US journalist beheaded by ISIS...

[jmorgan]

I am hoping that the lack of info on UK funding means they are after them. But I doubt it.

[Langweilig]

On the Radio 5 Live breakfast show this morning, I heard some silly bh of an apologist state that all ransoms for the release of hostages should be immediately paid to ISIS. The presenter, quite rightly put her in her place.

You don't need to be Chancellor of the Exchequer to know that the coffers of HM Treasury aren't bottomless. Why should we give them money to buy more bullets with which to massacre more Christians, then Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and so on?

Don't pay them off!

Edited by Langweilig on Monday 15th September 12:29

[KTF]

Langweilig said:

Don't pay them off!

Especially when the hostages they parade were (probably) all killed at the same time so are (probably) all dead anyway.

[Patrick Bateman]

wildcat45 said:

Patrick Bateman said:

Drivel.

OK, your view. How would you deal with this situation?

Getting a bit nasty isn't going to stop people like this.

[Westy Carl]

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)

[Rude-boy]

Patrick Bateman said:

Getting a bit nasty isn't going to stop people like this.

Nor is sending them flowers and chocolates and asking them not to be so mean.

[Jimbeaux]

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)

"Islamic State of Iraq and Levant". This refers to a region IIRC. SOme say it was Obamas way of wanting to stay out of Syria by not using the "S".

[GT03ROB]

wildcat45 said:

We are down a back alley facing a bunch of muggers and we are fighting by Marquiss of Queensbury rules.

Those means include nuclear chemical biological and air fuel weapons. Cluster bombs, land mines and a level of uncompromising brutality against the enemy that only armed forces can muster.

It is time to act, to deal with these people with unparalleled brutality. A few "smart" bombs that can't be dropped if the bad guys hide in a village or Mosque won't do it. They do not observe the Geneva Convention, why should we.?

Edited by wildcat45 on Monday 15th September 08:38

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.

[Patrick Bateman]

Rude-boy said:

Nor is sending them flowers and chocolates and asking them not to be so mean.

I haven't said that.

[Bill]

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.

This. IS want an Islam vs the west war, we are cleverer than that.

[jmorgan]

Bill said:

This. IS want an Islam vs the west war, we are cleverer than that.

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 hope 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.

[dudleybloke]

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 dheads, major capital ships rarely pull alongside in a foreign port lol

Plus it might take more than 10 thick as st terrorists to bother a US carrier group.

[Jimbeaux]

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 dheads, major capital ships rarely pull alongside in a foreign port lol

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.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Monday 15th September 15:29

[CrutyRammers]

benjj said:

I didn't think it was drivel. I thought it was a relatively accurate appraisal of what it would take to 'win' a war like this.

It's not too dissimilar to what the west did in Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki etc - an overwhelming show of force where it's not really required. The bottom line is that most actual war wins are achieved by sinking to depths of evil/destruction that the enemy is unable or unwilling to stoop.

Agreed. The problem is that we are now too weak (in terms of having the stomach for it, not in terms of ability), and they know it.
I don't think you can be the "good guy" in war. Trying to be, is why we keep losing.

[BlackLabel]

There is some doubt as to whether Al-Q really did this. Reports suggest that it was actually an attack on the Pak Navy by Pak Navy personnel. The authorities then spun the story and were happy to blame outsiders.

"KARACHI: While the Navy continues to remain tight-lipped about the attack on its dockyard in West Wharf on Sept 6, having issued a bare-bones statement 48 hours after the incident, further details have been obtained by Dawn that reveal the extent of radicalisation within the Navy.

According to informed sources, the attack was carried out entirely by serving Navy personnel, along with Owais Jakharani, a former Navy cadet who could have been given access inside without too much trouble.

“It seems the intention was to hijack PNS Zulfiqar [a frigate purchased from China and inducted in July 2009],” said one of these sources. “The group of would-be hijackers, led by a senior officer, was even saluted by the guard at the bottom of the gangway, before another became suspicious of their intentions and alerted other personnel"


http://www.dawn.com/news/1131654/dockyard-attacker...

Jimbeaux said:

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 dheads, major capital ships rarely pull alongside in a foreign port lol

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.

[Jimbeaux]

For future reference by the terror-imparied:

http://militaryloansamerica.com/blog/wp-content/up...

It's the big one in the front:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zkpiRY2TrVQ/Th2y37_6VbI/...

[Jimbeaux]

Guam said:

Jimbeaux said:

For future reference by the terror-imparied:

http://militaryloansamerica.com/blog/wp-content/up...

It's the big one in the front:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zkpiRY2TrVQ/Th2y37_6VbI/...

Is that the USS New Jersey in the Background?

Not sure, it's one of the old Battleships but can't make out which one.

[simo1863]

They're doing this to provoke ground action. Help with the air campaign, it's clearly hurting them. It's not like ground action will bring dead hostages back and it's very unlikely that we'd manage to get any of the other hostages alive.

[Jimbeaux]

Guam said:

Jimbeaux said:

Not sure, it's one of the old Battleships but can't make out which one.

The reason I was thinking that, is that I know its alongside at a museum on the river and opposite is Philly where I think some of the carriers may be built?

So wondered whether it might be NJ

Interesting how the modern Carrier significantly Dwarfs even a Battleship from WW2

Yep; it's all relative though, seeing how the open sea dwarfs a modern carrier.

[Jimbeaux]

Guam said:

Jimbeaux said:

Yep; it's all relative though, seeing how the open sea dwarfs a modern carrier.

Indeed, having been on a few and nearly sunk on The Guam in the Adriatic of all places, the sea can make them seen very small at times

They named a ship after you? Nice.