Org Mobile Site
Thread: ISIS on the offensive in Iraq
Originally Posted by Husar:
I think I get it now. The fulfilment of the prophecy has turned you into an ISIS follower and this whole anti-islam persona is just your taqqiya disguise!
yeahyeah, redicule is so boring because it's so very very normal. It's not clever, it's boringI think I get it now. The fulfilment of the prophecy has turned you into an ISIS follower and this whole anti-islam persona is just your taqqiya disguise!
Damn, these savages are bound to destroy it
A good comparative perspective on the IS. Clears possibly some of the myths surrounding it and laying the base for a less hysteric analysis.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...nl_cage&wpmm=1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...nl_cage&wpmm=1
Somebody please stuff his pipe and gently escort him to his library, geez
Originally Posted by Crandar:
An interesting reading about the "Caliphate's" internal structure.
Gat dam, that's one of the best pieces I've read on anything in a while.An interesting reading about the "Caliphate's" internal structure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfZ7...utu.be&t=1m21s
Apparently ISIS says it won't bulldoze the ruins of Palmyra. Thank goodness.
Apparently ISIS says it won't bulldoze the ruins of Palmyra. Thank goodness.
"A good comparative perspective on the IS. Clears possibly some of the myths surrounding it and laying the base for a less hysteric analysis." Good exemplar on how some succeed to normalise the ab-normal... Well done them, the keep the bakeries running after burning people alive... The Nazi did succeed in doing this absolutely amazing things as well, you know, tunneling under the mountains thanks to slavery and death camps...
Hey, IS is selling slaves, perhaps it is just good human resources management for some newspapers...
Hey, IS is selling slaves, perhaps it is just good human resources management for some newspapers...
Israel is supposed to hold a neutral stance concerning the Syrian Civil War, enjoying the fact that the Iranians and their allies are busy fighting the salafists.
Or maybe not, because it is hardly a coincidence that one of the rebels' strongholds is located near the illegally occupied by Israel Golan Heights.
Some say that the salafists use the occupied land to perform military manoeuvres, while Israel also provides them logistical support. After all, even Israel admits that injured Syrians, with rather long beards are admitted to her hospitals.
Well, Al-Nusra started an offensive against the pro-Assad Druze of Syria, resulting in a massacre of some Syrian citizens and the death of three terrorists, which was ended after an intervention of Israel, that tried to solve the misunderstanding.
An ambulance transporting some wounded Syrians was stopped by local Druze of Israel, who had its drivers, members of the IDF beaten, and its occupants lynched. Well, they had it coming, in my opinion...
http://www.timesofisrael.com/several...rying-syrians/
Or maybe not, because it is hardly a coincidence that one of the rebels' strongholds is located near the illegally occupied by Israel Golan Heights.
Some say that the salafists use the occupied land to perform military manoeuvres, while Israel also provides them logistical support. After all, even Israel admits that injured Syrians, with rather long beards are admitted to her hospitals.
Well, Al-Nusra started an offensive against the pro-Assad Druze of Syria, resulting in a massacre of some Syrian citizens and the death of three terrorists, which was ended after an intervention of Israel, that tried to solve the misunderstanding.
An ambulance transporting some wounded Syrians was stopped by local Druze of Israel, who had its drivers, members of the IDF beaten, and its occupants lynched. Well, they had it coming, in my opinion...
http://www.timesofisrael.com/several...rying-syrians/
The "blame game" has branched into fantasy:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...-for-iraq-isis
Of course we knew this was all Clinton's fault all along...
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...-for-iraq-isis
Of course we knew this was all Clinton's fault all along...
http://news.yahoo.com/u-woman-hostag...214409079.html
I want to see a successful rescue for a change.
I want to see a successful rescue for a change.
I found an article on the BBC that goes into more detail about the Turkey-Kurd-ISIS situation I was talking about: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33690060
Here's a good map on the current situation in Syria/Iraq: https://twitter.com/LCarabinier/stat...51713509937152
And an interesting article on how ISIS' rise isn't mysterious and they've actually been very adept at using standard guerilla tactics: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...is-no-mystery/
And an interesting article on how ISIS' rise isn't mysterious and they've actually been very adept at using standard guerilla tactics: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...is-no-mystery/
Originally Posted by Shaka_Khan:
http://news.yahoo.com/u-woman-hostag...214409079.html
I want to see a successful rescue for a change.
The UAE managed to rescue a British man recently.http://news.yahoo.com/u-woman-hostag...214409079.html
I want to see a successful rescue for a change.
Most American and British hostages are murdered because out governments refuse to pay, so unless your family are rich enough to be able to bypass the government you're better off fighting as hard as you can if they try to take you, hope you either get away or they end up shooting you dead because otherwise it's a couple of years on death row and a beheading.
On the other hand, if you're German or French you'll get released after your government pays.
That British man was rescued in Yemen, he's now in the UAE.
I hate to admit it but I'm fairly certain that the UAE and the kingdom are in a tactical alliance with AQAP. Embarrassingly obvious. There is no way they could've deployed in Aden if this wasn't the case.
I hate to admit it but I'm fairly certain that the UAE and the kingdom are in a tactical alliance with AQAP. Embarrassingly obvious. There is no way they could've deployed in Aden if this wasn't the case.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
The UAE managed to rescue a British man recently.
Most American and British hostages are murdered because out governments refuse to pay, so unless your family are rich enough to be able to bypass the government you're better off fighting as hard as you can if they try to take you, hope you either get away or they end up shooting you dead because otherwise it's a couple of years on death row and a beheading.
On the other hand, if you're German or French you'll get released after your government pays.
Governments should try to rescue hostages and at the very least mean that there are a lot less of those who were guarding them even if the hostages get killed in the rescue.The UAE managed to rescue a British man recently.
Most American and British hostages are murdered because out governments refuse to pay, so unless your family are rich enough to be able to bypass the government you're better off fighting as hard as you can if they try to take you, hope you either get away or they end up shooting you dead because otherwise it's a couple of years on death row and a beheading.
On the other hand, if you're German or French you'll get released after your government pays.
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
Governments should try to rescue hostages and at the very least mean that there are a lot less of those who were guarding them even if the hostages get killed in the rescue.
That is the view of the UK and the US - other countries prefer their people alive.Governments should try to rescue hostages and at the very least mean that there are a lot less of those who were guarding them even if the hostages get killed in the rescue.
I suppose it depends on what you want in the world.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
That is the view of the UK and the US - other countries prefer their people alive.
I suppose it depends on what you want in the world.
I would rather that taking hostages is basically a variant of suicide as opposed to opening a bank account.That is the view of the UK and the US - other countries prefer their people alive.
I suppose it depends on what you want in the world.
All these ISIS fellows need is death. Bloody lot of them.
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
I would rather that taking hostages is basically a variant of suicide as opposed to opening a bank account.
Even if your child were the hostage? Couldn't they pay them and then blow them up? And how do you conduct a raid there with hardly any presence in the area or if they are held in a city full of enemy fighters? What if you end up with more hostages?I would rather that taking hostages is basically a variant of suicide as opposed to opening a bank account.
Originally Posted by Husar:
Even if your child were the hostage? Couldn't they pay them and then blow them up? And how do you conduct a raid there with hardly any presence in the area or if they are held in a city full of enemy fighters? What if you end up with more hostages?
Running a society with the rules as if they were your own child is nonsensical. We get this a lot with massively expensive medical treatments that extend life for a month or so - fine if it's your child but ruinous to the whole system.Even if your child were the hostage? Couldn't they pay them and then blow them up? And how do you conduct a raid there with hardly any presence in the area or if they are held in a city full of enemy fighters? What if you end up with more hostages?
I doubt that it is easy and sometimes yes it would be impossible. Hostages is always an issue when using any form of armed force that isn't a drone. But it should be the first option to rule out rather than a last resort. Barring fanatics who are doing it for their own internal reasons, those who are doing it to get money to finance their activities would soon look elsewhere.
Originally Posted by Husar:
Even if your child were the hostage? Couldn't they pay them and then blow them up? And how do you conduct a raid there with hardly any presence in the area or if they are held in a city full of enemy fighters? What if you end up with more hostages?
All excellent points.Even if your child were the hostage? Couldn't they pay them and then blow them up? And how do you conduct a raid there with hardly any presence in the area or if they are held in a city full of enemy fighters? What if you end up with more hostages?
It comes down to this - pay for the release of your child and the hostage-takers will take five more people because EVERYBODY is someone's child.
Were it my child I'd kill whoever was in my way to get them back because every one I kill is one less hostage-taker, but I wouldn't pay an enable them to take more hostages.
If I refuse to pay and they murder my child I am not responsible - if I pay and they take five more people because of that I AM responsible.
That's not to say I wouldn't scream and curse and cry and gnash my teach and tear the hair from my head - but it's not a difficult choice to make, morally speaking, just a hard one to live with.
So we should basically put boots on the ground as soon as ISIS take a hostage?
I mean if they hold someone somewhere in a big city in the middle of their territory, how are you going to shoot everyone in the way without basically sending the entire army? Or will you just bomb them? They are already getting bombed, so what should be changed then?
And that you would not feel guilty if you did just do nothing about your child having been kidnapped seems a bit optimistic.
And if we're talking about Yemen instead of ISIS, the UAE have deployed their army there, including their Leclerc tanks, o that wouldn't just seem to be a small rescue operation.
IIRC the US tried a big rescue operation on foreign soil once and even the Great Empire couldn't quite make that a huge success.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw
I don't think that would be the kind of operation that discourages further hostage taking so in such situations one may be left with just doing nothing....which is then interpreted as political weakness and lack of decisiveness/action etc.
I mean if they hold someone somewhere in a big city in the middle of their territory, how are you going to shoot everyone in the way without basically sending the entire army? Or will you just bomb them? They are already getting bombed, so what should be changed then?
And that you would not feel guilty if you did just do nothing about your child having been kidnapped seems a bit optimistic.
And if we're talking about Yemen instead of ISIS, the UAE have deployed their army there, including their Leclerc tanks, o that wouldn't just seem to be a small rescue operation.
IIRC the US tried a big rescue operation on foreign soil once and even the Great Empire couldn't quite make that a huge success.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw
I don't think that would be the kind of operation that discourages further hostage taking so in such situations one may be left with just doing nothing....which is then interpreted as political weakness and lack of decisiveness/action etc.
We should tell everyone that they travel to the middle east at their own risk, and that their government will not hold themselves responsible for anything that happens while they're out there. That includes aid agencies, and everyone who isn't there with government sanction and protection. It will mean that these countries will go to 
for want of help, but that's fine by me. I'd couple that with the declaration that, if anyone does travel there of their own accord, the British government reserves the right to strip them of their UK citizenship. I'd like us to have as little to do with that hellhole as possible, and to make any travelling there a one way affair.
for want of help, but that's fine by me. I'd couple that with the declaration that, if anyone does travel there of their own accord, the British government reserves the right to strip them of their UK citizenship. I'd like us to have as little to do with that hellhole as possible, and to make any travelling there a one way affair.Originally Posted by Husar:
So we should basically put boots on the ground as soon as ISIS take a hostage?
That's not what I said, though it often is what the US and UK do, covertly.So we should basically put boots on the ground as soon as ISIS take a hostage?
Originally Posted by :
I mean if they hold someone somewhere in a big city in the middle of their territory, how are you going to shoot everyone in the way without basically sending the entire army? Or will you just bomb them? They are already getting bombed, so what should be changed then?
I was speaking personally, and I said kill and not shoot. I would personally kill everyone between me and my child, if I could.I mean if they hold someone somewhere in a big city in the middle of their territory, how are you going to shoot everyone in the way without basically sending the entire army? Or will you just bomb them? They are already getting bombed, so what should be changed then?
Originally Posted by :
And that you would not feel guilty if you did just do nothing about your child having been kidnapped seems a bit optimistic.
I said "That's not to say I wouldn't cream and curse and cry and gnash my teach and tear the hair from my head - but it's not a difficult choice to make, morally speaking, just a hard one to live with."And that you would not feel guilty if you did just do nothing about your child having been kidnapped seems a bit optimistic.
So maybe you should take the time to read my posts rather than going off half cocked.
Originally Posted by :
And if we're talking about Yemen instead of ISIS, the UAE have deployed their army there, including their Leclerc tanks, o that wouldn't just seem to be a small rescue operation.
IIRC the US tried a big rescue operation on foreign soil once and even the Great Empire couldn't quite make that a huge success.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw
I don't think that would be the kind of operation that discourages further hostage taking so in such situations one may be left with just doing nothing....which is then interpreted as political weakness and lack of decisiveness/action etc.
The fundamental point is that you can't fund your terrorism against the US or UK by kidnapping the countries' citizens.And if we're talking about Yemen instead of ISIS, the UAE have deployed their army there, including their Leclerc tanks, o that wouldn't just seem to be a small rescue operation.
IIRC the US tried a big rescue operation on foreign soil once and even the Great Empire couldn't quite make that a huge success.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw
I don't think that would be the kind of operation that discourages further hostage taking so in such situations one may be left with just doing nothing....which is then interpreted as political weakness and lack of decisiveness/action etc.
Originally Posted by :
If I refuse to pay and they murder my child I am not responsible
By your logic you would be responsible - but you would also be absolved through "taking the hit".If I refuse to pay and they murder my child I am not responsible
Originally Posted by Husar:
And if we're talking about Yemen instead of ISIS, the UAE have deployed their army there, including their Leclerc tanks, o that wouldn't just seem to be a small rescue operation.
In reality that was to secure the mina of Aden. The government would not risk putting inexperienced Emirati boots on the ground over a British guy. That war is all about Aden port in the first place (for the UAE at least), if they wanted Saleh or the Houthis they would've bombed Saada or Sanaa.And if we're talking about Yemen instead of ISIS, the UAE have deployed their army there, including their Leclerc tanks, o that wouldn't just seem to be a small rescue operation.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
I was speaking personally, and I said kill and not shoot. I would personally kill everyone between me and my child, if I could.
I didn't read it that way because you personally going to the middle east and shooting everybody you can to rescue your child sounds like a Rambo movie plot, but I accept your explanation.I was speaking personally, and I said kill and not shoot. I would personally kill everyone between me and my child, if I could.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
I said "That's not to say I wouldn't cream and curse and cry and gnash my teach and tear the hair from my head - but it's not a difficult choice to make, morally speaking, just a hard one to live with."
I see, that wasn't obvious to me from the short one-liner however, it sounded a bit cold.I said "That's not to say I wouldn't cream and curse and cry and gnash my teach and tear the hair from my head - but it's not a difficult choice to make, morally speaking, just a hard one to live with."
It's also not necessarily a given that paying ransom for your child puts others into danger, with a rescue operation you immediately put the entire rescue team into danger, which is not to say that I am always against rescue operations, it depends on the situation. The German government has special forces for these purposes as well, it just seems to be more restrictive in their use.
I think what Pannonian says, to simply say certain regions are off limits and the government won't get you out if you go there is reasonable though. I would assume it is already the case for quite a few cases though. If a german citizen fights for ISIS and gets kidnapped by Al Queda it would be strange if Merkel paid for the release.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
So maybe you should take the time to read my posts rather than going off half cocked.
I did read it, as I said, some things did not come across as intended apparently.So maybe you should take the time to read my posts rather than going off half cocked.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
The fundamental point is that you can't fund your terrorism against the US or UK by kidnapping the countries' citizens.
Yes, as above, I would try not to get citizens kidnapped or tell them right away that certain regions are only accessible at their own risk as Pannonian suggests.The fundamental point is that you can't fund your terrorism against the US or UK by kidnapping the countries' citizens.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO