FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > tough subject... david haines beheading
tough subject... david haines beheading
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"does the apparent beheading of the british hostage david haines may you think differently about ISIS... and what you would be prepared to support in the way of any military action against them..." When it comes to stories like this,it is very hard to comment without sounding evil..People/Journalists go to these places knowing the risks..And the reason why we have such a huge problem now with terrorists is simply because of military action against Saddam,it was never for oil but simply to make the country unstable..But all it done was create more terrorists,which spread around the world and made minority extremist groups become more popular/mainstream to the disillusioned muslims,thinking that the west is attacking their religion,so the only people to blame is Tony Blair and the Labor party..He did once say that religion should be part of politics(make of that what you want).... | |||
| |||
"It makes me ashamed of my species, and very sad. but unfortunately I don't have a clue how to solve the problem. " I agree | |||
"does the apparent beheading of the british hostage david haines may you think differently about ISIS... and what you would be prepared to support in the way of any military action against them..." Why should the beheading of this man make you change your mind? Just because of his origins, why should we not take action because of the two people they beheaded beforehand? Killing a man is wrong, no matter where they've come from. Not to mention the countless lives they've taken in establishing this illegal caliphate? Obviously this is much easier said than done- the beheadings were a response to the US's continual drone strikes so it seems somewhat Lose-Lose scenario. I hope somethijng can be done to stop them as soon as possible. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"does the apparent beheading of the british hostage david haines may you think differently about ISIS... and what you would be prepared to support in the way of any military action against them... Why should the beheading of this man make you change your mind? Just because of his origins, why should we not take action because of the two people they beheaded beforehand? Killing a man is wrong, no matter where they've come from. Not to mention the countless lives they've taken in establishing this illegal caliphate? Obviously this is much easier said than done- the beheadings were a response to the US's continual drone strikes so it seems somewhat Lose-Lose scenario. I hope somethijng can be done to stop them as soon as possible." Good original question and even better subsidiary question! In answer to the first question: No, I believe in gun boat diplomacy and early intervention, but many here would claim I am a warmonger. In answer to the Second question: Truth is when the violence is far away and being visited on foreigners then it is easy to say "it has nothing to do with us" and ignore it. It gets harder to ignore when the victims become those you identify with. However it generally needs the violence to be brought to your front door and family before most will demand action. Shame really. | |||
"I would also add: hopefully no one is stupid enough to go searching for these videos. However, if you do happen across one- DO NOT watch it. The police issued a statement after the Foley video saying that it is a criminal offence to _iew the material and you can be arrested for it as an act of terror." My god what a stupid law! Dont watch it, it might contaminate you! Under todays broadcast rules we would not be allowed watch footage from the trenches of the Great War, the films of the NAZI death camp and mass killings of Jews in the early years of the war would not be suitable for us to _iew, the news footage of the results of US excess in Vietnam would all be censored! The only reason for such a rule is to stop us seeing the reality of what is happening! We are treated as mushrooms, kept in the dark and fed on shit! Its nice being a mushroom the world is cool and pleasant right up to the point someone picks you for the pan! Hello my fellow mushrooms!  | |||
| |||
 | |||
"I cannot get my head around why any civilised person would want to watch such a thing. " | |||
"I would also add: hopefully no one is stupid enough to go searching for these videos. However, if you do happen across one- DO NOT watch it. The police issued a statement after the Foley video saying that it is a criminal offence to _iew the material and you can be arrested for it as an act of terror." I have no desire or plan to watch any of the videos.... | |||
| |||
"I cannot get my head around why any civilised person would want to watch such a thing. "For their own morbid curiosity I suppose....like I just posted I have no curiosity or desire to watch someone get murdered | |||
"I would also add: hopefully no one is stupid enough to go searching for these videos. However, if you do happen across one- DO NOT watch it. The police issued a statement after the Foley video saying that it is a criminal offence to _iew the material and you can be arrested for it as an act of terror." To search and _iew such videos is slightly disturbing but for the police make it a crime under the terror umbrella is equally disturbing. | |||
"I cannot get my head around why any civilised person would want to watch such a thing.
For their own morbid curiosity I suppose....like I just posted I have no curiosity or desire to watch someone get murdered " | |||
| |||
"It makes me ashamed of my species, and very sad. but unfortunately I don't have a clue how to solve the problem. I agree " I second that | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"This has nothing to do with religion nor politics, these people are just pure fucking evil. I say napalm the whole fucking area fight evil with evil" But there are innocent people, children, living amongst them, the cure isn't that easy, I have no idea what the cure is but if we start a war with them mankind has the power to blow the bloody earth out the sky  | |||
"I read somewhere that there was IS members wanting to come back to Britain and as a result were captured by the IS and branded as traitors and are now being held prisoner...." It was alleged that the men wanted to come back to England as they felt that the IS was too extreme for their beliefs | |||
"I read somewhere that there was IS members wanting to come back to Britain and as a result were captured by the IS and branded as traitors and are now being held prisoner...." I guess that's the risk you take when you decide to go over in the first place | |||
"This has nothing to do with religion nor politics, these people are just pure fucking evil. I say napalm the whole fucking area fight evil with evil But there are innocent people, children, living amongst them, the cure isn't that easy, I have no idea what the cure is but if we start a war with them mankind has the power to blow the bloody earth out the sky "collateral damage | |||
| |||
"This has nothing to do with religion nor politics, these people are just pure fucking evil. I say napalm the whole fucking area fight evil with evil But there are innocent people, children, living amongst them, the cure isn't that easy, I have no idea what the cure is but if we start a war with them mankind has the power to blow the bloody earth out the sky "You are right, lets do nothing until they get a weapon that can blow us into the sky... I am sure they will have no problems killing all of us.  | |||
"This has nothing to do with religion nor politics, these people are just pure fucking evil. I say napalm the whole fucking area fight evil with evil But there are innocent people, children, living amongst them, the cure isn't that easy, I have no idea what the cure is but if we start a war with them mankind has the power to blow the bloody earth out the sky
collateral damage"You are starting to sound like the terrorist themselves  | |||
| |||
"This has nothing to do with religion nor politics, these people are just pure fucking evil. I say napalm the whole fucking area fight evil with evil But there are innocent people, children, living amongst them, the cure isn't that easy, I have no idea what the cure is but if we start a war with them mankind has the power to blow the bloody earth out the sky
collateral damage"and you seem to say that will such ease... | |||
"What disturbs me are the amount of young British women from Britain who are joining...I just can't understand how people become so brainwashed into believing what they are doing is right " Absolute power over others is very attractive to some, you should not be surprised when some well educated people take the opportunity to use their education to grab the ultimate power (that of life and death) when it is so available. | |||
"This has nothing to do with religion nor politics, these people are just pure fucking evil. I say napalm the whole fucking area fight evil with evil But there are innocent people, children, living amongst them, the cure isn't that easy, I have no idea what the cure is but if we start a war with them mankind has the power to blow the bloody earth out the sky
collateral damage"How does us killing children make us any better than them killing aid workers? | |||
"I cannot get my head around why any civilised person would want to watch such a thing. " | |||
| |||
"The world is a scary place " Ain't that the truth | |||
| |||
"the taking of life is actually more difficult than the tapping on a keyboard...." What like the drones? | |||
"the taking of life is actually more difficult than the tapping on a keyboard.... What like the drones?" sadly no, but I would hope they would more thought before they decide than someone sat in a house in the UK miles from it. I repeat, I would hope. | |||
"The world is a scary place Ain't that the truth " | |||
"the taking of life is actually more difficult than the tapping on a keyboard.... What like the drones? sadly no, but I would hope they would more thought before they decide than someone sat in a house in the UK miles from it. I repeat, I would hope." Like you said in a previous post _iew some have solved mysteries, child abductions and murders....terrorism should be easy then... | |||
"Journalists ans other civvies that go to trouble zones know the risk they take so shocking as it is you have to expect it. As far as IS are concerned the military action can not work, bombing will kill people but not the ideology that is a much deeper and more difficult thing to deal with. Western military intervention is not what's needed. It is something that needs to be dealt with by the countries themselves, they need their own infrastructure to deal with this and that's the only help they need." This is the best answer by far IMHO, ideology can only be fought through education, health and support. Every time we bomb,shoot or kill one we encourage ten more we are the threat to them and not just the extremists. It needs to be handled by people they relate to like the rich Arab States in the Middle East. This is not me simply pushing the problem to others but having been to these places and sat down with them we are the bogey men we scare them more than the extremists. Why ? Because we are different because the hatred they see because of things like the comments we see here napalm them. The sooner we realise we cannot change the fundamental differences the better off we will all be | |||
"the taking of life is actually more difficult than the tapping on a keyboard...." Actually, no, the taking of life is just as easy as tapping a keyboard. The truth is getting people to understand just how easy it is to kill is the hard thing to do. | |||
"the taking of life is actually more difficult than the tapping on a keyboard.... Actually, no, the taking of life is just as easy as tapping a keyboard. The truth is getting people to understand just how easy it is to kill is the hard thing to do." How many people have you killed? | |||
"Journalists ans other civvies that go to trouble zones know the risk they take so shocking as it is you have to expect it. As far as IS are concerned the military action can not work, bombing will kill people but not the ideology that is a much deeper and more difficult thing to deal with. Western military intervention is not what's needed. It is something that needs to be dealt with by the countries themselves, they need their own infrastructure to deal with this and that's the only help they need. This is the best answer by far IMHO, ideology can only be fought through education, health and support. Every time we bomb,shoot or kill one we encourage ten more we are the threat to them and not just the extremists. It needs to be handled by people they relate to like the rich Arab States in the Middle East. This is not me simply pushing the problem to others but having been to these places and sat down with them we are the bogey men we scare them more than the extremists. Why ? Because we are different because the hatred they see because of things like the comments we see here napalm them. The sooner we realise we cannot change the fundamental differences the better off we will all be" The rich Arab states are funding isis  | |||
"This is the best answer by far IMHO, ideology can only be fought through education, health and support. Every time we bomb,shoot or kill one we encourage ten more we are the threat to them and not just the extremists. It needs to be handled by people they relate to like the rich Arab States in the Middle East. This is not me simply pushing the problem to others but having been to these places and sat down with them we are the bogey men we scare them more than the extremists. Why ? Because we are different because the hatred they see because of things like the comments we see here napalm them. The sooner we realise we cannot change the fundamental differences the better off we will all be" Really? We have had 50 years of this, just like we have had 50 years of the war on drugs. Neither work, but we stick with the theories because they are easy despite all the evidence that actually they pander to and increase the problems. We do this over and over and every time we come out with crap about learning from our mistakes and then fall back into the same self-satisfied complacent ways and make the same mistakes all over again and when forced to deal with the problems we allow to develop claim we could not have foreseen the consequence of our inaction! your post reminds me of the Oxford Union "we will not fight for king and country" vote in 1936 in response to the rise of the NAZIs and the calls to rearm and confront them. We all know what that lead to. sometimes the answer is not education but the use of overwhelming power and violence. Its the only thing some understand. | |||
| |||
"This is the best answer by far IMHO, ideology can only be fought through education, health and support. Every time we bomb,shoot or kill one we encourage ten more we are the threat to them and not just the extremists. It needs to be handled by people they relate to like the rich Arab States in the Middle East. This is not me simply pushing the problem to others but having been to these places and sat down with them we are the bogey men we scare them more than the extremists. Why ? Because we are different because the hatred they see because of things like the comments we see here napalm them. The sooner we realise we cannot change the fundamental differences the better off we will all be Really? We have had 50 years of this, just like we have had 50 years of the war on drugs. Neither work, but we stick with the theories because they are easy despite all the evidence that actually they pander to and increase the problems. We do this over and over and every time we come out with crap about learning from our mistakes and then fall back into the same self-satisfied complacent ways and make the same mistakes all over again and when forced to deal with the problems we allow to develop claim we could not have foreseen the consequence of our inaction! your post reminds me of the Oxford Union "we will not fight for king and country" vote in 1936 in response to the rise of the NAZIs and the calls to rearm and confront them. We all know what that lead to. sometimes the answer is not education but the use of overwhelming power and violence. Its the only thing some understand." This is not a war of some extremists but a huge geopolitical war which could see ww3 although its been happening for a while | |||
| |||
"Get rid of one extremust group and another will appear. I think what IS is doing is shocking and desreves punishment. The question is how.They do not fear death in fact it is quite the opposite, as they are then celebrated as martys to their cause. We also need to look at how these groups are funded.How do they raise the money and resources, to fund their activities. Will cutting this off reduce their abilities. The other option is a combined special forces effort between all the UN nations to very quietly and with no fuss just eradicate these people( this is a very contentious issue though). I think these threads are very interesting but when posting I think you have to understand that people will have deeply conflicting _iews of the solution. Do any of us have enough knowledge and understanding of these people to make a proper judgement or are we all led by the media hype.. I dont have the answers or the understanding and am quite happy to admit that. But what I do know is that beheading an innocence man to prove a point is not going to help your cause...." | |||
| |||
| |||
"Dropping the atomic bomb an option?" Well it would certain stop them | |||
" Really? We have had 50 years of this, just like we have had 50 years of the war on drugs. Neither work, but we stick with the theories because they are easy despite all the evidence that actually they pander to and increase the problems. We do this over and over and every time we come out with crap about learning from our mistakes and then fall back into the same self-satisfied complacent ways and make the same mistakes all over again and when forced to deal with the problems we allow to develop claim we could not have foreseen the consequence of our inaction! your post reminds me of the Oxford Union "we will not fight for king and country" vote in 1936 in response to the rise of the NAZIs and the calls to rearm and confront them. We all know what that lead to. sometimes the answer is not education but the use of overwhelming power and violence. Its the only thing some understand. This is not a war of some extremists but a huge geopolitical war which could see ww3 although its been happening for a while" I fully understand exactly what this is and where it is leading! What I am pointing out to you is where the policy of appeasement that you are championing leads! I find it amazing that you and others see that this is a war of ideologies that is so fundamental that it must lead to a world conflagration that because of todays weapons could wipe humanity out! And your answer is do nothing until our mortal enemy is so strong and well armed that either we submit to their rule and are wiped out or we destroy all life! Sad thing is your attitude is that of the majority and therefore is reflected by our leaders and so we continue to deny what is happening (this news film is too distressing to be show) as we sleepwalk into our own death camps and gas chambers just like the German Jews in the 30's. | |||
" The rich Arab states are funding isis "at the beginning.... yes.... ISIS at the beginning were seen at the time by some arab countries best alternative to the Syrian regime during the syrian civil war ... and as they are a sunni muslim organisation they were given money by gulf arab states.... notably saudi and qatar.... but since the state aim of IS is now to wipe Shia Islam off the map.... Shia predominate territoties are syria, iraq, iran, Lebannon and Jordan... and tiny parts of turkey... which is why the fighting is now where it is.... but the gulf states are now backing away from that support... because they are now being seen as threats to their own states... especially in saudi, where they are now imprisoning those who are caught trying to go and fight for IS | |||
"Dropping the atomic bomb an option?" even thinking that so a distinct lack of knowledge on the region... just where would you like this atomic bomb dropped... on shia dominated areas that the sunni muslims have taken over.... or the kurdish areas... or the yazmidi christian areas... | |||
| |||
" The rich Arab states are funding isis
at the beginning.... yes....
ISIS at the beginning were seen at the time by some arab countries best alternative to the Syrian regime during the syrian civil war ... and as they are a sunni muslim organisation they were given money by gulf arab states.... notably saudi and qatar....
but since the state aim of IS is now to wipe Shia Islam off the map.... Shia predominate territoties are syria, iraq, iran, Lebannon and Jordan... and tiny parts of turkey...
which is why the fighting is now where it is....
but the gulf states are now backing away from that support... because they are now being seen as threats to their own states... especially in saudi, where they are now imprisoning those who are caught trying to go and fight for IS
"Well that's strange a retired us general says the us are going to do just that a few years back | |||
"its a warcrime .. the person who did this is a criminal ... no matter how just theiy think their cause is .. the acts they carry out ae against human rights and they will be caught judged and dealt with accordingly" And there are hundreds willing to fill his shoes if and when this does happen, that's the problem | |||
 | |||
| |||
"its a warcrime .. the person who did this is a criminal ... no matter how just theiy think their cause is .. the acts they carry out ae against human rights and they will be caught judged and dealt with accordingly And there are hundreds willing to fill his shoes if and when this does happen, that's the problem " It may be a war crime, but your second statement is wrong. We only have 1 example of the use of atomic weapons, they were used against a people who were just as bloodthirsty and willing to die provided they were killing the enemy as ISIS but when they found that they could all be wiped out by en mass by single weapons without the ability to hit back they gave up and decided that they did not want to play the world domination game ever again. Just in case you need a little more spoon feeding I am describing the end of WW2 and the defeat of Japan. Personally I would use a neutron bomb or 2 on them, 1 on Mosal and 1 on their new IS Caliphate capital. I think that would knock the fight and belief in their superiority out of them. But as I have said I am what most would call a baby-killing warmonger. | |||
"its a warcrime .. the person who did this is a criminal ... no matter how just theiy think their cause is .. the acts they carry out ae against human rights and they will be caught judged and dealt with accordingly And there are hundreds willing to fill his shoes if and when this does happen, that's the problem It may be a war crime, but your second statement is wrong. We only have 1 example of the use of atomic weapons, they were used against a people who were just as bloodthirsty and willing to die provided they were killing the enemy as ISIS but when they found that they could all be wiped out by en mass by single weapons without the ability to hit back they gave up and decided that they did not want to play the world domination game ever again. Just in case you need a little more spoon feeding I am describing the end of WW2 and the defeat of Japan. Personally I would use a neutron bomb or 2 on them, 1 on Mosal and 1 on their new IS Caliphate capital. I think that would knock the fight and belief in their superiority out of them. But as I have said I am what most would call a baby-killing warmonger. " Should join the army then, they love war mongers | |||
"its a warcrime .. the person who did this is a criminal ... no matter how just theiy think their cause is .. the acts they carry out ae against human rights and they will be caught judged and dealt with accordingly And there are hundreds willing to fill his shoes if and when this does happen, that's the problem It may be a war crime, but your second statement is wrong. We only have 1 example of the use of atomic weapons, they were used against a people who were just as bloodthirsty and willing to die provided they were killing the enemy as ISIS but when they found that they could all be wiped out by en mass by single weapons without the ability to hit back they gave up and decided that they did not want to play the world domination game ever again. Just in case you need a little more spoon feeding I am describing the end of WW2 and the defeat of Japan. Personally I would use a neutron bomb or 2 on them, 1 on Mosal and 1 on their new IS Caliphate capital. I think that would knock the fight and belief in their superiority out of them. But as I have said I am what most would call a baby-killing warmonger. Should join the army then, they love war mongers" I'm 57 to old to serve now, came out of the commandos in Nov 82. So I guess, your nearly right. 
By the way you haven't addressed the historical that I quoted, any comments on those rather than on me?  | |||
"its a warcrime .. the person who did this is a criminal ... no matter how just theiy think their cause is .. the acts they carry out ae against human rights and they will be caught judged and dealt with accordingly And there are hundreds willing to fill his shoes if and when this does happen, that's the problem It may be a war crime, but your second statement is wrong. We only have 1 example of the use of atomic weapons, they were used against a people who were just as bloodthirsty and willing to die provided they were killing the enemy as ISIS but when they found that they could all be wiped out by en mass by single weapons without the ability to hit back they gave up and decided that they did not want to play the world domination game ever again. Just in case you need a little more spoon feeding I am describing the end of WW2 and the defeat of Japan. Personally I would use a neutron bomb or 2 on them, 1 on Mosal and 1 on their new IS Caliphate capital. I think that would knock the fight and belief in their superiority out of them. But as I have said I am what most would call a baby-killing warmonger. " Yes we have only one example of atomic weaponry in action, but i think your analysis of the Japanese example is slightly flawed. Yes they were as adamant about fighting the war and winning but there is a huge difference. That being that the Japanese hasn't exported an unknown number of its patriots to unkniwn destinations to wait, arm, and recruit. That difference means than a massive strike like the one you advocate will only possibly knock the legs off of the monster, not completely destroy it. This is not contained as the Japanese front in ww2 was and therefore must be treated differently. Its also far less cut and dried as to the motivation for the fight. This is more like the hydra another poster had described it as, and partial damage will only cause it to coalesce in a different form later. I maintain that IS is such a manifestation of remants of the former al quaeda. | |||
" Really? We have had 50 years of this, just like we have had 50 years of the war on drugs. Neither work, but we stick with the theories because they are easy despite all the evidence that actually they pander to and increase the problems. We do this over and over and every time we come out with crap about learning from our mistakes and then fall back into the same self-satisfied complacent ways and make the same mistakes all over again and when forced to deal with the problems we allow to develop claim we could not have foreseen the consequence of our inaction! your post reminds me of the Oxford Union "we will not fight for king and country" vote in 1936 in response to the rise of the NAZIs and the calls to rearm and confront them. We all know what that lead to. sometimes the answer is not education but the use of overwhelming power and violence. Its the only thing some understand. This is not a war of some extremists but a huge geopolitical war which could see ww3 although its been happening for a while I fully understand exactly what this is and where it is leading! What I am pointing out to you is where the policy of appeasement that you are championing leads! I find it amazing that you and others see that this is a war of ideologies that is so fundamental that it must lead to a world conflagration that because of todays weapons could wipe humanity out! And your answer is do nothing until our mortal enemy is so strong and well armed that either we submit to their rule and are wiped out or we destroy all life! Sad thing is your attitude is that of the majority and therefore is reflected by our leaders and so we continue to deny what is happening (this news film is too distressing to be show) as we sleepwalk into our own death camps and gas chambers just like the German Jews in the 30's." My appeasement would have started years before any terrorist funding and organised by us.its us policy to totally destroy the middle east and seperate Iran Iraq and install puppet governments over there. By funding all these seperatists are creating a catalalyst. Its also common bullshit that the west wants Syria and proported to lies until the un saw it. I don't know what any of the solutions now, but it appears to be one real life massive game of risk at the monent | |||
" Really? We have had 50 years of this, just like we have had 50 years of the war on drugs. Neither work, but we stick with the theories because they are easy despite all the evidence that actually they pander to and increase the problems. We do this over and over and every time we come out with crap about learning from our mistakes and then fall back into the same self-satisfied complacent ways and make the same mistakes all over again and when forced to deal with the problems we allow to develop claim we could not have foreseen the consequence of our inaction! your post reminds me of the Oxford Union "we will not fight for king and country" vote in 1936 in response to the rise of the NAZIs and the calls to rearm and confront them. We all know what that lead to. sometimes the answer is not education but the use of overwhelming power and violence. Its the only thing some understand. This is not a war of some extremists but a huge geopolitical war which could see ww3 although its been happening for a while I fully understand exactly what this is and where it is leading! What I am pointing out to you is where the policy of appeasement that you are championing leads! I find it amazing that you and others see that this is a war of ideologies that is so fundamental that it must lead to a world conflagration that because of todays weapons could wipe humanity out! And your answer is do nothing until our mortal enemy is so strong and well armed that either we submit to their rule and are wiped out or we destroy all life! Sad thing is your attitude is that of the majority and therefore is reflected by our leaders and so we continue to deny what is happening (this news film is too distressing to be show) as we sleepwalk into our own death camps and gas chambers just like the German Jews in the 30's. My appeasement would have started years before any terrorist funding and organised by us.its us policy to totally destroy the middle east and seperate Iran Iraq and install puppet governments over there. By funding all these seperatists are creating a catalalyst. Its also common bullshit that the west wants Syria and proported to lies until the un saw it. I don't know what any of the solutions now, but it appears to be one real life massive game of risk at the monent" The breaking up and puppet governments wasn't stated by the u.s., it was merely continued from the already established policy. | |||
"Yes we have only one example of atomic weaponry in action, but i think your analysis of the Japanese example is slightly flawed. Yes they were as adamant about fighting the war and winning but there is a huge difference. That being that the Japanese hasn't exported an unknown number of its patriots to unkniwn destinations to wait, arm, and recruit. That difference means than a massive strike like the one you advocate will only possibly knock the legs off of the monster, not completely destroy it. This is not contained as the Japanese front in ww2 was and therefore must be treated differently. Its also far less cut and dried as to the motivation for the fight. This is more like the hydra another poster had described it as, and partial damage will only cause it to coalesce in a different form later. I maintain that IS is such a manifestation of remants of the former al quaeda. " Nice post! Measured, and thoughtful. I agree with what you say, and fully accept that even if they don't exist you are correct in your fear about a 5th column having been infiltrated around the world. However such a sleeper army of activists and recruiters can and could not survive or operate without at least the tacit support of their 'immigrant' communities. Therefore there is a way of neutralising such a threat. It is not particularly palatable but interment or use of draconian laws to punish communities that allow such units to operate in their mists would work. However I would suggest that as with the use of Atomic weapons in 1945 the use of equally powerful high yield devices that kill en mass but leave building standing for reoccupation within hours would have such a salutary effect that none would rush to vengeance in fear of causing more of their world to be visited by the same ultimate retaliation. I would further suggest that those who finance and control the likes of ISIS and Al Qaeda would also loose their thirst for proxy blood. Finally I would suggest that the fear of retaliation is the worst of reasons to do nothing. I accept that the course of action I would take has risks (the main one being knowing when to stop), but believe that doing nothing is much more risky. | |||
"Dropping the atomic bomb an option? even thinking that so a distinct lack of knowledge on the region... just where would you like this atomic bomb dropped... on shia dominated areas that the sunni muslims have taken over.... or the kurdish areas... or the yazmidi christian areas... " I'm not advocating just making a point Nagasaki & Hiroshima. if they hadn't been dropped what would have been the likely outcome? remember another society that didn't respect western beliefs and values such as the Geneva convention. As i said not advocating. | |||
"i thought they needed eradicating before the latest victim of these cowardly fcuks my _iew hasnt changed on that" I am of the same opinion. The best way to eradicate ISIS i think will be by the muslims own hands. This is a muslim extremist problem, and it needs strong muslim countries like Iran to step in and fight them in syria and Iraq. Iraq, Syria, Iran and other muslim countries in the region will have to form a coalition to fully eradicate ISIS from the region. If it is done by western countries like the UK and US, it will only lead to more recruitment to ISIS ranks. If it is a coalition of sunni and shia muslims who are destroying ISIS then the recruitment to their ranks may just stop? We should just provide humanitarian relief to the region, and it has been in the news that Iranian forces have already taken action against ISIS in Iraq, it needs to continue on a much bigger scale, i think ultimately ISIS are in a war they can never win. | |||
" Really? We have had 50 years of this, just like we have had 50 years of the war on drugs. Neither work, but we stick with the theories because they are easy despite all the evidence that actually they pander to and increase the problems. We do this over and over and every time we come out with crap about learning from our mistakes and then fall back into the same self-satisfied complacent ways and make the same mistakes all over again and when forced to deal with the problems we allow to develop claim we could not have foreseen the consequence of our inaction! your post reminds me of the Oxford Union "we will not fight for king and country" vote in 1936 in response to the rise of the NAZIs and the calls to rearm and confront them. We all know what that lead to. sometimes the answer is not education but the use of overwhelming power and violence. Its the only thing some understand. This is not a war of some extremists but a huge geopolitical war which could see ww3 although its been happening for a while I fully understand exactly what this is and where it is leading! What I am pointing out to you is where the policy of appeasement that you are championing leads! I find it amazing that you and others see that this is a war of ideologies that is so fundamental that it must lead to a world conflagration that because of todays weapons could wipe humanity out! And your answer is do nothing until our mortal enemy is so strong and well armed that either we submit to their rule and are wiped out or we destroy all life! Sad thing is your attitude is that of the majority and therefore is reflected by our leaders and so we continue to deny what is happening (this news film is too distressing to be show) as we sleepwalk into our own death camps and gas chambers just like the German Jews in the 30's. My appeasement would have started years before any terrorist funding and organised by us.its us policy to totally destroy the middle east and seperate Iran Iraq and install puppet governments over there. By funding all these seperatists are creating a catalalyst. Its also common bullshit that the west wants Syria and proported to lies until the un saw it. I don't know what any of the solutions now, but it appears to be one real life massive game of risk at the monent" Do you really think it didnt? We have been appeasing radical violent Arabs of one or another religion since 1939 and at every turn when they have found they have got away with one awful act they have gone on to commit something worse! As for it being a big game of risk you are right. Question: How do you guarantee loosing at risk? Answer: Do Nothing while others move! | |||
| |||
"Yes we have only one example of atomic weaponry in action, but i think your analysis of the Japanese example is slightly flawed. Yes they were as adamant about fighting the war and winning but there is a huge difference. That being that the Japanese hasn't exported an unknown number of its patriots to unkniwn destinations to wait, arm, and recruit. That difference means than a massive strike like the one you advocate will only possibly knock the legs off of the monster, not completely destroy it. This is not contained as the Japanese front in ww2 was and therefore must be treated differently. Its also far less cut and dried as to the motivation for the fight. This is more like the hydra another poster had described it as, and partial damage will only cause it to coalesce in a different form later. I maintain that IS is such a manifestation of remants of the former al quaeda. Nice post! Measured, and thoughtful. I agree with what you say, and fully accept that even if they don't exist you are correct in your fear about a 5th column having been infiltrated around the world. However such a sleeper army of activists and recruiters can and could not survive or operate without at least the tacit support of their 'immigrant' communities. Therefore there is a way of neutralising such a threat. It is not particularly palatable but interment or use of draconian laws to punish communities that allow such units to operate in their mists would work. However I would suggest that as with the use of Atomic weapons in 1945 the use of equally powerful high yield devices that kill en mass but leave building standing for reoccupation within hours would have such a salutary effect that none would rush to vengeance in fear of causing more of their world to be visited by the same ultimate retaliation. I would further suggest that those who finance and control the likes of ISIS and Al Qaeda would also loose their thirst for proxy blood. Finally I would suggest that the fear of retaliation is the worst of reasons to do nothing. I accept that the course of action I would take has risks (the main one being knowing when to stop), but believe that doing nothing is much more risky." Thank you. Your posts read as a classic textbook example of tactical procedures. I would hazard a guess from them that you also hold a certain understanding of the operational level of warfare, though i am open to being wrong. The fourth wave terrorism acts you speak of combating are tactically inferior. That doesn't, however, mean that a swift tactical solution with little regard for overriding strategy and grand strategy would work as concisely as you are attempting to put across. Remember what clausewitz said about war. This solution must stem from multiple levels and be enacted with not only tactical precision, but flat out tactical genius. No easy feat. The strategic elements of combating the ideology are as important if not moreso than the tactical implementation. To do as you describe will in fact break how many treaties that the west is signatory to? This not only sets a dangerous precedent for future leaders, as well as current ones like putin, it furthers the argued hypocrisy of the West as preached by those at the top of organisations like al quaeda and isis. Draconian measures, as suggested by yourself, further do this as well as completely undermining the current incarnation of western society as a whole. That won't stop the sentiment from forming within western society, but yet again will further it and drive it underground. Organisations like isis are still hard to root out because their perceived needs make them tactically weaker than their enemy, so they must adapt to be strategically superior. Only by considerably measured response will this be worked out. | |||
"Dropping the atomic bomb an option? even thinking that so a distinct lack of knowledge on the region... just where would you like this atomic bomb dropped... on shia dominated areas that the sunni muslims have taken over.... or the kurdish areas... or the yazmidi christian areas... " | |||
| |||
"Thank you. Your posts read as a classic textbook example of tactical procedures. I would hazard a guess from them that you also hold a certain understanding of the operational level of warfare, though i am open to being wrong. The fourth wave terrorism acts you speak of combating are tactically inferior. That doesn't, however, mean that a swift tactical solution with little regard for overriding strategy and grand strategy would work as concisely as you are attempting to put across. Remember what clausewitz said about war. This solution must stem from multiple levels and be enacted with not only tactical precision, but flat out tactical genius. No easy feat. The strategic elements of combating the ideology are as important if not moreso than the tactical implementation. To do as you describe will in fact break how many treaties that the west is signatory to? This not only sets a dangerous precedent for future leaders, as well as current ones like putin, it furthers the argued hypocrisy of the West as preached by those at the top of organisations like al quaeda and isis. Draconian measures, as suggested by yourself, further do this as well as completely undermining the current incarnation of western society as a whole. That won't stop the sentiment from forming within western society, but yet again will further it and drive it underground. Organisations like isis are still hard to root out because their perceived needs make them tactically weaker than their enemy, so they must adapt to be strategically superior. Only by considerably measured response will this be worked out. " Interesting, I need to think quite long and hard about what you say, especially taking into account that I hear that the military command of ISIS is made up from elements of Sadam's Officer core, therefore there may be a lot in what you say. However, having seen how poorly they preformed in the 2 gulf wars I am tempted to say that they are a lot less able that you give them credit for. I would further suggest that a measured response to ISIS (and the middle east in general) is not the answer. That what is needed is a massive and on the face of it totally inappropriate use of overwhelming force that will shock all those who see us as a sort touch to reassess their assumptions and change their conduct towards us. I believe that although you correctly draw attention to Putin and his obvious expansionist aspirations, that you mistake his reaction to a massive strike by the west. I would suggest that Putin sees our inability to defend our core interests  , as a sign of weakness and an open invitation to continue his opportunist expansion of his western borders. It is my belief that if we wiped ISIS (as a military power) out in a single strike without referral to, or permission from the rest of the world, far from further destabilizing an unstable region we would rebalance a region and cause many troublesome states to choose a less confrontational and more cooperative attitude.
Sometimes simple is best! And the might is required to protect right.
As for the treaties, you are absolutely correct, but as I understand it we are the only ones who abide by those treaties. Isn't it time we took a leaf out of others book and decided our national interests were more important than any treaty? | |||
"Thank you. Your posts read as a classic textbook example of tactical procedures. I would hazard a guess from them that you also hold a certain understanding of the operational level of warfare, though i am open to being wrong. The fourth wave terrorism acts you speak of combating are tactically inferior. That doesn't, however, mean that a swift tactical solution with little regard for overriding strategy and grand strategy would work as concisely as you are attempting to put across. Remember what clausewitz said about war. This solution must stem from multiple levels and be enacted with not only tactical precision, but flat out tactical genius. No easy feat. The strategic elements of combating the ideology are as important if not moreso than the tactical implementation. To do as you describe will in fact break how many treaties that the west is signatory to? This not only sets a dangerous precedent for future leaders, as well as current ones like putin, it furthers the argued hypocrisy of the West as preached by those at the top of organisations like al quaeda and isis. Draconian measures, as suggested by yourself, further do this as well as completely undermining the current incarnation of western society as a whole. That won't stop the sentiment from forming within western society, but yet again will further it and drive it underground. Organisations like isis are still hard to root out because their perceived needs make them tactically weaker than their enemy, so they must adapt to be strategically superior. Only by considerably measured response will this be worked out. Interesting, I need to think quite long and hard about what you say, especially taking into account that I hear that the military command of ISIS is made up from elements of Sadam's Officer core, therefore there may be a lot in what you say. However, having seen how poorly they preformed in the 2 gulf wars I am tempted to say that they are a lot less able that you give them credit for. I would further suggest that a measured response to ISIS (and the middle east in general) is not the answer. That what is needed is a massive and on the face of it totally inappropriate use of overwhelming force that will shock all those who see us as a sort touch to reassess their assumptions and change their conduct towards us. I believe that although you correctly draw attention to Putin and his obvious expansionist aspirations, that you mistake his reaction to a massive strike by the west. I would suggest that Putin sees our inability to defend our core interests , as a sign of weakness and an open invitation to continue his opportunist expansion of his western borders. It is my belief that if we wiped ISIS (as a military power) out in a single strike without referral to, or permission from the rest of the world, far from further destabilizing an unstable region we would rebalance a region and cause many troublesome states to choose a less confrontational and more cooperative attitude.
Sometimes simple is best! And the might is required to protect right.
As for the treaties, you are absolutely correct, but as I understand it we are the only ones who abide by those treaties. Isn't it time we took a leaf out of others book and decided our national interests were more important than any treaty? "I do see where you are coming from. Whilst assessing the efficacy of saddam's officer core and it's 'poor performance' during the gulf conflicts are you taking into consideration the much more symmetrical aspects of particularly the first conflict and that as such they were fighting a better equipped army in a traditional more third generation of warfare style conflict? I would debate your point by pointing out that those forces employed tactics within their defined geographical area with great precision while under saddam's command, and that those very tactics seem to be being put to use again within the same region, against the same people, and still with arguably good effect considering that we have not yet seen the coalescence of an effective opposition within the region. One, i might add, that they would be experienced in countering. My reference to putin was in passing. On that topic i will say that my take on it is that putin is acting like what he is. Old school, cold war, kgb. He is acting like we are still in the cold war , and he will continue to do so unless and until he either gets a return to that bipolarity or the war turns hot. It's what he knows. Though i do agree that he sees us as a soft touch. The international relations arena means that perception as a soft touch sometimes happens. I respect your right to your opinion, but fundamentally believe that any attempt at a swift and decisive military strike will fail miserably unless it is use of the nuclear arsenal. Use of such would indeed be shocking but i seriously doubt that it will shock to the point of capitulation. Again, i feel that you are using the Japanese example without adapting it in ways very necessary to this conflict. While the Japanese found honor in dying in the fight they waged that pales in comparison to the martyrdom preached by those few who lead this conflict. I sincerely believe that an attempt at a 'decisive' strike would simply end up resulting in far worse than the ww3 many imagine. You are experienced in conflict and therefore should understand how often things in Theatre go anything other than to plan. There is actually rarely anything which in reality is a 'decisive' strike. Forces are left, they regroup, the fight continues. That is the worst thing that could happen in this case. Anti western sentiment would form in those countries who did not partake in the strike. The West would be outnumbered. The West would fall. Giving them exactly what they have been asking for. | |||
"Thank you. Your posts read as a classic textbook example of tactical procedures. I would hazard a guess from them that you also hold a certain understanding of the operational level of warfare, though i am open to being wrong. The fourth wave terrorism acts you speak of combating are tactically inferior. That doesn't, however, mean that a swift tactical solution with little regard for overriding strategy and grand strategy would work as concisely as you are attempting to put across. Remember what clausewitz said about war. This solution must stem from multiple levels and be enacted with not only tactical precision, but flat out tactical genius. No easy feat. The strategic elements of combating the ideology are as important if not moreso than the tactical implementation. To do as you describe will in fact break how many treaties that the west is signatory to? This not only sets a dangerous precedent for future leaders, as well as current ones like putin, it furthers the argued hypocrisy of the West as preached by those at the top of organisations like al quaeda and isis. Draconian measures, as suggested by yourself, further do this as well as completely undermining the current incarnation of western society as a whole. That won't stop the sentiment from forming within western society, but yet again will further it and drive it underground. Organisations like isis are still hard to root out because their perceived needs make them tactically weaker than their enemy, so they must adapt to be strategically superior. Only by considerably measured response will this be worked out. Interesting, I need to think quite long and hard about what you say, especially taking into account that I hear that the military command of ISIS is made up from elements of Sadam's Officer core, therefore there may be a lot in what you say. However, having seen how poorly they preformed in the 2 gulf wars I am tempted to say that they are a lot less able that you give them credit for. I would further suggest that a measured response to ISIS (and the middle east in general) is not the answer. That what is needed is a massive and on the face of it totally inappropriate use of overwhelming force that will shock all those who see us as a sort touch to reassess their assumptions and change their conduct towards us. I believe that although you correctly draw attention to Putin and his obvious expansionist aspirations, that you mistake his reaction to a massive strike by the west. I would suggest that Putin sees our inability to defend our core interests , as a sign of weakness and an open invitation to continue his opportunist expansion of his western borders. It is my belief that if we wiped ISIS (as a military power) out in a single strike without referral to, or permission from the rest of the world, far from further destabilizing an unstable region we would rebalance a region and cause many troublesome states to choose a less confrontational and more cooperative attitude.
Sometimes simple is best! And the might is required to protect right.
As for the treaties, you are absolutely correct, but as I understand it we are the only ones who abide by those treaties. Isn't it time we took a leaf out of others book and decided our national interests were more important than any treaty? "Theses are text book operations planned by the likes of Cheney and bush orchestrated and planned many years ago. You seem yo be intent on supplying the war machine of the west based on imperial means controlling gas and oil supplies. Hopefully not many people think like you or want the action you advocate. | |||
| |||
| |||
"* for the record i want to state that my personal belief is that a large scale strike on middle eastern targets is morally wrong. The cost in lives of inocents is far too high for my conscience. That is my belief. My debates on the effect they might have is from a purely cerebral and academic point of _iew. I would not endorse the use of such measures even if i believed them to be effective in this case. " . You might not be saying that if u had lost a friend/loved one by means of terrorism | |||
"* for the record i want to state that my personal belief is that a large scale strike on middle eastern targets is morally wrong. The cost in lives of inocents is far too high for my conscience. That is my belief. My debates on the effect they might have is from a purely cerebral and academic point of _iew. I would not endorse the use of such measures even if i believed them to be effective in this case. . You might not be saying that if u had lost a friend/loved one by means of terrorism " You are making a rather large assumption that i haven't been effected personally by the acts. | |||
| |||
| |||
"In drop the bomb out it's as simple as that!!." As is your post!! | |||
| |||
"In drop the bomb out it's as simple as that!!. As is your post!! ". Yup glad you like. Forum = personal opinion and that's mine, like your user name love it or hate it lol. | |||
"In drop the bomb out it's as simple as that!!. As is your post!! . Yup glad you like. Forum = personal opinion and that's mine, like your user name love it or hate it lol. "That is what the forums are for and happy to agree! | |||
"This is the best answer by far IMHO, ideology can only be fought through education, health and support. Every time we bomb,shoot or kill one we encourage ten more we are the threat to them and not just the extremists. It needs to be handled by people they relate to like the rich Arab States in the Middle East. This is not me simply pushing the problem to others but having been to these places and sat down with them we are the bogey men we scare them more than the extremists. Why ? Because we are different because the hatred they see because of things like the comments we see here napalm them. The sooner we realise we cannot change the fundamental differences the better off we will all be Really? We have had 50 years of this, just like we have had 50 years of the war on drugs. Neither work, but we stick with the theories because they are easy despite all the evidence that actually they pander to and increase the problems. We do this over and over and every time we come out with crap about learning from our mistakes and then fall back into the same self-satisfied complacent ways and make the same mistakes all over again and when forced to deal with the problems we allow to develop claim we could not have foreseen the consequence of our inaction! your post reminds me of the Oxford Union "we will not fight for king and country" vote in 1936 in response to the rise of the NAZIs and the calls to rearm and confront them. We all know what that lead to. sometimes the answer is not education but the use of overwhelming power and violence. Its the only thing some understand." That is exactly what we have had for over a decade "shock and awe" and its taken us full circle, the findimental problem with the western world getting involved is we are prodominantly Christian and that will always make us the crusading aggressor. We are not to be trusted we take what we want and leave countries in ruins. Britain for example have over a hundread years of on and off aggression in afganistan and what improvements have been made there. War is not always the answer, we promised Iraq and afganistan Pease, freedom and a better future and all they have seen is war. We have whole generations of people in this country that have known nothing but war. As I grew up we had the menace of the I.r.a. they killed many and we killed many of them, were they defeated? No. Their money may have ran out after September the 11th but the fanatics were still there. Only through education and understanding we they along with Britain able to live without bloodshed. War is not always the answer. | |||
| |||
"does the apparent beheading of the british hostage david haines may you think differently about ISIS... and what you would be prepared to support in the way of any military action against them... Why should the beheading of this man make you change your mind? Just because of his origins, why should we not take action because of the two people they beheaded beforehand? Killing a man is wrong, no matter where they've come from. Not to mention the countless lives they've taken in establishing this illegal caliphate? Obviously this is much easier said than done- the beheadings were a response to the US's continual drone strikes so it seems somewhat Lose-Lose scenario. I hope somethijng can be done to stop them as soon as possible. Good original question and even better subsidiary question! In answer to the first question: No, I believe in gun boat diplomacy and early intervention, but many here would claim I am a warmonger. In answer to the Second question: Truth is when the violence is far away and being visited on foreigners then it is easy to say "it has nothing to do with us" and ignore it. It gets harder to ignore when the victims become those you identify with. However it generally needs the violence to be brought to your front door and family before most will demand action. Shame really." There was a time we could have sent an aircraft carrier laden with Sea Harriers. Not now | |||
| |||
"does the apparent beheading of the british hostage david haines may you think differently about ISIS... and what you would be prepared to support in the way of any military action against them... Why should the beheading of this man make you change your mind? Just because of his origins, why should we not take action because of the two people they beheaded beforehand? Killing a man is wrong, no matter where they've come from. Not to mention the countless lives they've taken in establishing this illegal caliphate? Obviously this is much easier said than done- the beheadings were a response to the US's continual drone strikes so it seems somewhat Lose-Lose scenario. I hope somethijng can be done to stop them as soon as possible. Good original question and even better subsidiary question! In answer to the first question: No, I believe in gun boat diplomacy and early intervention, but many here would claim I am a warmonger. In answer to the Second question: Truth is when the violence is far away and being visited on foreigners then it is easy to say "it has nothing to do with us" and ignore it. It gets harder to ignore when the victims become those you identify with. However it generally needs the violence to be brought to your front door and family before most will demand action. Shame really. There was a time we could have sent an aircraft carrier laden with Sea Harriers. Not now "Cuts and wrong decisions are to blame for that. | |||
"OK had a bit of time to think about what I should and shouldn't say so here goes... Yes I have some knowledge experience and training in what I write about. My knowledge is limited to small unit (troop and company) tactics in a commando unit but includes both conventional operations in what is now called symmetrical conflicts and anti insurgency asymmetrical operations both open and covert. My beliefs are born from this training and seeing what has been tried and has failed plus looking at history and seeing what has worked in the past in similar circumstances. It is obvious to me that at least one other person in this debate has knowledge of military theories, and you have given me much food for thought. Thank you. One or two seem to think I am proposing another shock an awe campaign such as those we have seen the Americans lead recently. It is a real shame that you have not read all my posts, if you had you would realise I propose nothing of the sort. Fact is just because something is called shock and awe does not make it so, unless the shock is one of 'is that it?' and the awe is one of disappointment at how ineffective the firework shows were. Shock and Awe would have been if there had been a blinding light and all life in Baghdad had ceased. Awe! would have been if at the exact same time there had been another 2 or 3 flashes and the much vaunted Republican Guard had all ceased to be. Instead of that we had a conventional war with lots of expensive and flashy US ordinance fired off in really quite unspectacular (relative to cost) firework shows. As for the cost in innocent lives argument, I would respectfully suggest that this is predicated on a fallacy. The fallacy being that use of atomic weapons can not be justified. I would suggest that failure to use atomic weapons costs lives and that the real weapons of mass destruction are those used daily in 'low level' conflicts all round the world. I would suggest that 2 or 3 big bangs in gulf 1, 2 or after 9/11 would have cost between 50 and 250,000 lives however not doing so has cost millions worldwide I would suggest." It is widely accepted that the use of atomic bombs in Japan at the end of ww2 did shorten the war and save many more lives than were lost in the grand scheme of things. However i still don't think dropping nuclear bombs in the middle east is the right solution to this ISIS problem. | |||
"OK had a bit of time to think about what I should and shouldn't say so here goes... Yes I have some knowledge experience and training in what I write about. My knowledge is limited to small unit (troop and company) tactics in a commando unit but includes both conventional operations in what is now called symmetrical conflicts and anti insurgency asymmetrical operations both open and covert. My beliefs are born from this training and seeing what has been tried and has failed plus looking at history and seeing what has worked in the past in similar circumstances. It is obvious to me that at least one other person in this debate has knowledge of military theories, and you have given me much food for thought. Thank you. One or two seem to think I am proposing another shock an awe campaign such as those we have seen the Americans lead recently. It is a real shame that you have not read all my posts, if you had you would realise I propose nothing of the sort. Fact is just because something is called shock and awe does not make it so, unless the shock is one of 'is that it?' and the awe is one of disappointment at how ineffective the firework shows were. Shock and Awe would have been if there had been a blinding light and all life in Baghdad had ceased. Awe! would have been if at the exact same time there had been another 2 or 3 flashes and the much vaunted Republican Guard had all ceased to be. Instead of that we had a conventional war with lots of expensive and flashy US ordinance fired off in really quite unspectacular (relative to cost) firework shows. As for the cost in innocent lives argument, I would respectfully suggest that this is predicated on a fallacy. The fallacy being that use of atomic weapons can not be justified. I would suggest that failure to use atomic weapons costs lives and that the real weapons of mass destruction are those used daily in 'low level' conflicts all round the world. I would suggest that 2 or 3 big bangs in gulf 1, 2 or after 9/11 would have cost between 50 and 250,000 lives however not doing so has cost millions worldwide I would suggest." Or bomb the shit out of Saudi and hit their source, maybe Washington next | |||
"OK had a bit of time to think about what I should and shouldn't say so here goes... Yes I have some knowledge experience and training in what I write about. My knowledge is limited to small unit (troop and company) tactics in a commando unit but includes both conventional operations in what is now called symmetrical conflicts and anti insurgency asymmetrical operations both open and covert. My beliefs are born from this training and seeing what has been tried and has failed plus looking at history and seeing what has worked in the past in similar circumstances. It is obvious to me that at least one other person in this debate has knowledge of military theories, and you have given me much food for thought. Thank you. One or two seem to think I am proposing another shock an awe campaign such as those we have seen the Americans lead recently. It is a real shame that you have not read all my posts, if you had you would realise I propose nothing of the sort. Fact is just because something is called shock and awe does not make it so, unless the shock is one of 'is that it?' and the awe is one of disappointment at how ineffective the firework shows were. Shock and Awe would have been if there had been a blinding light and all life in Baghdad had ceased. Awe! would have been if at the exact same time there had been another 2 or 3 flashes and the much vaunted Republican Guard had all ceased to be. Instead of that we had a conventional war with lots of expensive and flashy US ordinance fired off in really quite unspectacular (relative to cost) firework shows. As for the cost in innocent lives argument, I would respectfully suggest that this is predicated on a fallacy. The fallacy being that use of atomic weapons can not be justified. I would suggest that failure to use atomic weapons costs lives and that the real weapons of mass destruction are those used daily in 'low level' conflicts all round the world. I would suggest that 2 or 3 big bangs in gulf 1, 2 or after 9/11 would have cost between 50 and 250,000 lives however not doing so has cost millions worldwide I would suggest. It is widely accepted that the use of atomic bombs in Japan at the end of ww2 did shorten the war and save many more lives than were lost in the grand scheme of things. However i still don't think dropping nuclear bombs in the middle east is the right solution to this ISIS problem." As said before one or one hundred nukes will not and can not destroy an ideology. For every life taken by western powers there will be two to replace it. War, destruction and genocide are evils in this world that people will fight against with more war. | |||
| |||
"It is widely accepted that the use of atomic bombs in Japan at the end of ww2 did shorten the war and save many more lives than were lost in the grand scheme of things. However i still don't think dropping nuclear bombs in the middle east is the right solution to this ISIS problem." Why? We have tried appeasement, we have tried conventional methods, we have tried surgical strikes, none have worked. So why so opposed to the one method that has been proven too break the will to fight without actually totally defeating an enemy? May I suggest that it not the scale of blood-letting that is the problem but the idea that it is so vast and unavoidable for those in the blast range. (And of course that you have been told since 1945 that that weapon must not be used again. Have you thought who that benefits? I would suggest that the only ones that profit from the no use of atomic weapons are the arms dealers who make fortunes supplying all sides with the real weapons of mass destruction.) | |||
"I cannot get my head around why any civilised person would want to watch such a thing. "I agree fully just the thought of what those poor men went through it shocking enough bless them all and their families | |||
"As said before one or one hundred nukes will not and can not destroy an ideology. For every life taken by western powers there will be two to replace it. War, destruction and genocide are evils in this world that people will fight against with more war." Really? If that is the case why is everyone running away from ISIS? After all they are going into villages, towns and cities and killing everyone that resists them. By your argument for everyone they kill 2 should be rising up to resist them... | |||
"OK had a bit of time to think about what I should and shouldn't say so here goes... Yes I have some knowledge experience and training in what I write about. My knowledge is limited to small unit (troop and company) tactics in a commando unit but includes both conventional operations in what is now called symmetrical conflicts and anti insurgency asymmetrical operations both open and covert. My beliefs are born from this training and seeing what has been tried and has failed plus looking at history and seeing what has worked in the past in similar circumstances. It is obvious to me that at least one other person in this debate has knowledge of military theories, and you have given me much food for thought. Thank you. One or two seem to think I am proposing another shock an awe campaign such as those we have seen the Americans lead recently. It is a real shame that you have not read all my posts, if you had you would realise I propose nothing of the sort. Fact is just because something is called shock and awe does not make it so, unless the shock is one of 'is that it?' and the awe is one of disappointment at how ineffective the firework shows were. Shock and Awe would have been if there had been a blinding light and all life in Baghdad had ceased. Awe! would have been if at the exact same time there had been another 2 or 3 flashes and the much vaunted Republican Guard had all ceased to be. Instead of that we had a conventional war with lots of expensive and flashy US ordinance fired off in really quite unspectacular (relative to cost) firework shows. As for the cost in innocent lives argument, I would respectfully suggest that this is predicated on a fallacy. The fallacy being that use of atomic weapons can not be justified. I would suggest that failure to use atomic weapons costs lives and that the real weapons of mass destruction are those used daily in 'low level' conflicts all round the world. I would suggest that 2 or 3 big bangs in gulf 1, 2 or after 9/11 would have cost between 50 and 250,000 lives however not doing so has cost millions worldwide I would suggest." A well thought out post. Might i suggest that, while i completely agree with your assessment regarding the difference between true shock and awe and what others _iew this to be is a result of good ole 'w' having called it that. Its rather unsurprising that people with little experience of warfare would know the difference. Fundamentally, we disagree on what actions we feel would yield the best result in this conflict. I do take on board that you have experience of this in areas which i lack, yet i understand a fair degree. I tend you agree with the response centaur gave. I do, however, thank you for having given me a debate that i enjoyed and taking the time to share your point of _iew. You did so with honesty and respect and that is also appreciated. | |||
"It is widely accepted that the use of atomic bombs in Japan at the end of ww2 did shorten the war and save many more lives than were lost in the grand scheme of things. However i still don't think dropping nuclear bombs in the middle east is the right solution to this ISIS problem. Why? We have tried appeasement, we have tried conventional methods, we have tried surgical strikes, none have worked. So why so opposed to the one method that has been proven too break the will to fight without actually totally defeating an enemy? May I suggest that it not the scale of blood-letting that is the problem but the idea that it is so vast and unavoidable for those in the blast range. (And of course that you have been told since 1945 that that weapon must not be used again. Have you thought who that benefits? I would suggest that the only ones that profit from the no use of atomic weapons are the arms dealers who make fortunes supplying all sides with the real weapons of mass destruction.)" Well if it did come to a ww3 type situation dropping nukes maybe an option but we are a long way off from that yet. There now seems to be a coalition of arab muslim nations along with the USA forming to take on iSIS and destroy them, with help from countries all over the world. I think that seems to be a better option to take at this time militarily. | |||
"It is widely accepted that the use of atomic bombs in Japan at the end of ww2 did shorten the war and save many more lives than were lost in the grand scheme of things. However i still don't think dropping nuclear bombs in the middle east is the right solution to this ISIS problem. Why? We have tried appeasement, we have tried conventional methods, we have tried surgical strikes, none have worked. So why so opposed to the one method that has been proven too break the will to fight without actually totally defeating an enemy? May I suggest that it not the scale of blood-letting that is the problem but the idea that it is so vast and unavoidable for those in the blast range. (And of course that you have been told since 1945 that that weapon must not be used again. Have you thought who that benefits? I would suggest that the only ones that profit from the no use of atomic weapons are the arms dealers who make fortunes supplying all sides with the real weapons of mass destruction.) Well if it did come to a ww3 type situation dropping nukes maybe an option but we are a long way off from that yet. There now seems to be a coalition of arab muslim nations along with the USA forming to take on iSIS and destroy them, with help from countries all over the world. I think that seems to be a better option to take at this time militarily. " So those that funded them and armed them will fight them???
| |||
"As said before one or one hundred nukes will not and can not destroy an ideology. For every life taken by western powers there will be two to replace it. War, destruction and genocide are evils in this world that people will fight against with more war. Really? If that is the case why is everyone running away from ISIS? After all they are going into villages, towns and cities and killing everyone that resists them. By your argument for everyone they kill 2 should be rising up to resist them..." Not everyone is running at all they are fighting but without the organisation, that will change when the Americans put boots on the ground again, that is inevitable, millitary build up is inevitable the same old mistakes are inevitable. IS will merge into the background and it will all start again when western forces move out. You are talking about dedicated finatical forces, people like this don't get beaten so easily they are highly motivated like the NVA in Vietnam and like British forces in the Falklands. It's not always about equipment or training, motivation can be your biggest weapon. I am not anti millitary at all. Using nuclear weapons though would be pointless and only playing into IS hands. | |||
"I would also add: hopefully no one is stupid enough to go searching for these videos. However, if you do happen across one- DO NOT watch it. The police issued a statement after the Foley video saying that it is a criminal offence to _iew the material and you can be arrested for it as an act of terror. My god what a stupid law! Dont watch it, it might contaminate you! Under todays broadcast rules we would not be allowed watch footage from the trenches of the Great War, the films of the NAZI death camp and mass killings of Jews in the early years of the war would not be suitable for us to _iew, the news footage of the results of US excess in Vietnam would all be censored! The only reason for such a rule is to stop us seeing the reality of what is happening! We are treated as mushrooms, kept in the dark and fed on shit! Its nice being a mushroom the world is cool and pleasant right up to the point someone picks you for the pan! Hello my fellow mushrooms! "Nar I think there more to this like Hitler fighter in 1st world war against Germany hold on he was Austrian, after 1st world war he went in to hiding not abroad here with his family in Liverpool. His wifes dna was Jewish so he cudnt of hated them.that bad could he he married one. Like all things I belive there cover ups that we kept in.the dark about like Iraq we went to war that's actually not true we were still there after the Faulkland the sas went in as we pulled out so we never actually left the middle east. Another point some say it was an.illegal war Iraq at this time we got into so much depth Blair to blame etc. Do you know buy law it illegal to fund a country in an illegal war money gets put in bonds etc so the country has to borrow etc. Hence weapon cuts etc. I know it going off subject a bit but the government. And USA have to take some part of the blame for this themselves. We're paying for USA actions as the video states we follow Obama then more come to us. Just my opinion an mu heart goes out to the family of victims. And soldiers. That are fighting in the field today, trying to keep our safe for the next generation. | |||
"This has nothing to do with religion nor politics, these people are just pure fucking evil. I say napalm the whole fucking area fight evil with evil But there are innocent people, children, living amongst them, the cure isn't that easy, I have no idea what the cure is but if we start a war with them mankind has the power to blow the bloody earth out the sky
collateral damage"Sorry but I couldn't disagree more! An innocent is an innocent - whatever the race, creed, colour, religion, sex or - in this case - age - as women and children seem inevitably to be the principal victims of said 'collateral damage!' There is never justification for taking innocent lives - and all that would do would be to strengthen IS's cause in surrounding areas! I don't know what the answer is - other than continuing in our efforts to promote health projects, education and humanitarian enlightenment in the Middle East. And yes - I am a realist - and I know that if this DOES ever work - it, regrettably, probably won't be in my lifetime!! | |||
"It is widely accepted that the use of atomic bombs in Japan at the end of ww2 did shorten the war and save many more lives than were lost in the grand scheme of things. However i still don't think dropping nuclear bombs in the middle east is the right solution to this ISIS problem. Why? We have tried appeasement, we have tried conventional methods, we have tried surgical strikes, none have worked. So why so opposed to the one method that has been proven too break the will to fight without actually totally defeating an enemy? May I suggest that it not the scale of blood-letting that is the problem but the idea that it is so vast and unavoidable for those in the blast range. (And of course that you have been told since 1945 that that weapon must not be used again. Have you thought who that benefits? I would suggest that the only ones that profit from the no use of atomic weapons are the arms dealers who make fortunes supplying all sides with the real weapons of mass destruction.) Well if it did come to a ww3 type situation dropping nukes maybe an option but we are a long way off from that yet. There now seems to be a coalition of arab muslim nations along with the USA forming to take on iSIS and destroy them, with help from countries all over the world. I think that seems to be a better option to take at this time militarily. So those that funded them and armed them will fight them???
"Have you watched any of the news channels today? American John Kerry forming a coalition amongst arab muslim nations to take on Isis ring any bells? Iraq, Iran, Syria, Jordan, possibly Saudi arabia? Isis are slaughtering muslims so it is as much of a problem to them as it is us in the west. | |||
"It is widely accepted that the use of atomic bombs in Japan at the end of ww2 did shorten the war and save many more lives than were lost in the grand scheme of things. However i still don't think dropping nuclear bombs in the middle east is the right solution to this ISIS problem. Why? We have tried appeasement, we have tried conventional methods, we have tried surgical strikes, none have worked. So why so opposed to the one method that has been proven too break the will to fight without actually totally defeating an enemy? May I suggest that it not the scale of blood-letting that is the problem but the idea that it is so vast and unavoidable for those in the blast range. (And of course that you have been told since 1945 that that weapon must not be used again. Have you thought who that benefits? I would suggest that the only ones that profit from the no use of atomic weapons are the arms dealers who make fortunes supplying all sides with the real weapons of mass destruction.) Well if it did come to a ww3 type situation dropping nukes maybe an option but we are a long way off from that yet. There now seems to be a coalition of arab muslim nations along with the USA forming to take on iSIS and destroy them, with help from countries all over the world. I think that seems to be a better option to take at this time militarily. So those that funded them and armed them will fight them???
Have you watched any of the news channels today? American John Kerry forming a coalition amongst arab muslim nations to take on Isis ring any bells? Iraq, Iran, Syria, Jordan, possibly Saudi arabia?
Isis are slaughtering muslims so it is as much of a problem to them as it is us in the west. "This would be the same John Kerry that was photographed with the IS leaders not so long back. But seriously though this is what's needed Arab states looking after each other. | |||
"It is widely accepted that the use of atomic bombs in Japan at the end of ww2 did shorten the war and save many more lives than were lost in the grand scheme of things. However i still don't think dropping nuclear bombs in the middle east is the right solution to this ISIS problem. Why? We have tried appeasement, we have tried conventional methods, we have tried surgical strikes, none have worked. So why so opposed to the one method that has been proven too break the will to fight without actually totally defeating an enemy? May I suggest that it not the scale of blood-letting that is the problem but the idea that it is so vast and unavoidable for those in the blast range. (And of course that you have been told since 1945 that that weapon must not be used again. Have you thought who that benefits? I would suggest that the only ones that profit from the no use of atomic weapons are the arms dealers who make fortunes supplying all sides with the real weapons of mass destruction.) Well if it did come to a ww3 type situation dropping nukes maybe an option but we are a long way off from that yet. There now seems to be a coalition of arab muslim nations along with the USA forming to take on iSIS and destroy them, with help from countries all over the world. I think that seems to be a better option to take at this time militarily. So those that funded them and armed them will fight them???
Have you watched any of the news channels today? American John Kerry forming a coalition amongst arab muslim nations to take on Isis ring any bells? Iraq, Iran, Syria, Jordan, possibly Saudi arabia?
Isis are slaughtering muslims so it is as much of a problem to them as it is us in the west. "ISIS use religion to justify their actions. A bit like Alqaeeda, Taliban IDF, IRA etc etc. The news channels you mention stir the pot, add some spin and spice and drip feed it to the masses. All major religions preach peace. Human greed and love for money and power are the cause of evil. Like toysareus said above if you want peace in Middle East bomb Saudis first. Then Washington. You need to understand Wahabism to know how religion is manipulated and how cherry picked out of context quotes are misinterpreted to the gullible. Its a bit like how you believe everything on the news channels is gospel 'cuz they are British innit'. World is in a mess because of human greed and religion is used to divert attention. And war makes money for the corporations while taxpayers pays for it. Remember, Jesus loves you. Not too sure about your government.  | |||
"It is widely accepted that the use of atomic bombs in Japan at the end of ww2 did shorten the war and save many more lives than were lost in the grand scheme of things. However i still don't think dropping nuclear bombs in the middle east is the right solution to this ISIS problem. Why? We have tried appeasement, we have tried conventional methods, we have tried surgical strikes, none have worked. So why so opposed to the one method that has been proven too break the will to fight without actually totally defeating an enemy? May I suggest that it not the scale of blood-letting that is the problem but the idea that it is so vast and unavoidable for those in the blast range. (And of course that you have been told since 1945 that that weapon must not be used again. Have you thought who that benefits? I would suggest that the only ones that profit from the no use of atomic weapons are the arms dealers who make fortunes supplying all sides with the real weapons of mass destruction.) Well if it did come to a ww3 type situation dropping nukes maybe an option but we are a long way off from that yet. There now seems to be a coalition of arab muslim nations along with the USA forming to take on iSIS and destroy them, with help from countries all over the world. I think that seems to be a better option to take at this time militarily. So those that funded them and armed them will fight them???
Have you watched any of the news channels today? American John Kerry forming a coalition amongst arab muslim nations to take on Isis ring any bells? Iraq, Iran, Syria, Jordan, possibly Saudi arabia?
Isis are slaughtering muslims so it is as much of a problem to them as it is us in the west.
ISIS use religion to justify their actions. A bit like Alqaeeda, Taliban IDF, IRA etc etc. The news channels you mention stir the pot, add some spin and spice and drip feed it to the masses.
All major religions preach peace. Human greed and love for money and power are the cause of evil. Like toysareus said above if you want peace in Middle East bomb Saudis first. Then Washington. You need to understand Wahabism to know how religion is manipulated and how cherry picked out of context quotes are misinterpreted to the gullible. Its a bit like how you believe everything on the news channels is gospel 'cuz they are British innit'.
World is in a mess because of human greed and religion is used to divert attention. And war makes money for the corporations while taxpayers pays for it.
Remember, Jesus loves you. Not too sure about your government. "I don't believe everything i see/hear on the news channels, and i've put it on record on these forums many times that i think the bbc news coverage is bias. However in this case its hard to dismiss video of John Kerry sitting around a table with other arab/muslim leaders out of hand. He's certainly not there to talk about the weather! | |||
"does the apparent beheading of the british hostage david haines may you think differently about ISIS... and what you would be prepared to support in the way of any military action against them..." It hasn't changed my opinion at all - I already thought they were evil thugs and this only adds to the evidence. As to military action, anything necessary. | |||
