Please will someone explain to me why we (the free world) are not stamping hard on IS

I'll admit that for some things (i.e. anything not engineering related) I have a very short attention span.

Now, will someone please do me a favour and in one short to middle length paragraph tell me why nobody from the West is currently kicking the absolute crap out of ISIS?

The politicians seem to be debating it still, when in my (probably very uninformed and ignorant) opinion we should have gone in when they kicked off. Wasn't the UN set up to counter genuine evil like this? To get Godwin's Law out of the way, I see ISIS as a similar threat the Nazis represented years ago. We are not talking about people who are fighting for freedom or resources*, we are talking about an enemy who is trying to force their awful way of life upon those who don't want it.

I'm aware that if I feel like this, I should probably do something about it, but I'm not a trained soldier. Those people who have gone to fight against these vile 'people' have my utmost respect.

One thing that irritated me last week was the fact that David Cameron had to face questions over the use of drones to take out two 'British citizens' who had joined ISIS. Why was he facing questions? This is about the only good thing he has done in his career.

This is the bit where I bang on about not being a racist. Well I'm f**king not. I see ISIS as a bunch of idiots who have got completely the wrong end of the stick when it comes to the teachings of Islam.

*Well, okay, they're trying to expand their influence by capturing resources.

 

why have we gone from being an angry world after 9/11 - to `oops cant offend muslims` 14 years later?

 

Because invading countries that we have essentially no shared cultural or ideological principles with always goes so well... People should read machiavelli and what he said about invading countries like that, applying our principles to them just won't work.

I'd much rather we spent all the money we have on these wars on science / education / health going to Mars etc rather than killing others and destabilising entire regions.

 

Yeah, especially considering that our little temper tantrum in the Middle East has been working out so well for us.

Why are we not stamping hard on ISIS? I refer you to my post here for the answer.

 

The actions of any leader should always be subject to scrutiny and examination. The leader should always be able to defend their action from such scrutiny. It is important to verify leaders are operating within the laws of the society over which they govern and that their decisions are based on sound reason and not emotion fueled knee jerking.

I've no doubt the questions and scrutiny are part of political plays. Their own motives also need to be assessed. However, the questions do serve a purpose other than someones own political advantage.

 

OK, missed this one. What has basically happened here, is that the government executed two criminal suspects without trial in open court. It's kind of like popping eight bullets in Jean-Charles deMenezes' head because he looked a bit suspect as he was heading for the Tube, but as a deliberate policy rather than a surveillance ****-up. Does that feel comfy to you? Because it doesn't to me.

So while I don't cry tears over killing a few UK ISIS combatants, I do think that there should be a scrutiny of this process to make sure it is not applied carelessly and indiscriminately.

 

The oil in the Golan heights is the goal, it's always oil....... ISIS is funded and controlled by the west. Until Assad is dead or fled they will not be attempting to destroy their own subversive army any time soon! Meanwhile, the country will happily go along with any old **** that the controlled media throws at them.

As for Cameron's drone strikes, how long before we have them over our own skies deleting people? A very dangerous path we are being led on.

The only one thing that is certain is the destruction of England if we continue to let the banker puppet politicians carry on unabated.

 

They are nothing alike, Nazi Germany was an organized & almost unstoppable war machine with nearly 10 millions soldiers at its peak. Moreover, the German people were behind their beloved Fuhrer & his Reich. The Nazi had Germany, an industrialized nation with a lot of resources and million workers while IS mostly rely on donations coming from rich mother******s. Wanna stop IS ? Find who is funding them and who is selling them weapons.

 

They don't have to buy them, the yanks left them all they needed when they pulled out. Plus several reported miss-drops of weapons in to ISIS hands in recent months. They even left them 2500 Humvees so they could get around. Long range artillery, long range missile systems etc etc. The list goes on......

 

ISIS gets its weapons from those abandoned by the Syrian and Iraqi armies (and the Iraqi army for a lot of their hardware from the West). They also get a substantial inflow of cash from fundies in Saudi Arabia. Good luck stopping them. And they are moving towards the oil fields of Iraq so that will be another income generator.

Although I do not think that ISIS are an instrument of Western interests after the oil fields in the Golan Heights, I would not put it past us to eventually do business with ISIS. After all we were happy to deal with the Taliban at some stage, and interestingly the Middle East countries with the tightest relationship with the US also are the most fundamentalist ones (no, seriously: check it out).

However the base philosophy of ISIS' brand if Islam is that the Caliphate is the only legitimate nation, sanctioned by Allah, and the rest is just wilderness to be conquered or ignored. ISIS will not do diplomatic talks, negotiations or trade with the rest of the world because it simply does not acknowledge the rest of the world as legitimate sovereign nations. And that will eventually also be its undoing.

 

a few dozen nukes doted around the area will solve the problem.

kill them all and interrogate any left

 

Is that a serious proposition?

 

you either use completely overwhelming force and kill everyone , or you deal with the actual problem - the shia government of Iraq being the start; ofc that hasn't and wont happen so here we are.


back to the nukes - can we ask Israel to do it? I'm sure they will `reluctantly` agree....

 

Yeah, let's turn this cluster**** into a really, totally, irredeemable mess.

Many people living in ISIS occupied territory are just ordinary folk keeping their heads down and trying to get on with life. Men, women, children. Want to nuke those too? Might that garner the extremists some new recruits to the terrorist cause. Just like our drone strikes in Afghanistan and illegal invasion of Iraq, only on a much, much larger scale.

Oh, and countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Russia will feel real comfortable about the West so casually deploying nukes that close to their borders. No problem there. It's not like Russia's got nukes, or the others could get their hands on some. In fact, Pakistan got some, right? And it's got an extremist problem. Hmmm...

And Israel? It won't deploy nukes under any other circumstances than if it is being invaded or nuked first. It's its MAD deterrent, and not at the disposal of anyone else for any reason.

 

Makes sense, kill everyone so no one gets killed

What Nexxo is saying is obviously right, and I would like to note my above statement was just sarcasm at the Nukes (in case anyone misinterprets it).

A lot of people are dehumanising the likes of the Syrians. Would anyone here want to Nuke Ireland because of the IRA?

 

if your in the enemy `camp` then its just collateral damage - scrap the top soil and repopulate and start again.

simples.

nuking ISIS , iran will be happy to help , SA , not so much , so throw a few at them for good measure - in the next 10 days whilst the capital has a few billion extra there.

see solve 2 problems at once.

politics over thinks things

peace through superior firepower

 

Harlequin, please don't forget this is the 'serious' subforum, I really hope your not being serious though.

 

No, probably just because it's Ireland.

Actually Iran would go mental at the idea of US nukes deployed on Middle East soil. And the whole League of Arab Nations with them. And Russia. And the UN. The US would become an internal pariah and a target for generations of terrorists.

 

Boring quote time: 'The price of freedom is eternal vigilance'. So what if they come back? We stamp on them. Again. And again. And again. And we keep stamping. Weeds in the garden.

I agree with your sentiment in the last part of that post - help the people who are being actively oppressed set up their own government after the threat is removed. Key word being help - not a puppet government.

This is true. However, this was such a black and white case IMHO. It passed scrutiny rather quickly as it was the right thing to do.

Agreed.

Hmm. Seem pretty similar to me. The only difference being that the Nazis were in pursuit of scientific 'perfection' (morals be damned) and ISIS are in pursuit of one religion.

That's a good way of putting it.

I dunno. I just wish we could just put all the stupid w*nkers on their own little planet, send it off into the Sun and be done with it.

 

Actually the Nazis were in pursuit of 'Lebensraum', an Arian empire with pure Arian people, whatever that meant to them. I suspect they listened to too much Wagner.

ISIS is in pursuit of an Islamic Caliphate in accordance with the religious laws of, and sanctioned by Allah; basically an empire with 'pure' Muslims, whatever that means to them.

This is what you get whenever there's a bunch of people who feel put upon, alienated, marginalised. Everybody wants to belong to the special club.

The drone strike execution of the two UK ISIS combatants may be black-and-white, but that does not mean scrutiny should not happen. Else how do we know it was a black-and-white case?