US journalist beheaded by ISIS...
Discussion
Jimbeaux said:
Mojocvh said:
Jimbeaux said:
Mojocvh said:
Jimbeaux said:
TheRealFingers99 said:
Cobnapint said:
TheRealFingers99 said:
Interesting poll on support for ISIS, US in coalition countries: http://www.timesofisrael.com/egypt-saudi-arabia-le...
Hmmm. So basically, in the ME, everybody dislikes somebody, unless they're Chinese.Weird.
the writer includes a summary:"What do all these numbers mean for the current US campaign against ISIS? Public opinion can be fickle, but for now several policy implications emerge from this analysis.
First, Washington and its allies need not fear that ISIS might attract a mass following in these nearby Arab societies, or that a strong popular backlash might develop against US airstrikes, or against our other Arab allies in this fight. But second, the United States would be well advised to target its actions very narrowly against ISIS — not against other Islamist groups that have recently come under American fire, and could well add to their substantial popularity as a result. And third, any US overtures either to Assad or to Iran, as potential partners against ISIS, run a great risk both of further alienating the Egyptian and the Saudi publics, and of further inflaming the dangerous sectarian polarization among Lebanese at the same time."
Read more: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon overwhelmingly reject IS... and the US | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/egypt-saudi-arabia-le...
Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook
Numerous countries, the US included, have offered to build them a free reactor for electrical production. They wants nuke weaponry. Why is it our concern you say??? Since it is known to everyone but infants that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, one might like to prevent a third pary Virgin hunter from getting hold of a nuke. If you are not concerned, then you concern me.As I said, wtf's it got to do with anybody apart from Iran?
Why shouldn't they produce weapons to deter attack, much like the US's beloved Saudi Arabia???????
Even the Israeli secret service opine that even if they do produce weapons they ain't going to be giving them to anyone else.
Mojocvh said:
Jimbeaux said:
Mojocvh said:
Jimbeaux said:
Mojocvh said:
Jimbeaux said:
TheRealFingers99 said:
Cobnapint said:
TheRealFingers99 said:
Interesting poll on support for ISIS, US in coalition countries: http://www.timesofisrael.com/egypt-saudi-arabia-le...
Hmmm. So basically, in the ME, everybody dislikes somebody, unless they're Chinese.Weird.
the writer includes a summary:"What do all these numbers mean for the current US campaign against ISIS? Public opinion can be fickle, but for now several policy implications emerge from this analysis.
First, Washington and its allies need not fear that ISIS might attract a mass following in these nearby Arab societies, or that a strong popular backlash might develop against US airstrikes, or against our other Arab allies in this fight. But second, the United States would be well advised to target its actions very narrowly against ISIS — not against other Islamist groups that have recently come under American fire, and could well add to their substantial popularity as a result. And third, any US overtures either to Assad or to Iran, as potential partners against ISIS, run a great risk both of further alienating the Egyptian and the Saudi publics, and of further inflaming the dangerous sectarian polarization among Lebanese at the same time."
Read more: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon overwhelmingly reject IS... and the US | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/egypt-saudi-arabia-le...
Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook
Numerous countries, the US included, have offered to build them a free reactor for electrical production. They wants nuke weaponry. Why is it our concern you say??? Since it is known to everyone but infants that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, one might like to prevent a third pary Virgin hunter from getting hold of a nuke. If you are not concerned, then you concern me.As I said, wtf's it got to do with anybody apart from Iran?
Why shouldn't they produce weapons to deter attack, much like the US's beloved Saudi Arabia???????
Even the Israeli secret service opine that even if they do produce weapons they ain't going to be giving them to anyone else.
Jimbeaux said:
Mermaid said:
Jimbeaux said:
Wait until they get a real taste of the Chinese, then it will be to late. When we have enough of our own oil and let China deal with the ME, they'll be begging for some Uncle Sam. .
The Chinese experience is not one to savour.
Mermaid said:
Jimbeaux said:
Mermaid said:
Jimbeaux said:
Wait until they get a real taste of the Chinese, then it will be to late. When we have enough of our own oil and let China deal with the ME, they'll be begging for some Uncle Sam. .
The Chinese experience is not one to savour.Jimbeaux said:
Mojocvh said:
Jimbeaux said:
Mojocvh said:
Jimbeaux said:
Mojocvh said:
Jimbeaux said:
TheRealFingers99 said:
Cobnapint said:
TheRealFingers99 said:
Interesting poll on support for ISIS, US in coalition countries: http://www.timesofisrael.com/egypt-saudi-arabia-le...
Hmmm. So basically, in the ME, everybody dislikes somebody, unless they're Chinese.Weird.
the writer includes a summary:"What do all these numbers mean for the current US campaign against ISIS? Public opinion can be fickle, but for now several policy implications emerge from this analysis.
First, Washington and its allies need not fear that ISIS might attract a mass following in these nearby Arab societies, or that a strong popular backlash might develop against US airstrikes, or against our other Arab allies in this fight. But second, the United States would be well advised to target its actions very narrowly against ISIS — not against other Islamist groups that have recently come under American fire, and could well add to their substantial popularity as a result. And third, any US overtures either to Assad or to Iran, as potential partners against ISIS, run a great risk both of further alienating the Egyptian and the Saudi publics, and of further inflaming the dangerous sectarian polarization among Lebanese at the same time."
Read more: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon overwhelmingly reject IS... and the US | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/egypt-saudi-arabia-le...
Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook
Numerous countries, the US included, have offered to build them a free reactor for electrical production. They wants nuke weaponry. Why is it our concern you say??? Since it is known to everyone but infants that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, one might like to prevent a third pary Virgin hunter from getting hold of a nuke. If you are not concerned, then you concern me.As I said, wtf's it got to do with anybody apart from Iran?
Why shouldn't they produce weapons to deter attack, much like the US's beloved Saudi Arabia???????
Even the Israeli secret service opine that even if they do produce weapons they ain't going to be giving them to anyone else.
Mojocvh said:
Jimbeaux said:
Mojocvh said:
Jimbeaux said:
Mojocvh said:
Jimbeaux said:
Mojocvh said:
Jimbeaux said:
TheRealFingers99 said:
Cobnapint said:
TheRealFingers99 said:
Interesting poll on support for ISIS, US in coalition countries: http://www.timesofisrael.com/egypt-saudi-arabia-le...
Hmmm. So basically, in the ME, everybody dislikes somebody, unless they're Chinese.Weird.
the writer includes a summary:"What do all these numbers mean for the current US campaign against ISIS? Public opinion can be fickle, but for now several policy implications emerge from this analysis.
First, Washington and its allies need not fear that ISIS might attract a mass following in these nearby Arab societies, or that a strong popular backlash might develop against US airstrikes, or against our other Arab allies in this fight. But second, the United States would be well advised to target its actions very narrowly against ISIS — not against other Islamist groups that have recently come under American fire, and could well add to their substantial popularity as a result. And third, any US overtures either to Assad or to Iran, as potential partners against ISIS, run a great risk both of further alienating the Egyptian and the Saudi publics, and of further inflaming the dangerous sectarian polarization among Lebanese at the same time."
Read more: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon overwhelmingly reject IS... and the US | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/egypt-saudi-arabia-le...
Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook
Numerous countries, the US included, have offered to build them a free reactor for electrical production. They wants nuke weaponry. Why is it our concern you say??? Since it is known to everyone but infants that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, one might like to prevent a third pary Virgin hunter from getting hold of a nuke. If you are not concerned, then you concern me.As I said, wtf's it got to do with anybody apart from Iran?
Why shouldn't they produce weapons to deter attack, much like the US's beloved Saudi Arabia???????
Even the Israeli secret service opine that even if they do produce weapons they ain't going to be giving them to anyone else.
KareemK said:
TheJimi said:
Apparently ISIS are now going to invade the Vatican.
So, that's Russia, America and now the Vatican.
lol
Don't mock too soon, some people on this thread think they're going to become the Nazi Germany if we don't bomb the bejeezus out of them now. So, that's Russia, America and now the Vatican.
lol
Jimbeaux said:
KareemK said:
TheJimi said:
Apparently ISIS are now going to invade the Vatican.
So, that's Russia, America and now the Vatican.
lol
Don't mock too soon, some people on this thread think they're going to become the Nazi Germany if we don't bomb the bejeezus out of them now. So, that's Russia, America and now the Vatican.
lol
Mission Impossible it clearly isn't.
KareemK said:
Jimbeaux said:
KareemK said:
TheJimi said:
Apparently ISIS are now going to invade the Vatican.
So, that's Russia, America and now the Vatican.
lol
Don't mock too soon, some people on this thread think they're going to become the Nazi Germany if we don't bomb the bejeezus out of them now. So, that's Russia, America and now the Vatican.
lol
Mission Impossible it clearly isn't.
Their military was left in better shape than the one we destroyed. It was lack of leadership and good old cowardice that led them to abandon their posts and kit to ISIS.
Jimbeaux said:
Uhh, it is not quite that at all. It should hold by any accounting. However, with this bunch anything can happen.
Their military was left in better shape than the one we destroyed. It was lack of leadership and good old cowardice that led them to abandon their posts and kit to ISIS.
What is your experience of serving in combat zones?Their military was left in better shape than the one we destroyed. It was lack of leadership and good old cowardice that led them to abandon their posts and kit to ISIS.
photosnob said:
Jimbeaux said:
Uhh, it is not quite that at all. It should hold by any accounting. However, with this bunch anything can happen.
Their military was left in better shape than the one we destroyed. It was lack of leadership and good old cowardice that led them to abandon their posts and kit to ISIS.
What is your experience of serving in combat zones?Their military was left in better shape than the one we destroyed. It was lack of leadership and good old cowardice that led them to abandon their posts and kit to ISIS.
1989 - Panama - Combat Engineer(Sapper)support to the 3rd Brigade/7th Infantry Division (Not too many obstacles there)
1991 - Desert Storm - Engineer Support to the 1st Infantry Division breeching Operations (officially attached to the 142 Field Artillery Brigade). We also supported the 1st United Kingdom Armoured Division ground campaign.
2004 - Combat Engineer support to Infantry Divisions in Afghanistan.
Edited by Jimbeaux on Thursday 16th October 20:25
Edited by Jimbeaux on Thursday 16th October 20:26
Jimbeaux said:
1983/87 - Supported drug cartel raids in Latin America-Task Force attachment as Infantry support platoon (intermittent, not a solid four years).
1989 - Panama - Combat Engineer(Sapper)support to the 3rd Brigade/7th Infantry Division (Not too many obstacles there)
1991 - Desert Storm - Engineer Support to the 1st Infantry Division breeching Operations (officially attached to the 142 Field Artillery Brigade). We also supported the 1st United Kingdom Armoured Division ground campaign.
2004 - Combat Engineer support to Infantry Divisions in Afghanistan.
Fair enough. Firstly congrats on being a Sapper, I must say that you picked an amazing trade. Your only fault there was being American. Sappers are known in the British Army as Gods and widely respected by all cap badges and ranks. 1989 - Panama - Combat Engineer(Sapper)support to the 3rd Brigade/7th Infantry Division (Not too many obstacles there)
1991 - Desert Storm - Engineer Support to the 1st Infantry Division breeching Operations (officially attached to the 142 Field Artillery Brigade). We also supported the 1st United Kingdom Armoured Division ground campaign.
2004 - Combat Engineer support to Infantry Divisions in Afghanistan.
Edited by Jimbeaux on Thursday 16th October 20:25
Edited by Jimbeaux on Thursday 16th October 20:26
The only reason I asked was because of the cowards comment. With no leadership I don't blame them. I'd not want to wait around to be mutilated if everyone else was legging it and we had no leadership to believe in. I'd also say that both the Brits and you yanks did the same in both Iraq and afghan, and I'm not talking about leaving. When things got tough blokes back peddled quickly, only waiting for air support and lots of help before going back. I can't imagine any of our officers wanting to leave the blokes to get killed as not to be cowardly. However we call this a tactical retreat, rather than running away from the fight.
photosnob said:
Jimbeaux said:
1983/87 - Supported drug cartel raids in Latin America-Task Force attachment as Infantry support platoon (intermittent, not a solid four years).
1989 - Panama - Combat Engineer(Sapper)support to the 3rd Brigade/7th Infantry Division (Not too many obstacles there)
1991 - Desert Storm - Engineer Support to the 1st Infantry Division breeching Operations (officially attached to the 142 Field Artillery Brigade). We also supported the 1st United Kingdom Armoured Division ground campaign.
2004 - Combat Engineer support to Infantry Divisions in Afghanistan.
Fair enough. Firstly congrats on being a Sapper, I must say that you picked an amazing trade. Your only fault there was being American. Sappers are known in the British Army as Gods and widely respected by all cap badges and ranks. 1989 - Panama - Combat Engineer(Sapper)support to the 3rd Brigade/7th Infantry Division (Not too many obstacles there)
1991 - Desert Storm - Engineer Support to the 1st Infantry Division breeching Operations (officially attached to the 142 Field Artillery Brigade). We also supported the 1st United Kingdom Armoured Division ground campaign.
2004 - Combat Engineer support to Infantry Divisions in Afghanistan.
Edited by Jimbeaux on Thursday 16th October 20:25
Edited by Jimbeaux on Thursday 16th October 20:26
The only reason I asked was because of the cowards comment. With no leadership I don't blame them. I'd not want to wait around to be mutilated if everyone else was legging it and we had no leadership to believe in. I'd also say that both the Brits and you yanks did the same in both Iraq and afghan, and I'm not talking about leaving. When things got tough blokes back peddled quickly, only waiting for air support and lots of help before going back. I can't imagine any of our officers wanting to leave the blokes to get killed as not to be cowardly. However we call this a tactical retreat, rather than running away from the fight.
As for seperating the cowards from the "un-led", that is difficult to prove, true. As to the US/UK running, not sure I agree. Yes, if one can step back and save lives while waiting on backup, then that is always the way to go. However, there were tough moments when it was touch and go on several individual battles that the allies stood their ground. Some of these situations were in near even odds. I don't think the Iraqis would have if the shoe was on the other foot. Let's not call it cowardice then, let's call it a "cutural difference" or something. 
The closest you have gotten to a goat is what you thought was a lamb at a Kabob shop. Jimbeaux said:
As to being an Engineer, I honestly didn't know what I was getting into. As for seperating the cowards from the "un-led", that is difficult to prove, true. As to the US/UK running, not sure I agree. Yes, if one can step back and save lives while waiting on backup, then that is always the way to go. However, there were tough moments when it was touch and go on several individual battles that the allies stood their ground. Some of these situations were in near even odds. I don't think the Iraqis would have if the shoe was on the other foot. Let's not call it cowardice then, let's call it a "cutural difference" or something.
As a Sapper myself (although I'm now a divvy now) I'd agree, you don't know what you are signing up for until they make you go through your initiation. As for seperating the cowards from the "un-led", that is difficult to prove, true. As to the US/UK running, not sure I agree. Yes, if one can step back and save lives while waiting on backup, then that is always the way to go. However, there were tough moments when it was touch and go on several individual battles that the allies stood their ground. Some of these situations were in near even odds. I don't think the Iraqis would have if the shoe was on the other foot. Let's not call it cowardice then, let's call it a "cutural difference" or something. The thing is, in my experience - we as in the UK/US were always at an advantage - we has plenty of air support and vastly superior equipment. The mastiff was penetrated once I think in Afghan. Now I know that the US gave the Iraqi's lots of shiny equipment - but it's debatable if they really knew how to use it, and in what condition it was in. In my experience of sandy countries, those at the top are happy to take the money and then mothball the kit leaving the blokes on the ground struggling.
What's more - those who signed up to our armed forces did so through choice, not through poverty (although for the scousers this is debatable). We also grew up believing in our country, and for the most part actually thinking we were invincible. The Iraqi Army saw their previous armed forces affectively give up when we came knocking. They have known nothing other than either giving up, or having someone else to do the tricky stuff. So expecting them to perform alone when they are facing a pretty fierce force is a bit of a long shot.
That said - I'm not really sure what you can do to fix that. From what I've read, seen and heard they have terrible commanders and a pretty mediocre armed forces. As far as things stand I think giving them lots of air support is what they really need. Perhaps train them in comms and give them radios to call for help, throw in a few Apaches (which again is difficult due to range unless we want to have a base) and then just hope for the best. Sending blokes back on the ground is only going to put them straight back in the same position when we again eventually leave again.
So overall - I think the country is in big big problems. The amount of air support in Iraq and Syria is already not enough to make a big difference. I'd say you'd need to be a lot more aggressive if you want to make a lasting difference. But then we don't want to see the bodies of kids on the news when a mistake is made . Basically I'm going around in circles saying at the moment I don't think there is anything we can do that we aren't already doing.
Jimbeaux said:
Mojocvh said:
Jimbeaux said:
Mojocvh said:
Jimbeaux said:
Mojocvh said:
Jimbeaux said:
Mojocvh said:
Jimbeaux said:
TheRealFingers99 said:
Cobnapint said:
TheRealFingers99 said:
Interesting poll on support for ISIS, US in coalition countries: http://www.timesofisrael.com/egypt-saudi-arabia-le...
Hmmm. So basically, in the ME, everybody dislikes somebody, unless they're Chinese.Weird.
the writer includes a summary:"What do all these numbers mean for the current US campaign against ISIS? Public opinion can be fickle, but for now several policy implications emerge from this analysis.
First, Washington and its allies need not fear that ISIS might attract a mass following in these nearby Arab societies, or that a strong popular backlash might develop against US airstrikes, or against our other Arab allies in this fight. But second, the United States would be well advised to target its actions very narrowly against ISIS — not against other Islamist groups that have recently come under American fire, and could well add to their substantial popularity as a result. And third, any US overtures either to Assad or to Iran, as potential partners against ISIS, run a great risk both of further alienating the Egyptian and the Saudi publics, and of further inflaming the dangerous sectarian polarization among Lebanese at the same time."
Read more: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon overwhelmingly reject IS... and the US | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/egypt-saudi-arabia-le...
Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook
Numerous countries, the US included, have offered to build them a free reactor for electrical production. They wants nuke weaponry. Why is it our concern you say??? Since it is known to everyone but infants that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, one might like to prevent a third pary Virgin hunter from getting hold of a nuke. If you are not concerned, then you concern me.As I said, wtf's it got to do with anybody apart from Iran?
Why shouldn't they produce weapons to deter attack, much like the US's beloved Saudi Arabia???????
Even the Israeli secret service opine that even if they do produce weapons they ain't going to be giving them to anyone else.
It's like you can't grasp the simple fact that they KNOW they will be eliminated if they ever gave an atomic weapon to the regional terrorists.
It's like you can't grasp all followers of Islam aren't supporters of ISIS..
Mojocvh said:
And you seem unable to grasp the possibility that after going to all this apparent effort to manufacture atomic weapons they night just want to hang on to them themselves.
It's like you can't grasp the simple fact that they KNOW they will be eliminated if they ever gave an atomic weapon to the regional terrorists.
There's maybe a case to argue that an Iran possessing a nuclear weapon would be less likely to fund proxies (to my mind calling Hezbollah a terrorist organisation doesn't really respect the current reality). Don't the strategists still argue that the possession of nuclear weapons by the USSR and the West ushered in a period of "peace" (or proxy wars) that has persisted up to today? It's like you can't grasp the simple fact that they KNOW they will be eliminated if they ever gave an atomic weapon to the regional terrorists.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff