Very true
ISIS...Islamic State Victims
- Thread starter harry
- Start date
Very true
That would be my read.
I think it's unlikely that there aren't a few sleepers lying around in the UK with 'ready to go' targets should we decide to join battle.
ISIL have started to lose territory in the last month since the Russians got involved in Syria (not massive amounts so far as I can gather, but they are losing ground). This also means having to divert manpower from other fronts and weakens them elsewhere.
They don't actually enjoy much strategic advantage. They're basically surrounded, they don't have any major ports or air routes which means their supplies have to come through a series of easily identifiable highways. Earlier this week the Syrian army cut off the south Aleppo road. In addition they don't have significant war producing industries to arm themselves. They'll start using up ammunition faster than they can get it sooner or later. The bottom line here is they could have been defeated four years ago if we'd prioritised them
As regards killing off the caliphate; yes it's essential but it would equally be a mistake to do a George Bush and start announcing 'mission complete' once you've done so. Ideally you want other nations of the region to deliver this defeat and that means the Syrian and Iraqi governments to regain their territory. Doing it this way round dilutes the impact of the infidel and makes it much harder to play that card
Your U posts are as poor as greys
cant you read? And don't attribute opinions to me that I have never once stated
to state it has nothing to do with a religion which so frequently has and does preach hostility on a different scale to even the most extreme wings of other faiths is simply lauagbable. Look right around religious based terrorism around the world and tell me the common factor
also just like the insidious use of "racist" to shout down any criticsm of islamism you immediately suggest that the belief is that the next step is "kicking them out
who said that?
why do we have to waste so much time on this thread asking the likes of yourself , the northern depressive and grey to back up your thick headed lazy statements
EC1
On a break
this is the type of person that should be got rid of..and others like him..these are our enemy within
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/614978/Muslims-told-shun-poppy-British-Islamic-State-ISIS-supporter
whilst we let such as him stay here whilst some happily blame all muslims..we will never be free of this
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/614978/Muslims-told-shun-poppy-British-Islamic-State-ISIS-supporter
whilst we let such as him stay here whilst some happily blame all muslims..we will never be free of this
EC1
On a break
can't be bothered with it..waste of lfe posting
Last edited:
Can you please explain where he has said that is the solution
its the juvenile third form aspect to these forums that posters have to flatter themselves that they have solutions. Frankly I for one do not believe for a minute that "resolving" the caliphate will make any difference at all. As ice rightly says there is no sweeping answer
I'd say there's some truth in this, but wouldn't like to rely on it completely.
EC called them cowardly. I'm not so sure that's completely true. The more cowardly action is that perpetrated by the Madrid bombers, those who furtively plant a device, remove themselves from the scene, and try and escape. These guys have pretty well done the deal with their belief that they're on a one way street, and know they aren't going to see the day out themselves. Let's not forget that the French security services only seem to have accounted for one of the eight. To my mind at least, that puts them on a level above the disaffected psycho looking for an outlet. There is an issue of how many of them exist though, and given that they seem to embrace martyrdom, we might at least draw some consolation from the thought that they only strike once.
In order to sustain their war on this basis, they need to be replenishing, which means recruiting in Europe, once the supply line from the middle east dries up (not that I think it will incidentally). The best we can possibly hope for is some kind of managed chaos. I would imagine their job of recruiting is going to be made a whole lot easier however if the west takes the lead in crushing the calliphate. The danger I see with my approach however is whether it starts to flame a wider Shia / Sunni conflict
Coincidence, now that more details have emerged. Engineering test run gone wrong
Furthermore, wouldn't destruction of ISIL 'hq' significantly reduce the number of those responsible for brainwashing the types they love to prey on - the disaffected, dim, weak, impressionable and easily-led - into becoming converts to their warped cause.
Youth has many pleasant attributes but naiivety isn't one of them and yer average unsettled directionless wild-child does tend to form his or her heroes, role models and false gods rather too easily
No surprise there then. What a mess it all is
Poor old France, what a dreadful twentyfour hours. Normally seven dead and many injured in a train crash would be headline news and Monsieur Hollande would be winging his way to the scene...a tad busy elsewhere this time
After the tactless and repellent article fretting about French muslims, written whilst the victims were being lined up and shot one by one, the sister paper to the dirty guardian and it's a paper with values,mpublishes this really fine piece
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/14/after-paris-attacks-europe-never-same-terrorism
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/14/after-paris-attacks-europe-never-same-terrorism
Last edited:
icebreaker
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,957
What a ridiculous article !
Has the writer been fast asleep for the last 14years?
I stopped reading at this sentence:
"Since al-Qaida’s assault on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001, the most striking feature of Islamist terrorism in Europe is how little of it there has been".
Err, what about Madrid, London 2005, Charlie Hebdo, Theo van Gogh, and last night in Paris?
If you stopped reading at that sentence they you've completely missed the point. Yourself and clivex have gone over the edge.
You'll need to take that up with Clive, he's been arguing that exact point for a couple of years now. Indeed, he used to routinely use against my doomongering predictions of war coming to our streets, our army being at full stretch just to defend our home front, and the ultimate creation of some type of armed civilian corps, which I see as the natural roll out of this.
The French have sort of declared war (the significance of which isn't seemingly lost in the US it seems) I don't think it's at all unreasonable for a journalist to ask what the implications for our future society are going to be with a potential enemy living amongst us
I would have thought one of the first things that needs revisiting though is western foreign policy towards Syria. No media commentator has said it yet, but surely the idea of trying to sell the notion that all this is down to Bashar Assad is falling apart by the day now. People aren't completely stupid. They see someone who has more to lose than anyone by the advance of ISIL (his life) actively trying to fight them, and at the same time our own governments are trying to stop him! It's an undefendable line. They don't see Assad shooting up French civilians, they see ISIL doing it. You can't blame them if more and more are turning around and starting to belatedly realise they've been sold a pig in a poke and we've been targetting the wrong enemy. If the French really believed he is the cause, (now that they've finally dared to use the word that every other politician has ducked) they'd be bombing Damascus half way through the middle of next week wouldn't they? So why won't they?
Incidentally, I kind of use an American fora for other things, 90% of which is Republican. Clive would look quite typcial in amongst at least two thirds of them by way of views expressed. Without going over the complete content of their discussions, and also recognising the limitations of this snapshot of opinion, a few of the things they're saying (and agreeing on) are the following
The liberal governments of Europe who deny their civilians the right to defend themselves have to carry some blame! (wouldn't happen in Texas, we shoot back).
They also blame Obama (as they do for anything and everything).
They've even developed some belated grudging admiration for the French, although they're largely of the view that they thought it would take something more than this to stir them into waking up.
One of the things that they're saying now is that they're happy to fight alongside the Russians (cue the paralells with 1942-45) and even the Iranians and Assad to get rid of this lot.
The mood is changing, and the political classes are behind the curve again and actually exposing us to unnecessary danger with their poor judgement and ill thought out behaviours.
The French have sort of declared war (the significance of which isn't seemingly lost in the US it seems) I don't think it's at all unreasonable for a journalist to ask what the implications for our future society are going to be with a potential enemy living amongst us
I would have thought one of the first things that needs revisiting though is western foreign policy towards Syria. No media commentator has said it yet, but surely the idea of trying to sell the notion that all this is down to Bashar Assad is falling apart by the day now. People aren't completely stupid. They see someone who has more to lose than anyone by the advance of ISIL (his life) actively trying to fight them, and at the same time our own governments are trying to stop him! It's an undefendable line. They don't see Assad shooting up French civilians, they see ISIL doing it. You can't blame them if more and more are turning around and starting to belatedly realise they've been sold a pig in a poke and we've been targetting the wrong enemy. If the French really believed he is the cause, (now that they've finally dared to use the word that every other politician has ducked) they'd be bombing Damascus half way through the middle of next week wouldn't they? So why won't they?
Incidentally, I kind of use an American fora for other things, 90% of which is Republican. Clive would look quite typcial in amongst at least two thirds of them by way of views expressed. Without going over the complete content of their discussions, and also recognising the limitations of this snapshot of opinion, a few of the things they're saying (and agreeing on) are the following
The liberal governments of Europe who deny their civilians the right to defend themselves have to carry some blame! (wouldn't happen in Texas, we shoot back).
They also blame Obama (as they do for anything and everything).
They've even developed some belated grudging admiration for the French, although they're largely of the view that they thought it would take something more than this to stir them into waking up.
One of the things that they're saying now is that they're happy to fight alongside the Russians (cue the paralells with 1942-45) and even the Iranians and Assad to get rid of this lot.
The mood is changing, and the political classes are behind the curve again and actually exposing us to unnecessary danger with their poor judgement and ill thought out behaviours.
Last edited:
Just as a matter of interest, one of the earliest things Cameron did was sign some bi-lateral agreement with Sarkozy concerning mutual defence (we're supposed to be able to use their aircraft carrier until such time as we build our own and get planes capable of flying off it, amongst other things). Now I don't suppose for one second that should Argentina invade the Falklands that the French would honour this, but does their quasi declaration of war now mean they're we're sucked in under this entente?
It also occurs to me of course that as the EU starts panicking in the wake of Angela Merkel's Jihadi's recruitment drive to try and get herself some cheap labour, that Cameron's negotiating position strengthens. A European defence force will have to be back on the agenda soon, and frankly when you look around at what's available within the EU, some of their military is little more than local gun clubs
It also occurs to me of course that as the EU starts panicking in the wake of Angela Merkel's Jihadi's recruitment drive to try and get herself some cheap labour, that Cameron's negotiating position strengthens. A European defence force will have to be back on the agenda soon, and frankly when you look around at what's available within the EU, some of their military is little more than local gun clubs
Last edited: