Anyone else got a real bad feeling about the ISIL bombings?
Discussion
Not sure if serious.CrutyRammers said:
toppstuff said:
Maybe the biggest problem is our timidity?
We allow ourselves to be overwhelmed in places like Iraq and Afghan because of our rules of engagement. Because we have a thousand Guardian reading eyes staring down all the time, things don't get done. Bad guys get away. We don't shoot back unless we are shot at.
Maybe we just take the gloves off. Throw out the media. Do unspeakable things and just snuff out the enemy. Impose order. Put a Saddam-like figure back in charge. Accept that there will collateral damage.
Would this be any more destructive, any more evil, than the constant drip-drip of semi-warfare over a protracted period of time? What is the most unpleasant option and which would be more effective in terms of securing stability and security? Could a hard line now ultimately save lives in the long run?
Pretty much my view - if they really are a danger that "can't be allowed to go on", then remove them, in the most efficient way which costs fewest lives amongst our people. Do it quickly and with overwhelming force, and don't stop until they are totally removed.We allow ourselves to be overwhelmed in places like Iraq and Afghan because of our rules of engagement. Because we have a thousand Guardian reading eyes staring down all the time, things don't get done. Bad guys get away. We don't shoot back unless we are shot at.
Maybe we just take the gloves off. Throw out the media. Do unspeakable things and just snuff out the enemy. Impose order. Put a Saddam-like figure back in charge. Accept that there will collateral damage.
Would this be any more destructive, any more evil, than the constant drip-drip of semi-warfare over a protracted period of time? What is the most unpleasant option and which would be more effective in terms of securing stability and security? Could a hard line now ultimately save lives in the long run?
If we're not willing to do that, then we are effectively saying that actually, they can be allowed to go on, we just don't like it very much.
There's no stomach to either take them out or leave alone - so we end in this fool's middle ground. Again.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-eas...
The Iraqi army, plagued by corruption, absenteeism and supply failures, has little chance against Islamist fanatics using suicide bombings and fluid tactics. And US air strikes are making little difference
NOTE - US air strikes are making little difference
At some point these f
kers WILL get hold of powerful weapons and come here....
It's scary indeed.
The Iraqi army, plagued by corruption, absenteeism and supply failures, has little chance against Islamist fanatics using suicide bombings and fluid tactics. And US air strikes are making little difference
NOTE - US air strikes are making little difference
At some point these f
kers WILL get hold of powerful weapons and come here....It's scary indeed.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/isi...
Isis could become 'world’s first truly terrorist state' and bomb UK with nuclear and chemical weapons
Lets hope not
Isis could become 'world’s first truly terrorist state' and bomb UK with nuclear and chemical weapons
Lets hope not
superkartracer said:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/isi...
Isis could become 'world’s first truly terrorist state' and bomb UK with nuclear and chemical weapons
Lets hope not
Brits 45 mins from doom!Isis could become 'world’s first truly terrorist state' and bomb UK with nuclear and chemical weapons
Lets hope not
ISIS are all noise, the lords resistance army of the middle east, not a credible threat to the UK in my opinion.
Were just being lubed up for 'boots on the ground' or maybe just justifying the cost of bombing these nutters.
A repost I made from another Topic. Sorry its a bit long.
23 / 09 / 2014 News Article
In a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the United States invoked Article 51 of the U.N. charter -- acting when a country is unwilling or unable to handle a threat itself -- as justification for carrying out airstrikes against ISIS and the al Qaeda-affiliated Khorasan Group in Syria.
"The Syrian regime has shown that it cannot and will not confront these safe havens effectively itself," Samantha Powers, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., wrote in a letter obtained by CNN.
"Accordingly, the United States has initiated necessary and proportionate military actions in Syria."
The airstrikes in Syria began early Tuesday morning local time. Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan took part in airstrikes on ISIS targets, the U.S. military said. Qatar played a supporting role, the U.S. military said.
04 / 04 / 2014 News Article
U.S. allies, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, have provided weaponry to various rebel factions during the conflict, including some Islamist groups now at odds with moderate rebels grouped under the umbrella of the Free Syrian Army.
U.S. and European officials say the most powerful anti-Assad factions are militant groups such as the Al-Nusrah and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, some of which either have links to Al Qaeda or are so extreme that even Al Qaeda has denounced them.
23 / 09 / 2014 News Article
In a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the United States invoked Article 51 of the U.N. charter -- acting when a country is unwilling or unable to handle a threat itself -- as justification for carrying out airstrikes against ISIS and the al Qaeda-affiliated Khorasan Group in Syria.
"The Syrian regime has shown that it cannot and will not confront these safe havens effectively itself," Samantha Powers, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., wrote in a letter obtained by CNN.
"Accordingly, the United States has initiated necessary and proportionate military actions in Syria."
The airstrikes in Syria began early Tuesday morning local time. Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan took part in airstrikes on ISIS targets, the U.S. military said. Qatar played a supporting role, the U.S. military said.
04 / 04 / 2014 News Article
U.S. allies, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, have provided weaponry to various rebel factions during the conflict, including some Islamist groups now at odds with moderate rebels grouped under the umbrella of the Free Syrian Army.
U.S. and European officials say the most powerful anti-Assad factions are militant groups such as the Al-Nusrah and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, some of which either have links to Al Qaeda or are so extreme that even Al Qaeda has denounced them.
superkartracer said:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/isi...
Isis could become 'world’s first truly terrorist state' and bomb UK with nuclear and chemical weapons
Lets hope not
Sounds familiar.Isis could become 'world’s first truly terrorist state' and bomb UK with nuclear and chemical weapons
Lets hope not
I'm sure Saddam's WMD will eventually be found, too
superkartracer said:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-eas...
The Iraqi army, plagued by corruption, absenteeism and supply failures, has little chance against Islamist fanatics using suicide bombings and fluid tactics. And US air strikes are making little difference
NOTE - US air strikes are making little difference
At some point these fkers WILL get hold of powerful weapons and come here....
It's scary indeed.
Cobblers.The Iraqi army, plagued by corruption, absenteeism and supply failures, has little chance against Islamist fanatics using suicide bombings and fluid tactics. And US air strikes are making little difference
NOTE - US air strikes are making little difference
At some point these f
kers WILL get hold of powerful weapons and come here....It's scary indeed.
Air Strikes are making a big difference.
Air strikes have effectively evolved to become a macabre game of splat the rat. Jus because there are not many IS targets to bomb anymore, does not mean that air strikes aren't working - quite the opposite in fact.
The situation now is that IS cannot mobilise large forces to take over territory and towns like it used to because they present a target to get bombed. This means that their progress has been effectively halted, although they remain dug in and established in the places they have already taken.
It will be hard to take new territory without being bombed. So air strikes are working. The messy business of walking up to them on the ground and killing them where they are established, needs to happen next. I wonder who is going to do it?
It should also be noted that the west is not exactly throwing everything we have at them. Six tornados and a US carrier is not a massive commitment in the big scheme of things. Combined western and Arab forces could turn the region to glass in an afternoon if they really took the gloves off. The Guardian would be apoplectic mind you.
toppstuff said:
The situation now is that IS cannot mobilise large forces to take over territory and towns like it used to because they present a target to get bombed...
Once IS are in major conurbations, how can air strikes be of any possible use?http://www.independent.co.uk/news/launch-of-the-eu...
Digga said:
toppstuff said:
The situation now is that IS cannot mobilise large forces to take over territory and towns like it used to because they present a target to get bombed...
Once IS are in major conurbations, how can air strikes be of any possible use?http://www.independent.co.uk/news/launch-of-the-eu...
Interesting, but wrong link.
Chimune said:
Georgie Moonbot on ISIS strikes.
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/30/isis...
Simplistic idiot.www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/30/isis...
Tell you what Georgi-boy, let's call off the airstikes and leave IS to their own devices.
Let's see how long it takes for a big problem to get really really f
king huge.Mermaid said:
Digga said:
toppstuff said:
The situation now is that IS cannot mobilise large forces to take over territory and towns like it used to because they present a target to get bombed...
Once IS are in major conurbations, how can air strikes be of any possible use?http://www.independent.co.uk/news/launch-of-the-eu...
Interesting, but wrong link.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-eas...
Indie said:
Isis 'just one mile from Baghdad' as al-Qaeda fighters join forces against Syria air strikes
Independent analysts say ISIS remains on the offensive in areas of Iraq and Syria, where it still controls large sections. And according to witnesses, US airstrikes have at times hit empty buildings that were long ago vacated by Islamic State fighters.
Military officials acknowledge that they are relying mainly on satellites, drones and surveillance flights to pinpoint targets, assess the damage afterward and determine whether civilians were killed.
That stands in sharp contrast to the networks of bases, spies and ground-based technology the US had in place during the height of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, officials say.
As a result, 'it's much harder for us to be able to know for sure what it is we're hitting, what it is we're killing and what it is collateral damage,' said Tom Lynch, a retired colonel and former adviser to the Joint Chiefs of Staff who is now a fellow at the National Defense University.
In Iraq, the US is relying for ground reports on the Iraqi military and intelligence services, whose insights into ISIS controlled territory are limited.
Military officials acknowledge that they are relying mainly on satellites, drones and surveillance flights to pinpoint targets, assess the damage afterward and determine whether civilians were killed.
That stands in sharp contrast to the networks of bases, spies and ground-based technology the US had in place during the height of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, officials say.
As a result, 'it's much harder for us to be able to know for sure what it is we're hitting, what it is we're killing and what it is collateral damage,' said Tom Lynch, a retired colonel and former adviser to the Joint Chiefs of Staff who is now a fellow at the National Defense University.
In Iraq, the US is relying for ground reports on the Iraqi military and intelligence services, whose insights into ISIS controlled territory are limited.
toppstuff said:
superkartracer said:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-eas...
The Iraqi army, plagued by corruption, absenteeism and supply failures, has little chance against Islamist fanatics using suicide bombings and fluid tactics. And US air strikes are making little difference
NOTE - US air strikes are making little difference
At some point these fkers WILL get hold of powerful weapons and come here....
It's scary indeed.
The situation now is that IS cannot mobilise large forces to take over territory and towns like it used to because they present a target to get bombed. This means that their progress has been effectively halted, although they remain dug in and established in the places they have already taken.The Iraqi army, plagued by corruption, absenteeism and supply failures, has little chance against Islamist fanatics using suicide bombings and fluid tactics. And US air strikes are making little difference
NOTE - US air strikes are making little difference
At some point these f
kers WILL get hold of powerful weapons and come here....It's scary indeed.
I chanced upon this yesterday looking for something entirely different:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-r...
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-r...
Zod said:
You live in Germany and you don't understand the value of your vote? Wow!
Radio 4 seem to be doing series on Germany this week. No CCTV, kicking off at the Snowden revelations due to the history of the Stasi and some woman that wrote a book about the Stasi realised when looking through the information the Stasi had on her was actually a Stasi informer years ago.carinaman said:
Radio 4 seem to be doing series on Germany this week. No CCTV, kicking off at the Snowden revelations due to the history of the Stasi and some woman that wrote a book about the Stasi realised when looking through the information the Stasi had on her was actually a Stasi informer years ago.
Any chance of that in English? Breadvan72 said:
KareemK said:
...
Many of them would rather be ruled by the laws of Islam (ie God) than by any particular one person (dictator) or any 'democracy'.
As far as they (devout Muslims) are concerned the laws of God supercede the laws made by man in any 'democracy' in every single instance. No exceptions.
That is why they don't feel they 'need' a democracy. They have everything they need to live a 'happy' life laid out for them in the Koran and the people in place to interpret that for them where any confusion might appear.
You'll never impose a democracy on them no matter how logical your arguments are.
...
That is the sort of patronising view I was referring to above and extrapolates from the views of the few to the views of the many. Where democracy has been offered, for example in Afghanistan, local populations have tended to take readily to voting, even though there has been much corruption in relation to elections. The idea that all Muslims are clones seeking an Islamic state is as daft as the idea that all Muslims support violence against non Muslims.Many of them would rather be ruled by the laws of Islam (ie God) than by any particular one person (dictator) or any 'democracy'.
As far as they (devout Muslims) are concerned the laws of God supercede the laws made by man in any 'democracy' in every single instance. No exceptions.
That is why they don't feel they 'need' a democracy. They have everything they need to live a 'happy' life laid out for them in the Koran and the people in place to interpret that for them where any confusion might appear.
You'll never impose a democracy on them no matter how logical your arguments are.
...
Edited by Breadvan72 on Tuesday 30th September 09:48
I didn't push him too hard for stories, but my gosh did he offer me tales of being on the ground in Africa and the Middle East. His premise was you can't give or force democracy on these people. They simply don't want it, they're not capable of accepting it. They want a dictator who is channeling the word of GOD.
Which is pretty much what KareemK said. So hardly patronising. Some of these people have heard of democracy, but in reality they have no clue what it means. It's become little more than a reach out for something a bit different to the hell they are currently experiencing.
His view, and mine too, it will take decades to get this resolved.
For one moment consider if all the people in Scotland were armed with AK47s. How well do you consider that little round of 'democracy' would be playing out?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff