What can we do about ISIS ???

First topic message reminder :

Not interested in the historical blame game...........We have a very big problem at the moment as the atrocity over the weekend shows.........

I'm at a loss at what to do about iSIS........

Personally think the horse has bolted....

Tunisia can happen anywhere at anytime...

seanmichaels wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:I see he's moved a destroyer into the Med and all raids will now be escorted by fighters. Bet the Turks are sh!tting it. Disappointed with Obama / NATO response. Needed to condemn the Turkish action.

I doubt the Turks are pooing themselves overmuch (http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=turkey).

Russia ranked 2nd but that doesn't tell half the story. Have a look at the comparisons!

http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.asp?form=form&country1=russia&country2=turkey&Submit=COMPARE

True, but the point is that Turkey could, if it had to, cause a lot of damage to any Russian assault and that's without any NATO allies getting drawn in. Even Putin isn't that dumb.

Morning Fellas, apologies if it all went mental yesterday and the Mods had to sort it out, didn't put it there to do that but would be nice if one day we could have a proper debate about it all without it getting personal.

As for Russia, think NATO and the US should have stood up to Turkey but were in a rock and a hard place, do you really want to stick up for the ones causing a lot of trouble at the minute???

Also see the Turks may have backed themselves into a corner stating their were no warnings given and now recorded warnings have been issued out. All very murky

Odds on which country slips a nuke in first?
Maybe IS come from nowhere and reveal that they've been hiding an equalizer?

Too many fault lines in that part of the world especially around the Black Sea coast.
No point in the Russians letting the sea inundate recently gained territory around the Crimea.

No, I think they will strike when it suits using more conventional weaponry. Maybe shoot a few things out of the sky first to test the 'waters'.
You don't poke the Bear and not expect some sort of reaction.... not necessarily equal and opposite either. Ask Berlin.

kingraf wrote:Odds on which country slips a nuke in first?
Maybe IS come from nowhere and reveal that they've been hiding an equalizer?

The Loaded Dog wrote:Too many fault lines in that part of the world especially around the Black Sea coast.
No point in the Russians letting the sea inundate recently gained territory around the Crimea.

No, I think they will strike when it suits using more conventional weaponry. Maybe shoot a few things out of the sky first to test the 'waters'.
You don't poke the Bear and not expect some sort of reaction.... not necessarily equal and opposite either. Ask Berlin.

Meanwhile, back in the real world...

navyblueshorts wrote:

kingraf wrote:Odds on which country slips a nuke in first?
Maybe IS come from nowhere and reveal that they've been hiding an equalizer?

The Loaded Dog wrote:Too many fault lines in that part of the world especially around the Black Sea coast.
No point in the Russians letting the sea inundate recently gained territory around the Crimea.

No, I think they will strike when it suits using more conventional weaponry. Maybe shoot a few things out of the sky first to test the 'waters'.
You don't poke the Bear and not expect some sort of reaction.... not necessarily equal and opposite either. Ask Berlin.

Meanwhile, back in the real world...

http://www.smh.com.au/business/consumer-affairs/nutella-rejects-personalised-jar-for-fiveyearold-girl-named-isis-20151127-gl9jx2.html

Just give her her personalised jar!

The word Isis needs to be reclaimed...

There is a block of flats in North Laandon called Isis House.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:There is a block of flats in North Laandon called Isis House.

F*ck lads they're onto us. Quickly pack your stuff and run to al qaeda lodge. Make sure you're not followed.

The Loaded Dog wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

kingraf wrote:Odds on which country slips a nuke in first?
Maybe IS come from nowhere and reveal that they've been hiding an equalizer?

The Loaded Dog wrote:Too many fault lines in that part of the world especially around the Black Sea coast.
No point in the Russians letting the sea inundate recently gained territory around the Crimea.

No, I think they will strike when it suits using more conventional weaponry. Maybe shoot a few things out of the sky first to test the 'waters'.
You don't poke the Bear and not expect some sort of reaction.... not necessarily equal and opposite either. Ask Berlin.

Meanwhile, back in the real world...

http://www.smh.com.au/business/consumer-affairs/nutella-rejects-personalised-jar-for-fiveyearold-girl-named-isis-20151127-gl9jx2.html

Just give her her personalised jar!

That's pretty dumb of Ferrero, it has to be said .

I had a dog called Isis. I had to muzzle him......

Sorry to say but looks like Cammy is going to get his wish and lots of innocent civilians are going to be killed with a few terrorists in a bombing campaign....

In other news Cammy has phoned Andy Murray to ask him how we can get more kids playing tennis..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Sorry to say but looks like Cammy is going to get his wish and lots of innocent civilians are going to be killed with a few terrorists in a bombing campaign....

In other news Cammy has phoned Andy Murray to ask him how we can get more kids playing tennis..

Not to open THAT can of worms, but weren't you pro bombing Iraq & Afghanistan?

Not Iraq

But Afghanistan?

What's this? If you support one military campaign you have to support them all?

Alistair wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Sorry to say but looks like Cammy is going to get his wish and lots of innocent civilians are going to be killed with a few terrorists in a bombing campaign....

In other news Cammy has phoned Andy Murray to ask him how we can get more kids playing tennis..

Not to open THAT can of worms, but weren't you pro bombing Iraq & Afghanistan?

and pro torture and detention without trial......

Doubt air strikes are the answer, but I'm yet to see someone suggest a credible alternative....

And pro shooting anyone 'suspicious' without asking questions. But every issue is different.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Doubt air strikes are the answer, but I'm yet to see someone suggest a credible alternative....

I did a while back. Communicate to civs that they need to get at least a mile out of raqqa by a certain time then wipe the place off the map.

how to you determine civs vs terrorists/jihadis though? I don't think you can, so all you're doing is pre-warning the enemy.

Scottrf wrote:And pro shooting anyone 'suspicious' without asking questions. But every issue is different.

That's libellous. ...and cheap

That's sean for you

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:And pro shooting anyone 'suspicious' without asking questions. But every issue is different.

That's libellous. ...and cheap

Accurate.

"I don't know what this Corbyn guy is doing questioning this shoot to kill policy......

First responsibility of any government is to protect its people...

False alarm and someone gets wasted...........Tough !!"

To answer Alistair. ..Afghanistan was unavoidable.

How are Syria and Afghanistan any different?

Both are countries containing extreme terrorists whose attacks kill innocent people, ruin lives and push a hate filled rhetoric.

But yet, you feel sorry for Syrian casualties, but not Afghan ones.

Would your sorrows and sympathy extend to the Syrian people had IS instigated a 9/11 type attack on the US?

You serious ??

Afghanistan was targeted because it had and harboured members of Al Qaeda, a terrorist organisation that had carried on Terrorist Attacks on the US?

Syria is being targeted because they harbour members of IS; which has been carrying out acts of terror?

I'm asking you to explain how one group of innocent people; because lets be clear, the entire nation of Afghanistan did NOT carry out attacks on the US, is any different to another.

And i'm not looking for an argument; i'm asking you to differentiate the two.

Alistair wrote:Afghanistan was targeted because it had and harboured members of Al Qaeda, a terrorist organisation that had carried on Terrorist Attacks on the US?

Syria is being targeted because they harbour members of IS; which has been carrying out acts of terror?

I'm asking you to explain how one group of innocent people; because lets be clear, the entire nation of Afghanistan did NOT carry out attacks on the US, is any different to another.

If only the world was as simple as you evidently see it.

Scottrf wrote:

Alistair wrote:Afghanistan was targeted because it had and harboured members of Al Qaeda, a terrorist organisation that had carried on Terrorist Attacks on the US?

Syria is being targeted because they harbour members of IS; which has been carrying out acts of terror?

I'm asking you to explain how one group of innocent people; because lets be clear, the entire nation of Afghanistan did NOT carry out attacks on the US, is any different to another.

If only the world was as simple as you evidently see it.

Not about it being simple. I'm asking him to explain his view.

You're questioning my view without offering any evidence or response that would separate the two cases.

I accept there are going to be civilian casualties; I just fail to see how you can feel sorry for one group of people and not the other.

Scottrf wrote:

Alistair wrote:Afghanistan was targeted because it had and harboured members of Al Qaeda, a terrorist organisation that had carried on Terrorist Attacks on the US?

Syria is being targeted because they harbour members of IS; which has been carrying out acts of terror?

I'm asking you to explain how one group of innocent people; because lets be clear, the entire nation of Afghanistan did NOT carry out attacks on the US, is any different to another.

If only the world was as simple as you evidently see it.

It's unbelievable.....

9/11 cost ....

3,000 lives............

Traumatised tens of thousands lives....

Cost the USA 1.6 trillion dollars..

Cost 83,000 people their jobs...with 17 billion in lost wages..


So we ask Afghanistan to either hand over the culprits or let us in to find them ......They say NO !!!!

and we are supposed to say that's okay then !!!

It's no different to Syria ???

So basically, because of what happened to the US, you have no sympathy.

Can you answer my question then; had IS launched an attack on US soil, would you have sympathy for the innocent victims caught up in any military action?

Alistair wrote:Not about it being simple. I'm asking him to explain his view.

You're questioning my view without offering any evidence or response that would separate the two cases.

I accept there are going to be civilian casualties; I just fail to see how you can feel sorry for one group of people and not the other.

It's not just about feeling sorry for one group or another, there are numerous other factors, to name a few:

Public support (has to be decided by politicians after all).
Infrastructure/support on the ground: troops to support the strategy.
Regional politics (even a simple extension of Iraq strikes to Syria becomes complex taking this into account).
Economic climate (it does have to be funded).
Difficulty in implementing a follow up strategy: Not just troops but ease of transition into an end goal.

It's plainly ridiculous to not be able to separate the cases.

Alistair wrote:Afghanistan was targeted because it had and harboured members of Al Qaeda, a terrorist organisation that had carried on Terrorist Attacks on the US?

Syria is being targeted because they harbour members of IS; which has been carrying out acts of terror?

I'm asking you to explain how one group of innocent people; because lets be clear, the entire nation of Afghanistan did NOT carry out attacks on the US, is any different to another.

Umm. The Afghan regime of the time encouraged, aided and abetted al-Qaeda's 9/11 event. I don't believe Assad is doing anything of the sort do you?

Alistair wrote:So basically, because of what happened to the US, you have no sympathy.

Can you answer my question then; had IS launched an attack on US soil, would you have sympathy for the innocent victims caught up in any military action?

I'm against the Syrian intervention..

Like I said we had to do some thing about 9/11.........You can't let something like that slip...

Scottrf wrote:

Alistair wrote:Not about it being simple. I'm asking him to explain his view.

You're questioning my view without offering any evidence or response that would separate the two cases.

I accept there are going to be civilian casualties; I just fail to see how you can feel sorry for one group of people and not the other.

It's not just about feeling sorry for one group or another, there are numerous other factors, to name a few:

Public support (has to be decided by politicians after all).
Infrastructure/support on the ground: troops to support the strategy.
Regional politics (even a simple extension of Iraq strikes to Syria becomes complex taking this into account).
Economic climate (it does have to be funded).
Difficulty in implementing a follow up strategy: Not just troops but ease of transition into an end goal.

It's plainly ridiculous to not be able to separate the cases.

I'm not talking about those reasoning, Scott.

We are talking about the plain simple fact that regardless of whatever reasoning are taken to go to War, there will always be innocent casualties, whether they are children or soldiers.

I'm just questioning how you can show sympathy to one innocent victim over another?

You're saying military action can never be the answer because there will be innocent victims?

I guess you just have to decide whether overall the positives outweigh the negatives. Innocents are dying whether there are any interventions or not. ISIS aren't only attacking abroad.

I admire Alistair's love for all humanity.......But it would be one helluva World If his view prevailed....

We'd probably all be living under Islamic law already..

Where have I said i don't believe in military action??

Alistair wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Sorry to say but looks like Cammy is going to get his wish and lots of innocent civilians are going to be killed with a few terrorists in a bombing campaign....

In other news Cammy has phoned Andy Murray to ask him how we can get more kids playing tennis.. Cool

Not to open THAT can of worms, but weren't you pro bombing Iraq & Afghanistan?

I've asked how is one innocent victim different to any other, regardless of circumstances.

Here's how I see it, and it's not a slight on Trussman, it's how his argument comes across...

~ Child A is killed in an air strike after a bomb goes off target. Trussman feels sorry for the child as he didn't start the war, and his country never attacked the US.

~ Child B is killed in the exact same set of circumstances, however, Child B's country holds the people who killed thousands of innocent people in the US, so his death can't be helped.

In both circumstances, Child 'X' is a completely innocent party who had no control whatsoever over his countries actions.

Like I said we asked Afghanistan to hand the perpetrators over or to let us in to find them......They chose to tell us to get lost.....

Afghanistan was a valid excuse because we were under attack.....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I admire Alistair's love for all humanity.......But it would be one helluva World If his view prevailed....

We'd probably all be living under Islamic law already..

My point, Trussman, is that an innocent casualty of war is exactly that. Innocent.

You should feel sympathy for anyone who innocently loses their life.

For the record, I'm pro military action in Syria, but i don't believe air strikes are enough. I think if you're going to commit to military action, you go the whole hog. You eradicate IS from the ground up. A point John McCain made this morning.

I do have sympathy for innocent people killed...never said I didn't..

You amuse me...

I've been asking you to clarify that point, which you seem unable to do?

You've lost me my friend..

My point was, you said you felt sorry for the innocent people of Syria, i brought up the fact that you didn't have this sympathy for the innocent people of Afghanistan, when in actual fact, all the innocent people who die are exactly that, innocent, and you should feel sorry for anyone in that position, but instead you went on about 9/11 and quoted statistics.

Adam D wrote:There is a healthy level of debate going on in this thread which is a good thing.

Certain people have been asked to foe each other as it derails threads. Unfortunately, even when someone is foed, if a third party quotes something, then the post will appear to everyone, including people that have been foed.

AS this cannot be avoided, I would extend that anyone who has been ordered to foe someone else, that they just ignore any comments made by their foe that are quoted by another person. Continued reaction to certain posters comments will result in repercussions outlined when you were all told to foe that person. The people know who they are.

I would also like people to remember that if you are getting involved in these types of conversations and are posting strong views (and you all are), that to not take offence if someone posts an a strongly opposing view back.

Basically I am asking you all to wear your thick skin on this thread and continue a healthy, non libellous and good mannered debate.

Thanks

A

This whole post is defamation of my character. Somehow.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

Adam D wrote:There is a healthy level of debate going on in this thread which is a good thing.

Certain people have been asked to foe each other as it derails threads. Unfortunately, even when someone is foed, if a third party quotes something, then the post will appear to everyone, including people that have been foed.

AS this cannot be avoided, I would extend that anyone who has been ordered to foe someone else, that they just ignore any comments made by their foe that are quoted by another person. Continued reaction to certain posters comments will result in repercussions outlined when you were all told to foe that person. The people know who they are.

I would also like people to remember that if you are getting involved in these types of conversations and are posting strong views (and you all are), that to not take offence if someone posts an a strongly opposing view back.

Basically I am asking you all to wear your thick skin on this thread and continue a healthy, non libellous and good mannered debate.

Thanks

A

This whole post is defamation of my character. Somehow.

Well adam is bringing things to Heel. You're contractually obliged to take offence.

Alistair wrote:My point was, you said you felt sorry for the innocent people of Syria, i brought up the fact that you didn't have this sympathy for the innocent people of Afghanistan, when in actual fact, all the innocent people who die are exactly that, innocent, and you should feel sorry for anyone in that position, but instead you went on about 9/11 and quoted statistics.

I never said that....I don't know what you're talking about..

I said we had to go into Afghanistan....