47am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 21 Aug 2014 6.33pm

Quote legaleagle at 20 Aug 2014 7.52pm

Quote ASCPFC at 20 Aug 2014 5.09pm

Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 20 Aug 2014 4.57pm

Quote ASCPFC at 20 Aug 2014 4.46pm

I'm surprised by all the calls to wipe them out. I would ask exactly who would you wipe out? People in these situations, when confronted by a force with overwhelming firepower, simply fade away and are driven underground. They begin using guerilla tactics and organising and funding themselves as an Islamic terrorist organisation. Before you know it the problem has spread worldwide to every city/airport/train station/school/university - you get the picture.
My suggestion would be to combine a hard response with a deal of some kind. Maybe there could be some legitimate Muslim state run by ISIS where people could go and choose to live under Sharia law etc. if they so wished? Part of the deal could be to hand over anyone proven guilty of atrocities to be tried under international law at the Hague, or some such thing; rather than renditioning. The hard part would be getting them to talk which is why I would first assemble a huge force so they would know we mean business.


using your logic though a huge force would be pointless as we wouldnt be able to do anything anyway.

Where would you put this state? What country should give up their teritory to house these animals? Maybe somewhere with international jurisdiction like the Antartic?

Yes a lot of these people would melt away but as with Pol Pot (to a degree), once the fear of them is removed, the people will rise against anyone who tries to disappear.

You cannot be rational with these people. That is why we are always destined to lose unless we do something more drastic.


Not really, a huge force would be necessary to get them to the negotiating table. Why else would they bother? They are pretty much doing what they want at present bar the odd air-strike. As for where would the state be, the obvious answer is more-or-less where it is already. I don't really like the idea of some radical Islamic state but if so many people seem to be attracted to it then who are we to stop them? Inevitably there will just be an escalation of the conflict until some solution is found.
The doing something more drastic would be something akin to the US in Vietnam, the UN in Korea or everyone in Afghanistan. It would pretty likely never end and cause perhaps millions of casualties. This is not a conventonal force like the Iraqi army in Desert Storm. These are committed, well funded and highly manouverable forces who can quite easily disappear when needed. Dare I say it, I really wouldn't like to see the outcome of a massive US intervention. I say protect the borders of what they already have so they can't expand, step up airstrikes and pressure and then see what the diplomats can come up with when the heat dies down a bit.


Edited by ASCPFC (20 Aug 2014 5.10pm)

The major difference with Vietnam,Afghanistan,Korea etc is that they were essentially national liberation movements.Here,the underlying ideology is not nationalist but a multinational religious one.So,whether any binding "deal"could be cut (if one gets over whether that's a good idea or not) is,in my view,unlikely. The mere fact of "diplomatic" semi-recognition would give the underlying ideology incredible legitimacy (and support) all over the place...

In terms of "sealing off" the territory they already have,do we just,as a part,leave any shia, christians,apostates still located there etc to their grisly fate?

ISIS are more or less a 'national liberation movement', albeit one about the establishment of a Muslim Caliphate, their focus is primarily on the region of the Sunni North of Iraq and Eastern Syria.
Which is a real problem, because they have a long term goal and achievable strategy, where as Al-Queda were purely 'terrorists' striking at the West, ISIS could quite conceivably establish themselves. They're also a lot more attractive to jyhadists for that reason - as they're representing something real to fight for.

Their successes are also appealing to a number of less Islamic militants, such as Baathists and more nationalist insurgents in that Iraqi region, as they have a realistic hope of success. Especially with the prospect of Shia militants

Those insurgents are fairly well established, know the area very well.



I am sorry Jamie but that is a load of bollocks. They want more than an islamic state. That is just the start, anyone who believes differently quite frankly is living in cloud cuckoo land. If they are allowed to establish a calihate it will be little more than an extremely large terrorist camp. Think Afghanistan x 100

ISIS aren't really a terrorist group, not primarily. They use terror certainly and the tactics, but they are focused on real world gains and establishing territory and holding it. As such theyre much more a threat to the area, and much more attractive to radicalised young Muslims than al-qaeda and its spectacle driven suicide attacks ever were. Isis are a real threat in that they're also successful. That. Means they're attracting recruits and sponsors.


 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Ouzo Dan's Profile Ouzo Dan 22 Aug 14 9.36am Send a Private Message to Ouzo Dan Add Ouzo Dan as a friend

The IS have eyes on Turkey, they wont stop until everyone obeys their version of Islam.

Thank f*** Saddam actually did as he was told and disposed of those chemical weapons.
Can you imagine if IS had some of that at its disposal?

Edited by Ouzo Dan (22 Aug 2014 9.39am)

 


Sex Panther 60% of the time it works every time

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Y Ddraig Goch's Profile Y Ddraig Goch Flag In The Crowd 22 Aug 14 10.13am Send a Private Message to Y Ddraig Goch Add Y Ddraig Goch as a friend

Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Aug 2014 9.16am

Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 22 Aug 2014 8.47am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 21 Aug 2014 6.33pm

Quote legaleagle at 20 Aug 2014 7.52pm

Quote ASCPFC at 20 Aug 2014 5.09pm

Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 20 Aug 2014 4.57pm

Quote ASCPFC at 20 Aug 2014 4.46pm

I'm surprised by all the calls to wipe them out. I would ask exactly who would you wipe out? People in these situations, when confronted by a force with overwhelming firepower, simply fade away and are driven underground. They begin using guerilla tactics and organising and funding themselves as an Islamic terrorist organisation. Before you know it the problem has spread worldwide to every city/airport/train station/school/university - you get the picture.
My suggestion would be to combine a hard response with a deal of some kind. Maybe there could be some legitimate Muslim state run by ISIS where people could go and choose to live under Sharia law etc. if they so wished? Part of the deal could be to hand over anyone proven guilty of atrocities to be tried under international law at the Hague, or some such thing; rather than renditioning. The hard part would be getting them to talk which is why I would first assemble a huge force so they would know we mean business.


using your logic though a huge force would be pointless as we wouldnt be able to do anything anyway.

Where would you put this state? What country should give up their teritory to house these animals? Maybe somewhere with international jurisdiction like the Antartic?

Yes a lot of these people would melt away but as with Pol Pot (to a degree), once the fear of them is removed, the people will rise against anyone who tries to disappear.

You cannot be rational with these people. That is why we are always destined to lose unless we do something more drastic.


Not really, a huge force would be necessary to get them to the negotiating table. Why else would they bother? They are pretty much doing what they want at present bar the odd air-strike. As for where would the state be, the obvious answer is more-or-less where it is already. I don't really like the idea of some radical Islamic state but if so many people seem to be attracted to it then who are we to stop them? Inevitably there will just be an escalation of the conflict until some solution is found.
The doing something more drastic would be something akin to the US in Vietnam, the UN in Korea or everyone in Afghanistan. It would pretty likely never end and cause perhaps millions of casualties. This is not a conventonal force like the Iraqi army in Desert Storm. These are committed, well funded and highly manouverable forces who can quite easily disappear when needed. Dare I say it, I really wouldn't like to see the outcome of a massive US intervention. I say protect the borders of what they already have so they can't expand, step up airstrikes and pressure and then see what the diplomats can come up with when the heat dies down a bit.


Edited by ASCPFC (20 Aug 2014 5.10pm)

The major difference with Vietnam,Afghanistan,Korea etc is that they were essentially national liberation movements.Here,the underlying ideology is not nationalist but a multinational religious one.So,whether any binding "deal"could be cut (if one gets over whether that's a good idea or not) is,in my view,unlikely. The mere fact of "diplomatic" semi-recognition would give the underlying ideology incredible legitimacy (and support) all over the place...

In terms of "sealing off" the territory they already have,do we just,as a part,leave any shia, christians,apostates still located there etc to their grisly fate?

ISIS are more or less a 'national liberation movement', albeit one about the establishment of a Muslim Caliphate, their focus is primarily on the region of the Sunni North of Iraq and Eastern Syria.
Which is a real problem, because they have a long term goal and achievable strategy, where as Al-Queda were purely 'terrorists' striking at the West, ISIS could quite conceivably establish themselves. They're also a lot more attractive to jyhadists for that reason - as they're representing something real to fight for.

Their successes are also appealing to a number of less Islamic militants, such as Baathists and more nationalist insurgents in that Iraqi region, as they have a realistic hope of success. Especially with the prospect of Shia militants

Those insurgents are fairly well established, know the area very well.



I am sorry Jamie but that is a load of bollocks. They want more than an islamic state. That is just the start, anyone who believes differently quite frankly is living in cloud cuckoo land. If they are allowed to establish a calihate it will be little more than an extremely large terrorist camp. Think Afghanistan x 100

ISIS aren't really a terrorist group, not primarily. They use terror certainly and the tactics, but they are focused on real world gains and establishing territory and holding it. As such theyre much more a threat to the area, and much more attractive to radicalised young Muslims than al-qaeda and its spectacle driven suicide attacks ever were. Isis are a real threat in that they're also successful. That. Means they're attracting recruits and sponsors.


That's only their short term goal. Their long term aim is much more far reaching. Power & religious extremism is a dangerous cocktail.

 


the dignified don't even enter in the game

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 22 Aug 14 10.15am

Quote Ouzo Dan at 22 Aug 2014 9.36am

The IS have eyes on Turkey, they wont stop until everyone obeys their version of Islam.

Thank f*** Saddam actually did as he was told and disposed of those chemical weapons.
Can you imagine if IS had some of that at its disposal?

Edited by Ouzo Dan (22 Aug 2014 9.39am)

indeed, though if he had remained in power i doubt Isis would exist. Iraq would have acted to prevent Syrian rebel supply from Iraq, as that part of Iraq was his powerbase. The Sunni Iraq insurgency was piviotal in the Syrian rebel forces logistics

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Ouzo Dan's Profile Ouzo Dan 22 Aug 14 2.50pm Send a Private Message to Ouzo Dan Add Ouzo Dan as a friend

Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Aug 2014 10.15am

Quote Ouzo Dan at 22 Aug 2014 9.36am

The IS have eyes on Turkey, they wont stop until everyone obeys their version of Islam.

Thank f*** Saddam actually did as he was told and disposed of those chemical weapons.
Can you imagine if IS had some of that at its disposal?

Edited by Ouzo Dan (22 Aug 2014 9.39am)

indeed, though if he had remained in power i doubt Isis would exist. Iraq would have acted to prevent Syrian rebel supply from Iraq, as that part of Iraq was his powerbase. The Sunni Iraq insurgency was piviotal in the Syrian rebel forces logistics

Agreed Jamie, The power vacuum that has been left by George's coalition of the willing is what is responsible for all this mess.

It doesnt help that we are arming IS in Syria yet bombing them in Iraq....

 


Sex Panther 60% of the time it works every time

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View ASCPFC's Profile ASCPFC Flag Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 22 Aug 14 3.33pm Send a Private Message to ASCPFC Add ASCPFC as a friend

Quote Ouzo Dan at 22 Aug 2014 2.50pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Aug 2014 10.15am

Quote Ouzo Dan at 22 Aug 2014 9.36am

The IS have eyes on Turkey, they wont stop until everyone obeys their version of Islam.

Thank f*** Saddam actually did as he was told and disposed of those chemical weapons.
Can you imagine if IS had some of that at its disposal?

Edited by Ouzo Dan (22 Aug 2014 9.39am)

indeed, though if he had remained in power i doubt Isis would exist. Iraq would have acted to prevent Syrian rebel supply from Iraq, as that part of Iraq was his powerbase. The Sunni Iraq insurgency was piviotal in the Syrian rebel forces logistics

Agreed Jamie, The power vacuum that has been left by George's coalition of the willing is what is responsible for all this mess.

It doesnt help that we are arming IS in Syria yet bombing them in Iraq....

That does help our arms sales though - in several ways.

 


Red and Blue Army!

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 22 Aug 14 6.28pm

Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 22 Aug 2014 10.13am

That's only their short term goal. Their long term aim is much more far reaching. Power & religious extremism is a dangerous cocktail.

It'll take them a good ten years to secure, of course they're likely to then look at the rest of Iraq. I can't see them going for Turkey and provoking NATO, but Kuwait, Jordon etc would probably be next (although if they went for the rest of Iraqi, Iran would be dragged into it). Saudi, are probably too powerful for ISIS (and ideologically on similar pages) and I doubt they have the capacity to take on Iran.


 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 19 of 85 < 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > isis