US journalist beheaded by ISIS...
Discussion
Bill said:
How will it save lives? You'll just create a bunch of martyrs and in turn a load more terrorists at home and abroad.
It would save lives by stopping what is happening swiftly. Will it create more terrorists? Perhaps, just like the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan have created more terrorists. The difference being, with a demonstration that we are willing where necessary to use nuclear weapons and if necessary accept Innicents will die would there be so many new terrorists?
If a nation right now accommodates encourages OT just tolerates terrorism, it will be OK. The most that will happen will be a SF raid or small scale bombing. If they thought there was a real possibility or a nuclear attack, do you seriously think they would be so willing to support the terrorists? I bet they would be more likely to give the west as much help as possible.
Can anyone give je a solution to this problem that avoids bloodshed, stops this in its tracks and at the same time sends out a profound and uncompromising message.
I would genuinely like to hear it.
photosnob said:
I'm assuming you are a senior Officer in the Military with such ingenious thinking.
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!!!
Dont mock. Tell me I am wrong by all means. Pick what I have said to bits , counter the argument. 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!!!
Why would we want to target North Korea with nuclear weapons? Is North Korea swarming over the middle east committing atrocities killing our citizens and threatening the security of our nation?
You demonstrate with your mocking tone a lack of understanding of the situation. Not that I coaim to understand it. Nation state v terrorists.
I will ask you too. Come forward with a solution rather than mocking from the sidelines.
Really, I would live to hear alternative views.
wildcat45 said:
It would save lives by stopping what is happening swiftly. Will it create more terrorists? Perhaps, just like the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan have created more terrorists.
The difference being, with a demonstration that we are willing where necessary to use nuclear weapons and if necessary accept Innicents will die would there be so many new terrorists?
If a nation right now accommodates encourages OT just tolerates terrorism, it will be OK. The most that will happen will be a SF raid or small scale bombing. If they thought there was a real possibility or a nuclear attack, do you seriously think they would be so willing to support the terrorists? I bet they would be more likely to give the west as much help as possible.
Can anyone give je a solution to this problem that avoids bloodshed, stops this in its tracks and at the same time sends out a profound and uncompromising message.
I would genuinely like to hear it.
Neither Syria or Iraq accomodate, encourages or tolerates the terrorism of ISIS. Unless you hadn't noticed Kurds & Iraqis are fighting & dying to stop them. Kurdish & Iraqi civilians of all religons are being murdered by ISIS. Kurdish & iraqi troops are being beheaded. I know what lets nuke 'em ....bloody brilliant way of getting their support. The difference being, with a demonstration that we are willing where necessary to use nuclear weapons and if necessary accept Innicents will die would there be so many new terrorists?
If a nation right now accommodates encourages OT just tolerates terrorism, it will be OK. The most that will happen will be a SF raid or small scale bombing. If they thought there was a real possibility or a nuclear attack, do you seriously think they would be so willing to support the terrorists? I bet they would be more likely to give the west as much help as possible.
Can anyone give je a solution to this problem that avoids bloodshed, stops this in its tracks and at the same time sends out a profound and uncompromising message.
I would genuinely like to hear it.
You want a solution.....
...it's not for the West to solve it's for the sovereign powers in the region to solve. The soverign powers in the region have no interest in ISIS being powerful. Any solution involves Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait & UAE. The first step to a solution is to bring Iran in from the cold. It's not to put "boots into Iraq" again.
...it's not for the West to solve it's for the sovereign powers in the region to solve. The soverign powers in the region have no interest in ISIS being powerful. Any solution involves Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait & UAE. The first step to a solution is to bring Iran in from the cold. It's not to put "boots into Iraq" again.
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...
"Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings"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...
Though I expect ISIS are out of sequence on that.
Their funding is one of the biggest issues. Reading up earlier a few Isis members in Raqqa saying you live with Assad's régime or Isis. They hate being in ISIS however they pay $400/month which is pretty good.
Life in raqqa seems to be like living with a a cross between the north Korean regime and the Nazis.
Life in raqqa seems to be like living with a a cross between the north Korean regime and the Nazis.
Mermaid said:
The world is a crazy place of late.GT03ROB said:
You want a solution.....
...it's not for the West to solve it's for the sovereign powers in the region to solve. The soverign powers in the region have no interest in ISIS being powerful. Any solution involves Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait & UAE. The first step to a solution is to bring Iran in from the cold. It's not to put "boots into Iraq" again.
Maybe, but look at it from a domestic British perspective for a moment:...it's not for the West to solve it's for the sovereign powers in the region to solve. The soverign powers in the region have no interest in ISIS being powerful. Any solution involves Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait & UAE. The first step to a solution is to bring Iran in from the cold. It's not to put "boots into Iraq" again.
Facts:
a) ISIS is alive and rampaging through the gulf.
b) Their sole purpose is to build a Caliphate and use it as a springboard to convert the entire globe to their belief system and way of life.
c) They've made it quite clear that they'll (try and) kill anyone who isn't with them.
d) ISIS contains a number of British nationals, most agree around 50 'core' fighters (inc Jihadi John) and anywhere up to 500 general supporter grunts.
The domestic British question is this: Do we take them on there or at home?
The benefits of doing it there is that we can allow it to get a bit messy if needs be. Nobody wants to see a bunch of innocent civilians accidentally incinerated by an air-fuel bomb, but if that's a possibility the politicians would rather it was Mr & Mrs Al-Husseini of Irbil than Mr & Mrs Smith of Bromsgrove. Better for them in the next by-election.
The only real option to do it here is to commit vast resources to track and monitor ALL known naughty boys & girls and do a bit of creative law bodgery with the passports of those Brit Citz out on their Jihad Year in the ME. Sounds easy but is far from it.
Anyway, this has now gone on for so long and got so far into a no win/no win situation that I don't think either would work. The only certainty is that it's going to get bloody, and fast.
GT03ROB said:
You want a solution.....
...it's not for the West to solve it's for the sovereign powers in the region to solve. The soverign powers in the region have no interest in ISIS being powerful. Any solution involves Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait & UAE. The first step to a solution is to bring Iran in from the cold. It's not to put "boots into Iraq" again.
I do agree that the Gulf states with their military hardware all go a bit quiet when the s...it's not for the West to solve it's for the sovereign powers in the region to solve. The soverign powers in the region have no interest in ISIS being powerful. Any solution involves Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait & UAE. The first step to a solution is to bring Iran in from the cold. It's not to put "boots into Iraq" again.
t hits the fan. It should be for them to deal with.
Do they have the capability?
Do they have the courage?
Though these activities take place in a sovereign state far away, it can have an impact here at home. I therefore reluctantly think that in the face of reluctance by the nations you mention, someone has to act.
Which goes back to my wondering whether if Saddam had been left alone post GW1 would this have happened. As Appaling as his regime was does the middle east work best with nasty b
ds in charge? wildcat45 said:
I do agree that the Gulf states with their military hardware all go a bit quiet when the st hits the fan.
It should be for them to deal with.
Do they have the capability?
Do they have the courage?
Though these activities take place in a sovereign state far away, it can have an impact here at home. I therefore reluctantly think that in the face of reluctance by the nations you mention, someone has to act.
Which goes back to my wondering whether if Saddam had been left alone post GW1 would this have happened. As Appaling as his regime was does the middle east work best with nasty bds in charge?
It suits many of these states to sit back and watch. t hits the fan. It should be for them to deal with.
Do they have the capability?
Do they have the courage?
Though these activities take place in a sovereign state far away, it can have an impact here at home. I therefore reluctantly think that in the face of reluctance by the nations you mention, someone has to act.
Which goes back to my wondering whether if Saddam had been left alone post GW1 would this have happened. As Appaling as his regime was does the middle east work best with nasty b
ds in charge? Saudi Arabia - would be difficult for them when a lot of funding for whack job groups is believed to originate there.
Iran - wouldn't want to be seen siding with the West. And loves nowt more than seeing the West in a tangle.
Emirates - not big enough.
Syria - errm.
It needs to happen, but many of these states are at the root of the problem.
Edited to add... So while it's all on their doorstep, leave them to it.
Edited by Murph7355 on Tuesday 16th September 20:14
To flesh it out a bit
Murph7355 said:
Saudi Arabia - would be difficult for them when a lot of funding for whack job groups is believed to originate there.
But Saudi has put $3 billion forward to strengthen the Lebanese army. Murph7355 said:
Iran - wouldn't want to be seen siding with the West. And loves nowt more than seeing the West in a tangle.
Iran are the main funders of Hezbollah -- the "other" Lebanese army. Murph7355 said:
Syria - errm.
Well. Yes. Errm. Murph7355 said:
Saudi Arabia - would be difficult for them when a lot of funding for whack job groups is believed to originate there.
A delicate balancing act for sure...I live here after all. They are taking the threat of ISIS seriously. The Iraqii border has been reinforced with defences, troops & other hardware recently to counter the threat. The Saudi defence agencies are largely that. They do not appear to like to project their troops outside the borders, but will defend their borders aggressively. Any internal issues would be dealt with, hard. Murph7355 said:
Iran - wouldn't want to be seen siding with the West. And loves nowt more than seeing the West in a tangle.
....which is why they must be bought onside. They like ISIS no more than the west does Murph7355 said:
Emirates - not big enough.
...on their own true but they have financial clout.Murph7355 said:
Syria - errm.
....err exactly. Who do you want Assad or ISIS? Better the devil sometimes. wildcat45 said:
It would save lives by stopping what is happening swiftly. Will it create more terrorists? Perhaps, just like the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan have created more terrorists.
The difference being, with a demonstration that we are willing where necessary to use nuclear weapons and if necessary accept Innicents will die would there be so many new terrorists?
If a nation right now accommodates encourages OT just tolerates terrorism, it will be OK. The most that will happen will be a SF raid or small scale bombing. If they thought there was a real possibility or a nuclear attack, do you seriously think they would be so willing to support the terrorists? I bet they would be more likely to give the west as much help as possible.
Can anyone give je a solution to this problem that avoids bloodshed, stops this in its tracks and at the same time sends out a profound and uncompromising message.
I would genuinely like to hear it.
How does it avoid bloodshed? Or do the people of a state that supports terrorism not count?The difference being, with a demonstration that we are willing where necessary to use nuclear weapons and if necessary accept Innicents will die would there be so many new terrorists?
If a nation right now accommodates encourages OT just tolerates terrorism, it will be OK. The most that will happen will be a SF raid or small scale bombing. If they thought there was a real possibility or a nuclear attack, do you seriously think they would be so willing to support the terrorists? I bet they would be more likely to give the west as much help as possible.
Can anyone give je a solution to this problem that avoids bloodshed, stops this in its tracks and at the same time sends out a profound and uncompromising message.
I would genuinely like to hear it.
You're talking about using nuclear weapons on states whose leaders have supported terrorism. Very often those leaders have also commited atrocities against their own people and are therefore hated at home as well. If you start nuking innocents those leaders won't care, and you'll turn every single survivor against you.
wildcat45 said:
Which goes back to my wondering whether if Saddam had been left alone post GW1 would this have happened. As Appaling as his regime was does the middle east work best with nasty bds in charge?
Probably yes, it would of happened.ds in charge? The problem with Iraq is that we also took down the police control thereby creating problems at a local level, IMO.
Of course we should not of gone there in the first place but that's another story.
6th Gear said:
More than a touch alarming. The nutters in situ are despicable - but the seeming unrelenting buy in by the younger population is the key here. There is mention that elder residents are scared, but the children are in full support. Unless action is taken now, this could be unstoppable.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff