Discussion
m3sye said:
Am I living in a dream world/movie world or could countries currently trying to fight back against Isis not just send in their special forces, work together and put an end to these mentalists?
Send in Chuck Norris - no more needed! but yes, i agree with you, full might of the USA, Russia, UK & anyone else wanting a part of it, all send in the best of the best and scariest looking guys they can on the same day/week and systematically clear every area they occupy = Job Done!
Puggit said:
They would disappear into the general population. This isn't an old fashioned war with armies facing each other over a field.
Yes I suppose there is that but I am not saying dont use all the others tools we have access too just rather than bomb from above when you know they a re someone and you have men on the ground ( none uniform ) to confirm this - send the special forces in rather than drop a bomb from x thousand feet and not be really sure who you gotRichB said:
hile it's true this is a different kind of war I am sure that it would be best for the US, NATO and Russia to unite as one force to systematically eradicate them from the globe.
For what ISIS are planning and doing already this is the only option open to the world. Then they can all go back to their day jobs/wars etc etc. Maybe Nato members and Non-Members could create a special security unit with the sole task of a "total wipe out", over seen by a military commander from a non involved nation...... Just a thought.
or maybe they are already planning this approach.
Puggit said:
They would disappear into the general population. This isn't an old fashioned war with armies facing each other over a field.
Ok, but when the TV news is saying "Isis are destroying historic monument X" or "Isis are invading town Y", cant the military switch off the telly, get in the choppers, and be there within a short time?Or do we think the Black hawks will land, the marines run out, and the isis lads suddenly throw the guns behind a bush, and starting looking at their feet, whistling, and say "us? No, we're just looking around. Saw some dodgy looking guys run over that hill over there...."
daddy cool said:
Ok, but when the TV news is saying "Isis are destroying historic monument X" or "Isis are invading town Y", cant the military switch off the telly, get in the choppers, and be there within a short time?
Or do we think the Black hawks will land, the marines run out, and the isis lads suddenly throw the guns behind a bush, and starting looking at their feet, whistling, and say "us? No, we're just looking around. Saw some dodgy looking guys run over that hill over there...."
Or do we think the Black hawks will land, the marines run out, and the isis lads suddenly throw the guns behind a bush, and starting looking at their feet, whistling, and say "us? No, we're just looking around. Saw some dodgy looking guys run over that hill over there...."
I remember reading a book about the Mau Mau terrorists in Africa. who were increasing their attacks and influence over he local populations. The solution it appeared was to make the local population more afraid of punishment for supporting the terrorists, than the terrorists could inflict on the population (who they needed to supply them with food shelter and man power)
To this end an edict was pronounced that any village found to have been supporting the terrorists would be completely wiped out. Following this no one wanted anything to do with the terrorists, and they gave themselves up in a matter of weeks, this though after several villages which had given the terrorist support were totally destroyed.
Harsh in the extreme but it worked, but like the Atom bomb in the overall scheme of things it ultimately saved lives.
To this end an edict was pronounced that any village found to have been supporting the terrorists would be completely wiped out. Following this no one wanted anything to do with the terrorists, and they gave themselves up in a matter of weeks, this though after several villages which had given the terrorist support were totally destroyed.
Harsh in the extreme but it worked, but like the Atom bomb in the overall scheme of things it ultimately saved lives.
Pan Pan Pan said:
I remember reading a book about the Mau Mau terrorists in Africa. who were increasing their attacks and influence over he local populations. The solution it appeared was to make the local population more afraid of punishment for supporting the terrorists, than the terrorists could inflict on the population (who they needed to supply them with food shelter and man power)
To this end an edict was pronounced that any village found to have been supporting the terrorists would be completely wiped out. Following this no one wanted anything to do with the terrorists, and they gave themselves up in a matter of weeks, this though after several villages which had given the terrorist support were totally destroyed.
Harsh in the extreme but it worked, but like the Atom bomb in the overall scheme of things it ultimately saved lives.
A similar method was used during the Malayan emergency. To this end an edict was pronounced that any village found to have been supporting the terrorists would be completely wiped out. Following this no one wanted anything to do with the terrorists, and they gave themselves up in a matter of weeks, this though after several villages which had given the terrorist support were totally destroyed.
Harsh in the extreme but it worked, but like the Atom bomb in the overall scheme of things it ultimately saved lives.
The problem is that this is cyclical.
Local tribal group takes up arms to claim land they think is theirs. We call them terrorists and various countries around the world by selling said arms to each side. Sometimes we commit foreign policy suicide by invading to eradicate group, cue long drawn our war in which both sides take heavy losses, generally the West backed side pummels local group to within an inch of its life, but fails to completely wipe them out. West backed side withdraws with lucrative commercial contracts in place.
Several months later new group pops up, generally loosely related to previous group and sometimes backed by other countries around the world selling arms to group and having a vested interest in group coming to power and enabling their own lucrative commercial contracts to be put in place. Cycle repeats.
Local tribal group takes up arms to claim land they think is theirs. We call them terrorists and various countries around the world by selling said arms to each side. Sometimes we commit foreign policy suicide by invading to eradicate group, cue long drawn our war in which both sides take heavy losses, generally the West backed side pummels local group to within an inch of its life, but fails to completely wipe them out. West backed side withdraws with lucrative commercial contracts in place.
Several months later new group pops up, generally loosely related to previous group and sometimes backed by other countries around the world selling arms to group and having a vested interest in group coming to power and enabling their own lucrative commercial contracts to be put in place. Cycle repeats.
Pan Pan Pan said:
I remember reading a book about the Mau Mau terrorists in Africa. who were increasing their attacks and influence over he local populations. The solution it appeared was to make the local population more afraid of punishment for supporting the terrorists, than the terrorists could inflict on the population (who they needed to supply them with food shelter and man power)
To this end an edict was pronounced that any village found to have been supporting the terrorists would be completely wiped out. Following this no one wanted anything to do with the terrorists, and they gave themselves up in a matter of weeks, this though after several villages which had given the terrorist support were totally destroyed.
Harsh in the extreme but it worked, but like the Atom bomb in the overall scheme of things it ultimately saved lives.
You might want to listen to this, and perhaps educate your self a little... You're condoning war crimes and human rights abuses the UK government has apologised for due to their shameful Nazi-esque horror, in fact the suppression of the Mau Mau revolt (which wasn't a terrorist organisation but a democratic voice of the vast majority of the population) was worse than the Nazi concentration camps because it wasn't even an original use of horrific racist violence and torture, it's one thing to be Hitler, it's another to copy him!To this end an edict was pronounced that any village found to have been supporting the terrorists would be completely wiped out. Following this no one wanted anything to do with the terrorists, and they gave themselves up in a matter of weeks, this though after several villages which had given the terrorist support were totally destroyed.
Harsh in the extreme but it worked, but like the Atom bomb in the overall scheme of things it ultimately saved lives.
http://www.radiolab.org/story/mau-mau/
FredClogs said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
I remember reading a book about the Mau Mau terrorists in Africa. who were increasing their attacks and influence over he local populations. The solution it appeared was to make the local population more afraid of punishment for supporting the terrorists, than the terrorists could inflict on the population (who they needed to supply them with food shelter and man power)
To this end an edict was pronounced that any village found to have been supporting the terrorists would be completely wiped out. Following this no one wanted anything to do with the terrorists, and they gave themselves up in a matter of weeks, this though after several villages which had given the terrorist support were totally destroyed.
Harsh in the extreme but it worked, but like the Atom bomb in the overall scheme of things it ultimately saved lives.
You might want to listen to this, and perhaps educate your self a little... You're condoning war crimes and human rights abuses the UK government has apologised for due to their shameful Nazi-esque horror, in fact the suppression of the Mau Mau revolt (which wasn't a terrorist organisation but a democratic voice of the vast majority of the population) was worse than the Nazi concentration camps because it wasn't even an original use of horrific racist violence and torture, it's one thing to be Hitler, it's another to copy him!To this end an edict was pronounced that any village found to have been supporting the terrorists would be completely wiped out. Following this no one wanted anything to do with the terrorists, and they gave themselves up in a matter of weeks, this though after several villages which had given the terrorist support were totally destroyed.
Harsh in the extreme but it worked, but like the Atom bomb in the overall scheme of things it ultimately saved lives.
http://www.radiolab.org/story/mau-mau/
I don't think it's quite so simple. In fact I think this is what has completely blind sided western government.
The trouble with ISIS is that you're fighting an idea which is not all than unpopular with the people in the areas they control, or indeed with many Muslims world wide. You can call that racist/Islamophobic or whatever you want but it's true. When Obama and co say that there's nothing Islamic about ISIS they are completely wrong. What they are doing and how they are doing it is basically as per the Qu'ran.
Of course that's not to say that everyone in those areas actively join up with ISIS, but nor are they necessarily hankering for liberation, and certainly not liberation on the western model by western forces. Just about everywhere we have tried that in the Islamic world the result has been something worse than what was taken out.
I'm not really sure what the answer is. What I would like to see is some sort of Islamic reformation which rejects the deep rooted militancy, but it's not mine to reform and I don't see much of an appetite for that.
As I see it to defeat it militarily you would have to occupy it for decades and enforce a sort of moderate, secular Islam to evolve out of that. As far as I know that's never really succeeded anywhere except just perhaps arguably in India over the course of a century (not with Islam). So it's far from guaranteed. And anyway I don't see any real will in any country to do that.
The trouble with ISIS is that you're fighting an idea which is not all than unpopular with the people in the areas they control, or indeed with many Muslims world wide. You can call that racist/Islamophobic or whatever you want but it's true. When Obama and co say that there's nothing Islamic about ISIS they are completely wrong. What they are doing and how they are doing it is basically as per the Qu'ran.
Of course that's not to say that everyone in those areas actively join up with ISIS, but nor are they necessarily hankering for liberation, and certainly not liberation on the western model by western forces. Just about everywhere we have tried that in the Islamic world the result has been something worse than what was taken out.
I'm not really sure what the answer is. What I would like to see is some sort of Islamic reformation which rejects the deep rooted militancy, but it's not mine to reform and I don't see much of an appetite for that.
As I see it to defeat it militarily you would have to occupy it for decades and enforce a sort of moderate, secular Islam to evolve out of that. As far as I know that's never really succeeded anywhere except just perhaps arguably in India over the course of a century (not with Islam). So it's far from guaranteed. And anyway I don't see any real will in any country to do that.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff