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...

Your confusing the extremists now with the everyday people that live there. And all you'd really do with that is give a massive rallying call to extremists everywhere else that will escalate it all so it can't happen to them.

It would make things a lot worse than they are now and would create a massive groundswell of support for the muslim community as a whole which would allow those that are impressionable to be drawn into more extreme forms of terrorism.

9/11 came before Camp Bucca....Derby...

3,000 lives....and billions of dollars of hurt..

We didn't ask for that !!....

Strongback wrote:I'm pretty sure I know what Churchill would have done.

Well, yes, he was a war-mongering terrorist, it's obvious what he would have done.

What any sane, reasonable man would do, though, is another matter entirely.

After WW2 Churchill wanted to invade Russia.....

No wonder as soon as the troops got back in 45 they voted him out..

I agree Truss, we can look back with hindsight and say 'shouldn't have done that etc' but at the time it probable made sense (You can't build a single prison for every extremist etc)
.
I didn't see it as a dig on the USA (although undoubtedly someone will use it as such) more as something to look at and learn if it happens again. Thought the part on the Sons of Iraq was really interesting, especially when the Iraqi government decided to stop paying them

Derbymanc wrote:Your confusing the extremists now with the everyday people that live there. And all you'd really do with that is give a massive rallying call to extremists everywhere else that will escalate it all so it can't happen to them.

It would make things a lot worse than they are now and would create a massive groundswell of support for the muslim community as a whole which would allow those that are impressionable to be drawn into more extreme forms of terrorism.

Admittedly their could be some collateral damage. I think a solution to appease them could be nuke the existing occupants, but as a gesture of goodwill repatriate the oil rich lands with muslims from Europe and the Americas but on a no gun / bomb basis.

And what about those with family ties over there, do you really think they'd just ignore it. All you'd do is cause a massive war and bind together muslims, extremists and other countries that would be disgusted with it.

The only solution it would be is one of mutually assured destruction

Yeah but not if you give those families a bit of land. They'd see the positives in the end I reckon.

seanmichaels wrote:Yeah but not if you give those families a bit of land. They'd see the positives in the end I reckon.

Behave yourself..

'Hello sir/madame we've just bombed the eff out of your family/friends and culture, as a sorry though we'd like to give you this bit of land, just ignore the illuminous green on the ground and don't worry if you start feeling a bit ill, it definitely won't be Cancer by the nuclear damage'

You could use Napaalm instead then, the added bonus of that would be returning carbon to the soil.

Does anyone have sensible suggestions? Bombing the entire middle East is without doubt the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Doubly so when you consider how many ISIS members aren't even from there.

kingraf wrote:Does anyone have sensible suggestions? Bombing the entire middle East is without doubt the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Doubly so when you consider how many ISIS members aren't even from there.

I didn't say the entire middle east. Just Syria, Iraq, Iran and possibly Afghanistan if we can find a good use for their land.

ISIS is the Islamic state of IRAQ and Syria. Wipe them off the map and they don't exist full stop. Iran and Afghan would probably be the next place to go as well so removing those countries as a threat would give us even more leeway.

Sean, this isn't a international war. Its not like WWII, where bombing Germany to smithereens was logical because they were the enemy, and innocent lives lost was collateral damage. In this instance, the people you're fighting for, are the same people you want to blow up high.

kingraf wrote:Sean, this isn't a international war. Its not like WWII, where bombing Germany to smithereens was logical because they were the enemy, and innocent lives lost was collateral damage. In this instance, the people you're fighting for, are the same people you want to blow up high.

I'm just talking a clean slate. we can all shake hands afterwards

Right, wind up over.

As an aside though I don't think you can do anything other than leave them to it and make sure non of them get back over here.

Just who are the enemy? On BBC today  -  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-33373410

Astonishing figures - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War#Tawakalna_ala_Allah_Operations

Excellent work sean

Shame on you Derby and Raf.

Solution is to withdraw and tell the Iranians to keep what they can seize. Isis will be dead in two weeks.

It passes the time on a boring afternoon Shah

Half of me agrees with you but the other half thinks that we're partly responsible and shouldn't leave the people there high and dry.

Is a tough one to be sure. If only we had a platoon of Strongys, things like this would never happen

It's too late, too much has been done and can't be undone. You can kill people/leaders but you can't kill an ideal no matter how twisted it is. Social media/proliferation of the internet and the advancement of propaganda into complex slick, easily packaged forms has killed off any clean solution and the trust in the USA and GB is probably at an all time low. The problem with every western solution is it has to be a solution that we can benefit from afterwards - (Well Duh!) but that makes us blind to other practical solutions that might work but we'd not profit from it. Hence the Iran solution. It probably won't work but we cannot solve problems using the same thinking we did when we created them.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:9/11 came before Camp Bucca....Derby...

3,000 lives....and billions of dollars of hurt..

We didn't ask for that !!....

If you are dumb enough to believe the B/S official government story.............

seanmichaels wrote:You could use Napaalm instead then, the added bonus of that would be returning carbon to the soil.

Have you always felt this way towards your fellow human beings?

If so why?

You might not like Iraqi people but c'mon they have lived with war for the last 12 years, seen their whole lives wrecked and along with it any hopes and dreams. I can't imagine what living under those conditions are like but its sad. And what is lost in all of this terror b/s is the fact that muslims are the ones who are being killed in their numbers.

Can see by your comments that this whole fiasco is getting to you in a negative way.

Hook....line....sinker.....

Place U.K and U.S ground troops strategically around the area where the Isis peados convoy with their silly flag and infantile hand gestures.
Let rip with everything we got these idiots are not trained to a good standard, just have numbers and guns.
All this poop about how isis trained the 9 stone wimp from Tunisia really winds me up!! My nan could have done that and all this talk of a reconnaissance weeks before the attack? Was that necessary? Bunch of morons thinking they're professional but just taking on easy and vulnerable people.

USA and the UK citizens are tired of fighting.....That's why there was no action in Syria..

It'll be air strikes or nothing....and air strikes alone won't work..

Iraq has worked to the benefit of these guys..

Afghan and Iraq never got a strong public backing, but I feel if we never got involved in those two conflicts then their would be significant appetite to crush these pathetic morons.

Senator Lindsey Graham has promised to go to war with four... yes FOUR countries in the middle East if he gets voted in. While Rand Paul and Ted Cruz signed onto the letter to derail peaceful negotiations to Iran. If, come November 4 2016 the president of the States is Red.. popcorn will be needed

kingraf wrote:Senator Lindsey Graham has promised to go to war with four... yes FOUR countries in the middle East if he gets voted in

Donald Duck has promised to go in with 5....and he has more chance of winning....

Rand Paul like his Dad is a big libertarian.............Doesn't think America should get involved in anything abroad which has some merit.....

However the last thing I want to see is a libertarian running home affairs........

Bush will win the nomination...............Always follow the money candidate............However Aunty Hillary will squash him..

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

BlueCoverman wrote:Option 2 gets my vote. Actually option 1's not a bad idea either...

Option 1 and 2 has been tried and tested and both have failed over the years.

What we can do attack the funding network of ISIS.

This barbaric lot have taken over a region the size of great Britain and they could not have done it without STATE FUNDING.

Who is funding them?

find out and cut it off and let them struggle.

Who is arming them?

find out and cut that off too

No, they haven't. There've been some very piecemeal 'wars' because the 'West' doesn't want to actually risk any people on the ground really. There's less appetite for it now than over Iraq. There's been no assault, say, of the scale of what the Sri Lankan army did to the Tamils (yes, I know there was undoubtedly nasty stuff going on).

Who is funding them? Ohhh, maybe Saudi Arabia?

What to do? Hmm. I used to be an advocate of interventions to stop things like IS etc. Not sure I care anymore, particularly with this. Let the whole region burn. Encourage anyone wanting to leave the U.K. (or anywhere else) who don't like democracy to p!ss off to this stone-age Caliphate. Watch our own borders. Take on the preachers/morons in the 'West' who claim IS have a sane doctrine.

The 'West' can't win here. Leave it alone and we'll get the blame. Intervene and we'll get the blame. Make damned sure, with huge force, that oil supplies are preserved (they think we're only in it for ourselves so it'd be shame to disappoint). Other than the oil, hem it in, and let it burn. Watch for plots/lone wolves - anyone caught in the U.K. advocating/facilitating terrorism in the name of IS/al-Qaeda, give them a parachute and chuck them out of a plane over IS territory.

ISIS behead an 82 year old archeologist...what a shower of c#nts.

incontinentia wrote:ISIS behead an 82 year old archeologist...what a shower of c#nts.

Henry Jones?

Marry her off to Horus, and enshrine her in many major religions as the base of various kinds of theological mythology would be my solution if that helps?

Navy they're being funded by selling all that stuff they appear to be smashing up. They smash the stuff they can't move and eastern and western rich boys purchase the rest. Then the slave trade and ransom money for hostages and to be honest...what funding do they actually need? We gave them the weapons in Libya and Syria and any other weapons are sourced from each military area they take over. Then some of the stuff appears to be improvised weaponry by modifying the weapons we gave their allies tp take more generic rounds or rounds they have in abundance. The archaeologist thing is just the latest in line of that sort of area. Historical items smashed on the camera for show and the rest of the things flogged. Your idea to seize control of the oil and leave the rest to die is so completely moronic that I doubt that you are being serious about it. Western governments can only ever justify war by propoganda and this false sense of moral superiority is the only thing that ever allows interventions to be tolerated. Everything we do is a hypocrisy, from human rights, to freedom of the press to the rule of law. Our only real defense is we're not as bad as them. Once you lose your standing you lose your allies. You lose your allies you lose the initiative and you lose your suport from the public. Good luck convincing people to send their children to the army so they can stand in front of a oil rig and die honorably for our right to drive cars cheaply. The only thing that is moderately sensible in your post is the solution just to leave them all alone. No interventions no infiltrations no funding rebels to overthrow someone you don't like. If they come near us destroy them otherwise let them fight for their own progression like every other region. Either they'll all die or they'll come to a compromise and they'll have a small semblance of peace.

ShahenshahG wrote:Navy they're being funded by selling all that stuff they appear to be smashing up. They smash the stuff they can't move and eastern and western rich boys purchase the rest. Then the slave trade and ransom money for hostages and to be honest...what funding do they actually need? We gave them the weapons in Libya and Syria and any other weapons are sourced from each military area they take over. Then some of the stuff appears to be improvised weaponry by modifying the weapons we gave their allies tp take more generic rounds or rounds they have in abundance. The archaeologist thing is just the latest in line of that sort of area. Historical items smashed on the camera for show and the rest of the things flogged. Your idea to seize control of the oil and leave the rest to die is so completely moronic that I doubt that you are being serious about it. Western governments can only ever justify war by propoganda and this false sense of moral superiority is the only thing that ever allows interventions to be tolerated. Everything we do is a hypocrisy, from human rights, to freedom of the press to the rule of law. Our only real defense is we're not as bad as them. Once you lose your standing you lose your allies. You lose your allies you lose the initiative and you lose your suport from the public. Good luck convincing people to send their children to the army so they can stand in front of a oil rig and die honorably for our right to drive cars cheaply.  The only thing that is moderately sensible in your post is the solution just to leave them all alone. No interventions no infiltrations no funding rebels to overthrow someone you don't like. If they come near us destroy them otherwise let them fight for their own progression like every other region. Either they'll all die or they'll come to a compromise and they'll have a small semblance of peace.

Huh? Ever heard of a paragraph??

Re. the bit I bolded, above, that's my whole post, really. I'm quite a fair guy and I know there are plenty there caught up in this and presumably hate these morons but, quite frankly, I don't give a XXXX anymore. Let 'em burn. We need the oil though (Guess what? It's not just the cars) so I'm afraid we'll have to have it - they all think we're winkers/apostates/whatever and only after the oil in any case. As I said before, be a shame to disappoint.

Think that sort of attitude is the reason for the problems in the first place but I'd missed your careless tone in the previous post else I wouldn't have bothered.

navyblueshorts wrote:What to do? Hmm. I used to be an advocate of interventions to stop things like IS etc. Not sure I care anymore, particularly with this. Let the whole region burn. Encourage anyone wanting to leave the U.K. (or anywhere else) who don't like democracy to p!ss off to this stone-age Caliphate. Watch our own borders. Take on the preachers/morons in the 'West' who claim IS have a sane doctrine.

The 'West' can't win here. Leave it alone and we'll get the blame. Intervene and we'll get the blame. Make damned sure, with huge force, that oil supplies are preserved (they think we're only in it for ourselves so it'd be shame to disappoint). Other than the oil, hem it in, and let it burn. Watch for plots/lone wolves - anyone caught in the U.K. advocating/facilitating terrorism in the name of IS/al-Qaeda, give them a parachute and chuck them out of a plane over IS territory.

I think a lot of us are getting this way.......Maybe Blair was right over 90 day detention......

One of the few on here that agrees with Guantanimo.....Doesn't seem to be as much fuss kicked up when some innocent workman gets his head sawn off in the middle east... than when a few terrorists are being waterboarded...

Barry Goldwater (64 Republican nominee) "Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice".......Starting to agree with this line more and more..

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0822/722876-french-train/

U.S. servicemen thwart a potential massacre on a train from Amsterdam to Paris, and then beat the perp unconscious!!

LOVELY!!!

Well done to the marines, take my hat of to them.
Good point btw about the uproar of Guantanamo Bay compared to the Isis killings.

France are reaping what Dubya and Blair sowed 12 years ago, and what France themselves were brave enough to oppose at the time. I think the allies in this conflict will eventually have to launch a large scale ground offensive to retake territories from Daesh and break up the training camps in Syria that train these lunatics. Irony being that it will be impossible to get support for this in America when it is actually justified this time.

Airstrikes can only go so far, if the U.S., Russia, France etc combine forces on the ground it will go a long way towards thwarting these large scale, organised massacres.

You can't link these attacks to Iraq....These are scumbags with a warped view of Islam..

Saddam Hussein was al qaeda's worst enemy !!...He kept them in check..

Anyway we invaded Afghanistan before Iraq and rightly so.  Or do you think we should turn the other cheek when 3,000 are slaughtered....Bilions of pounds of damage is caused..families destroyed and hundreds of thousands of jobs are lost..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You can't link these attacks to Iraq...

That's a laugh. A former U.S. assistant Defence Secretary was on the telly last night fully admitting that the invasion of Iraq was the genesis of this problem. He called it the greatest stategic blunder in U.S. history, and this was a Reagan man not a liberal. Many of the Iraqi insurgents would go on to form I.S. along with Syrian hardliners unleashed by the Arab Spring in that country. Bush and Blair kicked the hornet's nest,and boy are things buzzing now.

PS- I agree that the Afghan invasion was justified, but inventing a WMD threat so W could go back and finish the job his daddy started(and no doubt to secure oil resources) is one of the most despicable things done by any American president. Himself and Blair should be tried in the Hague.

You can't link these attacks to Iraq....Iraq isn't in Syria last time I checked and I remember Islamic terrorists trying to bring down the World trade center in 1993...

Always had a problem with them the difference is they are far more organized these days..

These idiots hate the West....Let's not try to justify their actions.

It's about Religion....and forming a Caliphate. They are idealists..

incontinentia wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You can't link these attacks to Iraq...

That's a laugh. A former U.S. assistant Defence Secretary was on the telly last night fully admitting that the invasion of Iraq was the genesis of this problem. He called it the greatest stategic blunder in U.S. history, and this was a Reagan man not a liberal. Many of the Iraqi insurgents would go on to form I.S. along with Syrian hardliners unleashed by the Arab Spring in that country. Bush and Blair kicked the hornet's nest,and boy are things buzzing now.

PS- I agree that the Afghan invasion was justified, but inventing a WMD threat so W could go back and finish the job his daddy started(and no doubt to secure oil resources) is one of the most  despicable things done by any American president. Himself and Blair should be tried in the Hague.

Sorry. Strongly disagree. These stone-age morons were causing havoc well before Iraq i.e. attempt on WTC in '93, 'Black Hawk down' incident in Somalia, 9/11, Luxor massacre in '97, Kenyan and Tanzanian U.S. embassies in '98 etc etc etc. This lot of nihilists are just the latest in line to inherit the crown of World's Biggest Morons. Iraq may have given them another excuse but they'd have found a different one if Iraq hadn't happened - this sort of pillock always does.

That said, I totally agree with you re. Dubya and Bliar.

Good post..I have nothing but contempt for those two as well.

...This kind of terrorism pre dates Iraq.

I.S. and Al Qaeda aren't the same thing. My point is that I.S/ISIS/ISIL/Daesh and the situation France is in has its origins in the de-stabilisation of the Middle East caused by the Iraq War.

Extreme as it is, we could just let Netanyahu and Israel off their leash.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Extreme as it is, we could just let Netanyahu and Israel off their leash.

The guy who tried to blame the Arabs for the holocaust?

Nothing political. Too many leaders of the "free world" are in bed with leaders of the countries they also want people to fear. I know there's a certain level of balance they must pursue to stop all hell breaking loose, and to make sure information has some freedom to travel, but in reality to stop the "surprise" deaths we will have to see more casualties across the world we live in and the world we detach ourselves from. Or we will have to make tough economic choices and policies that will possibly make day to day life harder and leave a certain level of the unknown in the reactions of what will we have publicly deemed enemies.

incontinentia wrote:I.S. and Al Qaeda aren't the same thing. My point is that I.S/ISIS/ISIL/Daesh and the situation France is in has its origins in the de-stabilisation of the Middle East caused by the Iraq War.

I know they aren't the same thing..But their ideology and aims are similar...

All about creating an Islamic Utopia....Iraq as stupid as it was is merely a smokescreen for some to bash the UK and USA..

incontinentia wrote:I.S. and Al Qaeda aren't the same thing. My point is that I.S/ISIS/ISIL/Daesh and the situation France is in has its origins in the de-stabilisation of the Middle East caused by the Iraq War.

Daesh and al-Qaeda are the same. Daesh is a development/descendent of al-Qaeda. This event in France has little to do with Iraq and everything to do with pathetic, narcissistic nihilists using it as an excuse to murder those that don't agree with their stone-age barbarism. Sure, Iraq was unbelievably dumb and gave them an additional excuse, but they didn't need it really did they? They'd have gone about their dirty little missions in any case - in fact, as I pointed out above, they were already doing so.