US journalist beheaded by ISIS...
Discussion
jmorgan said:
Problem is they have been doing bad things to date, now they do it to westerners and use the media to great effect, the leaders feel they have to respond. I hhope it is measured and not OTT. They want a backlash, we should not give it them in the way they can use for their propaganda. I do not think they will worry for any collateral damage as long as they can spin it.
Yep. They've killed thousands of innocents but because they've murdered three westerners people want to carpet bomb the ME. The irony is that Al Q is apparently struggling to recruit because the nutters are heading to IS. If we can get the Iranians and Saudis to sort IS it could be a huge set back for militant Islam as a whole.
Bill said:
The irony is that Al Q is apparently struggling to recruit because the nutters are heading to IS. If we can get the Iranians and Saudis to sort IS it could be a huge set back for militant Islam as a whole.
Heard on the radio the other day.IS were once affiliated to AQ but were 'banished' because AQ thought them too extreme.
Now if AQ think you are too extreme, given their track record, do you not think that you should look at yourself very carefully...
The 'too extreme for AQ' line is thrown about a lot. I think it's BS.
The real reason Al-Q disassociated itself from ISIS was because ISIS was born out of, and then fell out with, the al-Nusra Front which is a branch of Al-Q in Syria. It was a power thing and not a 'oh you are too extreme for us' thing.
ISIS, Al-Q, Al-Nusra - referring to any of these as more or less extreme than the other is silly and their history has proven this. They are all equally as brutal when they want to be.
As far as I can see Al-Q chief Ayman al-Zawahri has never mentioned the 'too extreme for us' line - I wonder why the media keep on promoting this falsehood?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleea...
The real reason Al-Q disassociated itself from ISIS was because ISIS was born out of, and then fell out with, the al-Nusra Front which is a branch of Al-Q in Syria. It was a power thing and not a 'oh you are too extreme for us' thing.
ISIS, Al-Q, Al-Nusra - referring to any of these as more or less extreme than the other is silly and their history has proven this. They are all equally as brutal when they want to be.
As far as I can see Al-Q chief Ayman al-Zawahri has never mentioned the 'too extreme for us' line - I wonder why the media keep on promoting this falsehood?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleea...
Rude-boy said:
Heard on the radio the other day.
IS were once affiliated to AQ but were 'banished' because AQ thought them too extreme.
Now if AQ think you are too extreme, given their track record, do you not think that you should look at yourself very carefully...
IS were once affiliated to AQ but were 'banished' because AQ thought them too extreme.
Now if AQ think you are too extreme, given their track record, do you not think that you should look at yourself very carefully...
V8 Fettler said:
Does the West have any long term political objectives to resolve this yet? Or just more flailing around followed by withdrawal, thus leaving a power vacuum?
Isn't having a long term political objects in other states the root cause of this. Pull out all support for middle east countries, including Israel and let the locals come to a solution. If that means the west doesn't get a compliant provider of oil so be it.Jimbeaux said:
Westy Carl said:
BoRED S2upid said:
Just heard Cameron refer to ISIS as ISAL just like the USA calls it? What's that all about?
The world leaders should just refer to them as "terorists", by using there own designated names gives them some legitamcy (in their eyes)They want to invade Jerusalem. Well, bring it on. That really will be the death of them. Israel will not tolerate ISIL atrocities in its territory.
BlackLabel said:
The 'too extreme for AQ' line is thrown about a lot. I think it's BS.
The real reason Al-Q disassociated itself from ISIS was because ISIS was born out of, and then fell out with, the al-Nusra Front which is a branch of Al-Q in Syria. It was a power thing and not a 'oh you are too extreme for us' thing.
ISIS, Al-Q, Al-Nusra - referring to any of these as more or less extreme than the other is silly and their history has proven this. They are all equally as brutal when they want to be.
As far as I can see Al-Q chief Ayman al-Zawahri has never mentioned the 'too extreme for us' line - I wonder why the media keep on promoting this falsehood?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleea...
Genuinely thank your for the correction. In all honesty the piece I was listening to was actually a satirical bit so I was not 100% sold on it as being right, more 'I hear' than 'I believe'.The real reason Al-Q disassociated itself from ISIS was because ISIS was born out of, and then fell out with, the al-Nusra Front which is a branch of Al-Q in Syria. It was a power thing and not a 'oh you are too extreme for us' thing.
ISIS, Al-Q, Al-Nusra - referring to any of these as more or less extreme than the other is silly and their history has proven this. They are all equally as brutal when they want to be.
As far as I can see Al-Q chief Ayman al-Zawahri has never mentioned the 'too extreme for us' line - I wonder why the media keep on promoting this falsehood?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleea...
Rude-boy said:
Heard on the radio the other day.
IS were once affiliated to AQ but were 'banished' because AQ thought them too extreme.
Now if AQ think you are too extreme, given their track record, do you not think that you should look at yourself very carefully...
IS were once affiliated to AQ but were 'banished' because AQ thought them too extreme.
Now if AQ think you are too extreme, given their track record, do you not think that you should look at yourself very carefully...
Interestingly I think that the person I was listening to had some very good pointe. One of them was about the 4 British cowards being called "the Beetles" and one of them being named "Jihadi John". They were saying that it was a disgrace that journalists almost seem to get all excited about using such names and so forth for such utter scum and that they are almost making them sound 'cuddly'. Was Radio 4 on Saturday about Noon to one o'clock from memory.
GT03ROB said:
In the first bit it seems you get it, but later sections you clearly don't. This is not some fixed battle, with a clearly defined enemy. The means you mention are weapons of mass destruction. We are not facing massed forces. The mass slaughter of innocents will achieve nothing in Iraq/Syria & will drop us to their level. We need to be better than them or it's not a fight worth having.
I don't know the answer, but this is not it.
There was a time up until recently where ai would have agreed with you. Sadly it is a fight worth having now, and though I agree we should strive to be better than them, this is not about moral victories or moral high ground. It is a fight that must be won. Dropping nuclear weapons on Japan was a horrible thing to have to do, but it stopped World War Two dead in its tracks. Sometimes you just have to win.I don't know the answer, but this is not it.
I am advocating the tactical use of WMD, not taking out the whole region with several boat loads of Tridents.
These savages don't obey rules and assume we do not have the balls to use our most feared weapons.
Not using nukes in the past made sense through the mutually assured destruction thing. If we were ruthless, if we used more power than necessary then it would send a message to militants globally that they could be next.
You can fly all the planes you want into buildings, blow up as many trains as you want, but when your foe can make the sun shine at any time of the day or night by whacking some steam into a launch tube of a sub thousands of miles away you might just think "Is it worth it?"
Plus legitimate states which may look favourably on such organisations are less likely to be willing to help them if there was a demonstrated willingness to use nuclear weapons.
It is in the West's, China's Russia's even dare I say it Iran's interests to get rid of extremism in the region.
A bit more thought should go into policies. Hell the West hasn't been ethical in the past. Support Syria. The region actually needs a nasty despot like him to keep people in check. How would Saddam have dealt with IS? Would we not have been better leaving him be after we kicked out of Kuwait? Is Libya a more stable place post Gaddafi? You could drop a few conventional bombs on them when they were naughty then tempt them into good behaviour with visits from Tony Blair and hints that they may be taken seriously. We're the Taliban really worth the effort, the blood of hundreds of young British and Allied men? The Taliban did a lot of harm, but is what is in Afghanistan better now? Why should British soldiers have died for the freedom of a nation which really is still not fit for purpous? Would the Taliban have harboured Bin Laden if their existence was threatened not be troops on the ground, or hearts and minds rubbish but by a mini sun taking out a city centre?
Yes the above (Maybe not Tony) were evil despots who harmed their people. Sooner that than chaos and chameleon like terror groups springing up here there and everywhere.
Maybe we should have left well alone. Maybe some use of WMD on September 12 2001 would have meant peace.
Yes fighting dirty makes us no better then them. I'd rather be no better than them as a victor than sitting on the ethical and moral high ground watching skyscrapers collapse and Britons being beheaded.
I may sound callous and bloodthirsty. Inncents will die. Innocents have died. I really can not think of an alternative that will secure victory. Can anyone think of an alternative that will save lives, Western Lives?
wildcat45 said:
There was a time up until recently where ai would have agreed with you. Sadly it is a fight worth having now, and though I agree we should strive to be better than them, this is not about moral victories or moral high ground. It is a fight that must be won. Dropping nuclear weapons on Japan was a horrible thing to have to do, but it stopped World War Two dead in its tracks. Sometimes you just have to win.
I am advocating the tactical use of WMD, not taking out the whole region with several boat loads of Tridents.
These savages don't obey rules and assume we do not have the balls to use our most feared weapons.
Not using nukes in the past made sense through the mutually assured destruction thing. If we were ruthless, if we used more power than necessary then it would send a message to militants globally that they could be next.
You can fly all the planes you want into buildings, blow up as many trains as you want, but when your foe can make the sun shine at any time of the day or night by whacking some steam into a launch tube of a sub thousands of miles away you might just think "Is it worth it?"
Plus legitimate states which may look favourably on such organisations are less likely to be willing to help them if there was a demonstrated willingness to use nuclear weapons.
It is in the West's, China's Russia's even dare I say it Iran's interests to get rid of extremism in the region.
A bit more thought should go into policies. Hell the West hasn't been ethical in the past. Support Syria. The region actually needs a nasty despot like him to keep people in check. How would Saddam have dealt with IS? Would we not have been better leaving him be after we kicked out of Kuwait? Is Libya a more stable place post Gaddafi? You could drop a few conventional bombs on them when they were naughty then tempt them into good behaviour with visits from Tony Blair and hints that they may be taken seriously. We're the Taliban really worth the effort, the blood of hundreds of young British and Allied men? The Taliban did a lot of harm, but is what is in Afghanistan better now? Why should British soldiers have died for the freedom of a nation which really is still not fit for purpous? Would the Taliban have harboured Bin Laden if their existence was threatened not be troops on the ground, or hearts and minds rubbish but by a mini sun taking out a city centre?
Yes the above (Maybe not Tony) were evil despots who harmed their people. Sooner that than chaos and chameleon like terror groups springing up here there and everywhere.
Maybe we should have left well alone. Maybe some use of WMD on September 12 2001 would have meant peace.
Yes fighting dirty makes us no better then them. I'd rather be no better than them as a victor than sitting on the ethical and moral high ground watching skyscrapers collapse and Britons being beheaded.
I may sound callous and bloodthirsty. Inncents will die. Innocents have died. I really can not think of an alternative that will secure victory. Can anyone think of an alternative that will save lives, Western Lives?
I'm assuming you are a senior Officer in the Military with such ingenious thinking. I am advocating the tactical use of WMD, not taking out the whole region with several boat loads of Tridents.
These savages don't obey rules and assume we do not have the balls to use our most feared weapons.
Not using nukes in the past made sense through the mutually assured destruction thing. If we were ruthless, if we used more power than necessary then it would send a message to militants globally that they could be next.
You can fly all the planes you want into buildings, blow up as many trains as you want, but when your foe can make the sun shine at any time of the day or night by whacking some steam into a launch tube of a sub thousands of miles away you might just think "Is it worth it?"
Plus legitimate states which may look favourably on such organisations are less likely to be willing to help them if there was a demonstrated willingness to use nuclear weapons.
It is in the West's, China's Russia's even dare I say it Iran's interests to get rid of extremism in the region.
A bit more thought should go into policies. Hell the West hasn't been ethical in the past. Support Syria. The region actually needs a nasty despot like him to keep people in check. How would Saddam have dealt with IS? Would we not have been better leaving him be after we kicked out of Kuwait? Is Libya a more stable place post Gaddafi? You could drop a few conventional bombs on them when they were naughty then tempt them into good behaviour with visits from Tony Blair and hints that they may be taken seriously. We're the Taliban really worth the effort, the blood of hundreds of young British and Allied men? The Taliban did a lot of harm, but is what is in Afghanistan better now? Why should British soldiers have died for the freedom of a nation which really is still not fit for purpous? Would the Taliban have harboured Bin Laden if their existence was threatened not be troops on the ground, or hearts and minds rubbish but by a mini sun taking out a city centre?
Yes the above (Maybe not Tony) were evil despots who harmed their people. Sooner that than chaos and chameleon like terror groups springing up here there and everywhere.
Maybe we should have left well alone. Maybe some use of WMD on September 12 2001 would have meant peace.
Yes fighting dirty makes us no better then them. I'd rather be no better than them as a victor than sitting on the ethical and moral high ground watching skyscrapers collapse and Britons being beheaded.
I may sound callous and bloodthirsty. Inncents will die. Innocents have died. I really can not think of an alternative that will secure victory. Can anyone think of an alternative that will save lives, Western Lives?
If not get yourself up for election - with ideas like those I'd feel much safer as an Englishman. Let them know if you mess with us the Nukes are coming out to play. Hey it would work for North Korea if they had functioning weapons!!!
Langweilig said:
Islamic State of Iraq and Levant. The Levant is geographical territory which forms Israel.
They want to invade Jerusalem. Well, bring it on. That really will be the death of them. Israel will not tolerate ISIL atrocities in its territory.
IIRC ISIL has never attacked Israel although they were stationed close to their borders several times (and I think even now in western Syria)They want to invade Jerusalem. Well, bring it on. That really will be the death of them. Israel will not tolerate ISIL atrocities in its territory.
makes you wonder eh...
ISIS introduce new school curriculum.
Scrapping subjects such as philosophy and chemistry, and fine-tuning the sciences to fit with its ideology.
Classes about history, literature and Christianity have been "permanently annulled."
The Islamic State group has declared patriotic songs blasphemous and ordered that certain pictures be torn out of textbooks.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/islamic-state-group-issu...
Scrapping subjects such as philosophy and chemistry, and fine-tuning the sciences to fit with its ideology.
Classes about history, literature and Christianity have been "permanently annulled."
The Islamic State group has declared patriotic songs blasphemous and ordered that certain pictures be torn out of textbooks.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/islamic-state-group-issu...
wildcat45 said:
I may sound callous and bloodthirsty. Inncents will die. Innocents have died. I really can not think of an alternative that will secure victory. Can anyone think of an alternative that will save lives, Western Lives?
How will it save lives? You'll just create a bunch of martyrs and in turn a load more terrorists at home and abroad.6th Gear said:
More holes than a Swiss cheese unfortunately.Jimbeaux said:
Very odd, isn't it? As if a carrier could fit in an average port. Did the fact that there was no runway on top not tip them off? How about that there was a non-US flag flying atop? 10 militants and their intent was to "seize" the ship? US flatops have a crew of around 5,000 people, not to mention the flotillas of support ships and subs that are their entourage.
Rumours abound that Under Siege is the official IS training video...B17NNS said:
ISIS introduce new school curriculum.
Scrapping subjects such as philosophy and chemistry, and fine-tuning the sciences to fit with its ideology.
Classes about history, literature and Christianity have been "permanently annulled."
The Islamic State group has declared patriotic songs blasphemous and ordered that certain pictures be torn out of textbooks.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/islamic-state-group-issu...
Just to be clear, is this Birmingham or some place else ? Scrapping subjects such as philosophy and chemistry, and fine-tuning the sciences to fit with its ideology.
Classes about history, literature and Christianity have been "permanently annulled."
The Islamic State group has declared patriotic songs blasphemous and ordered that certain pictures be torn out of textbooks.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/islamic-state-group-issu...
Guam said:
Well if this is how smart all these islamist terrorists are we have nothing to worry about.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2756249/Ne...
For future reference d
heads, major capital ships rarely pull alongside in a foreign port lol
Sadly a bit of a DailyFail screw up, the terrorists (who included serving officers) where trying to hijack a frigate which they were then planning on using to strike the Carrier, they weren't trying to hijack the carrier. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2756249/Ne...
For future reference d
heads, major capital ships rarely pull alongside in a foreign port lolStill, even then firing a frigate up from cold, getting it out and weapons capable before the US strike group got the call saying that the blip heading towards on them on the radar was less then friendly was always... optimistic.
Langweilig said:
Islamic State of Iraq and Levant. The Levant is geographical territory which forms Israel.
They want to invade Jerusalem. Well, bring it on. That really will be the death of them. Israel will not tolerate ISIL atrocities in its territory.
Israel is too busy committing it's own atrocities to expand it's territory to care about IS at the moment. They want to invade Jerusalem. Well, bring it on. That really will be the death of them. Israel will not tolerate ISIL atrocities in its territory.
Edited by Godalmighty83 on Tuesday 16th September 07:41
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff