• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

ISIS and Air Strikes

Bullet said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Western-airstrikes-against-terror-group.html

Fierce fighting has been reported on the outskirts of Baghdad where ISIS militants are attempting to seize control of the Iraqi capital - despite ongoing Western airstrikes against the terror group.
The fighting is taking place just one mile to the west of the city, with government forces desperately trying to hold off the militants, who allegedly killed up to 1,000 soldiers during clashes yesterday.




(Yes I know it is the Mail)
Click to expand...

It's such a shame that in these situations we cannot have a 'suffocation' plan to execute, one which isolates and contains them in a pocket-area. It's important we starve them of their 'oxygen' while at the same time not give them what they want (a reason to continue in 'response to being bombed')…we have to box smart. Of course it's far far easier to make these pronouncements from my sofa, I'm aware of that, but it does beg a wider question as to why such strategies have not been considered. I'm sure there's a reason, I'd just love to know what it is...
 
thfcsteff said:
It's such a shame that in these situations we cannot have a 'suffocation' plan to execute, one which isolates and contains them in a pocket-area. It's important we starve them of their 'oxygen' while at the same time not give them what they want (a reason to continue in 'response to being bombed')…we have to box smart. Of course it's far far easier to make these pronouncements from my sofa, I'm aware of that, but it does beg a wider question as to why such strategies have not been considered. I'm sure there's a reason, I'd just love to know what it is...
Click to expand...
We could have done that in Syria but Milibland was too busy making political gain out of the lives of civilians.
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29485405

Alan Henning 'killed by Islamic State'

video purporting to show UK hostage Alan Henning being beheaded has been released by Islamic State militants.

The Salford taxi driver was delivering aid to Syria in December when he was kidnapped and then held hostage by IS...

Very sad news. A man who wanted to do good in the World. Yes he may have been stupid to go to a war-zone, especially with young kids back home but if it wasn't for people like him, far more people in this World would be suffering.

ISIS think they have got one up for carrying out this action against the Western World but what they have actually done is kill an innocent man who wanted to help their own people.
 
thfcsteff said:
It's such a shame that in these situations we cannot have a 'suffocation' plan to execute, one which isolates and contains them in a pocket-area. It's important we starve them of their 'oxygen' while at the same time not give them what they want (a reason to continue in 'response to being bombed')…we have to box smart. Of course it's far far easier to make these pronouncements from my sofa, I'm aware of that, but it does beg a wider question as to why such strategies have not been considered. I'm sure there's a reason, I'd just love to know what it is...
Click to expand...

We should just declare war and colonize the damn place for the time being like Hong Kong and return it to them in 2097 :)
 
metalgear said:
We should just declare war and colonize the damn place for the time being like Hong Kong and return it to them in 2097 :)
Click to expand...

Ridiculous! But it would work. Fascinating idea...

NATO and the west seem to f up one place after another - Afghanistan, Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Iraq. And maybe its because we are 'colonial like' without being colonial in the old sense. So acting the same way as colonialists but not actually taking overt control of the country after intervention. We are therefore half intervening in each situation, and the outcomes for these countries are great instability and vulnerability. At least colonialism put in place structures and stability, albeit while exploiting resources. Now we just exploit the resources and hide behind PC neocolonialism protocol.
 
SpurMeUp said:
Ridiculous! But it would work. Fascinating idea...

NATO and the west seem to f up one place after another - Afghanistan, Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Iraq. And maybe its because we are 'colonial like' without being colonial in the old sense. So acting the same way as colonialists but not actually taking overt control of the country after intervention. We are therefore half intervening in each situation, and the outcomes for these countries are great instability and vulnerability. At least colonialism put in place structures and stability, albeit while exploiting resources. Now we just exploit the resources and hide behind PC neocolonialism protocol.
Click to expand...

Careful, you'll be considered one of the 'tin foil hat' phalanx with views like this.
 
SpurMeUp said:
Ridiculous! But it would work. Fascinating idea...

NATO and the west seem to f up one place after another - Afghanistan, Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Iraq. And maybe its because we are 'colonial like' without being colonial in the old sense. So acting the same way as colonialists but not actually taking overt control of the country after intervention. We are therefore half intervening in each situation, and the outcomes for these countries are great instability and vulnerability. At least colonialism put in place structures and stability, albeit while exploiting resources. Now we just exploit the resources and hide behind PC neocolonialism protocol.
Click to expand...

This is a great post.
 
I wonder... if the yanks were to put 2/3rds of their military budget into properly harnessing solar power (or fusion or whatever the f**k) to break the dependence on oil, would we (The West) then be able to stay out of the Middle East's business and not make big problems into really big problems?
 
the dza said:
I wonder... if the yanks were to put 2/3rds of their military budget into properly harnessing solar power (or fusion or whatever the f**k) to break the dependence on oil, would we (The West) then be able to stay out of the Middle East's business and not make big problems into really big problems?
Click to expand...

Probably. But it wouldn't get rid of these Muslim fanatics would it.
 
Roy1983 said:
Probably. But it wouldn't get rid of these Muslim fanatics would it.
Click to expand...

We don't get rid of them now! We create more and more of them, and worse still, we often give them weapons and training -- only for the good doggy to become the bad dog at some point.

Let Shia and Sunni thrash it out, it is none of our business. It's not like we really give a sh1t about atrocities, as these are being committed by various groups all over the world. Why, infact, the yanks are quite willing to let Isis capture the border town of Kobani, as it isn't of 'strategic importance' to them. Plenty of slaughter will go on there no doubt.

Obviously, there is no real desire to get out of that region or bring about stability. Everything done has the opposite effect. The Military Industrial Complex isn't the stuff of conspiracy theory (the term was coined by President Eisenhower) and is alive and well, doing a roaring trade with perpetual war in The Middle East.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military–industrial_complex

According to SIPRI, total world spending on military expenses in 2009 was $1.531 trillion US dollars. 46.5% of this total, roughly $712 billion US dollars, was spent by the United States.[23] The privatization of the production and invention of military technology also leads to a complicated relationship with significant research and development of many technologies.

The military budget of the United States for the 2009 fiscal year was $515.4 billion. Adding emergency discretionary spending and supplemental spending brings the sum to $651.2 billion.[24] This does not include many military-related items that are outside of the Defense Department budget. Overall the United States government is spending about $1 trillion annually on defense-related purposes.[25]

The defense industry tends to contribute heavily to incumbent members of Congress.[26]

In a 2012 news story, Salon reported, "Despite a decline in global arms sales in 2010 due to recessionary pressures, the U.S. increased its market share, accounting for a whopping 53 percent of the trade that year. Last year saw the U.S. on pace to deliver more than $46 billion in foreign arms sales."[27]
Click to expand...

Use it or lose it, that's what it's really all about imo. We'll go over there, do some war and in 5 years time, it's another group...and then another, and then another.
 
It's none of business but we always get involved don't we? Always down to oil I constantly hear. It does get a bit boring keep hearing that. It's to get rid of these *****. Bomb them all out of this world. That's why we're involved.
 
Roy1983 said:
It's none of business but we always get involved don't we? Always down to oil I constantly hear. It does get a bit boring keep hearing that. It's to get rid of these *****. Bomb them all out of this world. That's why we're involved.
Click to expand...

Even if there was a desire to do that (and there isn't) it cannot be done. What will be bombed? There are no bases. 20 thousand or so men...they can easily hide amongst the civilians (there's a lot of land, they can spread thin). Can't kill them from the air unless you wanna kill lots and lots and lots of civilians. Nobody wants that. So send in troops...but the nutters live there, they just have to survive and wait for the troops to leave. See the Taliban (remember them?)

Like the man said, we're involved because it's business, and business is booming.
 
Roy1983 said:
It's none of business but we always get involved don't we? Always down to oil I constantly hear. It does get a bit boring keep hearing that. It's to get rid of these *****. Bomb them all out of this world. That's why we're involved.
Click to expand...

Oh really? It's the fact that people will believe such BS will mean that this **** happens again and again and again.
And the best thing about it is you and I get to pick up the tab
 
It makes perfect sense now. Let's kill these fanatics now before they multiply!

Trouble is they always will and we'll always have new enemies.
 
Roy1983 said:
It makes perfect sense now. Let's kill these fanatics now before they multiply!

Trouble is they always will and we'll always have new enemies.
Click to expand...

Yep, like the Taleban, Al-Qaeda, The Communists, The Irish etc etc

They all needed to be "killed before they multiplied"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back