The Beginning of the End of ISIS?

[Keyrock]

A theological debate with Volo?

 

[Woldan]

I haven't got time for a theological discussion on the internet, I'm just wondering who this god guy is everyone is talking about lately. Is it a guy from my neighborhood? And why does everyone use this poor SOB as scapegoat? 

Edited September 24, 2014 by Woldan

[Namutree]

I haven't got time for a theological discussion on the internet, I'm just wondering who this god guy is everyone is talking about lately. Is it a guy from my neighborhood? And why does everyone use this poor SOB as scapegoat? 

I'm sure Volourn is about 'Adonai' of the Judeo-Christian faith. Also called 'Allah' in the Islamic variant.

[teknoman2]

Gadafi, Sadam, Assad etc were the people who had the strength to hold all the wild dogs of their respective countries on a leash. NATO killed most of them and now the dogs are loose and thirsty for blood. 

[HoonDing]

Pretty much.

[Shallow]

Gadafi, Sadam, Assad etc were the people who had the strength to hold all the wild dogs of their respective countries on a leash. NATO killed most of them and now the dogs are loose and thirsty for blood. 

To be fair, whilst the status quo in Iraq and Libya aren't that amazing it's not like Saddam or Gaddafi were saints either, Saddam was involved in some genocide, and Gaddafi had the whole ex-terrorist thing going.

[BruceVC]

Gadafi, Sadam, Assad etc were the people who had the strength to hold all the wild dogs of their respective countries on a leash. NATO killed most of them and now the dogs are loose and thirsty for blood. 

 

I don't agree with this logic, the West gave these countries the chance to implement there own versions of Democracy. In some cases, like Iraq, they failed to do this. We can't live in a world where we say " yes brutal dictators are acceptable because they are able to manage complicated and historical sectarian conflicts within there countries"

[obyknven]

 

Gadafi, Sadam, Assad etc were the people who had the strength to hold all the wild dogs of their respective countries on a leash. NATO killed most of them and now the dogs are loose and thirsty for blood. 

 

I don't agree with this logic, the West gave these countries the chance to implement there own versions of Democracy. In some cases, like Iraq, they failed to do this. We can't live in a world where we say " yes brutal dictators are acceptable because they are able to manage complicated and historical sectarian conflicts within there countries"

 

 

1. You forgot how West create these dictators by own hands. Even such nice guy as Pol Pot is Western spawn. After this blaming of own tools and creations looks hypocritical.

2. Do you live under rule of "brutal dictators"? If not, how you can argue what political systems is better?

[teknoman2]

 

Gadafi, Sadam, Assad etc were the people who had the strength to hold all the wild dogs of their respective countries on a leash. NATO killed most of them and now the dogs are loose and thirsty for blood. 

To be fair, whilst the status quo in Iraq and Libya aren't that amazing it's not like Saddam or Gaddafi were saints either, Saddam was involved in some genocide, and Gaddafi had the whole ex-terrorist thing going.

 

i did not say they were saints... i said they held the dogs on a leash. and seriously do you think that Libya is better now that most of it's infrastructure is destroyed and a civil war is raging, than it was when Gadafi had free schools, free hospitals, no unemployment and an economy that had no debt to foreign countries? maybe they will have democracy in a few years, or a new dictator will rise from the ashes of the war. either way, the country will never recover without borrowing an exorbitant amount of money from foreign banks and that will lead to a cycle of bankrupcies with the population living in permanent poverty

Sadam Husein became the dictator of Iraq with the blessing of USA to fight against the new islamic government of Iran that overthrew the former king and friend of the US. when he decided to expand into Kuwait, where major US oil companies had business, there was operation desert storm to stop him. when later he decided to trade his coutry's oil for € instead of $ (a serious loss for USA's economy), since all of it was sold in europe, the US invaded for the second time under the excuse of WMDs and killed him. any genocide he comited had nothing to do with the invasion, because the US government does not give a dime about any genocide if it does not involve the economic interests of the state or major US companies. just think of how many genocides may be happening right now, and nobody cares because nobody can profit.

Al quaeda and ISIS were rebeling against Assad's rule in Syria, and in a moment of genius Obama said let's help the rebels... rebels that were for over 10 years enemies of the US. fortunatelly they did not (because someone with a brain happend to be in the army and pointed the fact that they were about to help their own enemies), and spared themselves from both further embarasment and ISIS having control of both Iraq and Syria

as for ISIS... the grunts are brainless religious fanatics that have willingly forsaken every shred of free thought and will, and are ready to die for the glory of islam. idiots who die because a priest told them to... a priest that takes orders from the higher ranking clergy that shares the glory of money with their oil magnate bretheren and the military industry, that profit immesurably as the fools on the streets kill each other for a place in heaven.

Edited September 25, 2014 by teknoman2

[JadedWolf]

To be fair, from what I understand the idea back then was to arm the rebels which weren't religious nutjobs. Not sure if that would have worked, because so far a lot of arms sent to the Free Syrian Army have ended up in the hands of the religious nutjobs. Perhaps if the FSA had been sent more weapons they could have better defended themselves against the religious nutjobs, but we'll never know.

Edited September 25, 2014 by JadedWolf

[BruceVC]

To be fair, from what I understand the idea back then was to arm the rebels which weren't religious nutjobs. Not sure if that would have worked, because so far a lot of arms sent to the Free Syrian Army have ended up in the hands of the religious nutjobs. Perhaps if the FSA had been sent more weapons they could have better defended themselves against the religious nutjobs, but we'll never know.

 

I don't think that's true, firstly I don't know any official link that says the West has been providing arms to the Free Syrian army, I do stand to be corrected. But the issue was always "what if the arms fall into extremist hands". In fact one of the complaints from the Free Syrian army has been that they aren't getting enough support from the West. Countries like Saudi Arabia have been supplying arms to various groups opposed to Assad

 

Now that is changing, the West will be supporting the Free Syrian Army. (FSA) But the FSA is not the same as ISIS. These groups fight each other and fight Assad

 

Also ISIS gained loads of weaponry when the Iraqi army basically retreated when ISIS first invaded Iraq. That's been there main source of armament and the fact that ISIS was able to buy there own military equipment as they control oil fields in Syria

 

But its very important to understand there is a huge difference between the Free Syrian Army( which the West supports ) and ISIS, they both operate in Syria but have very different ideological objectives

[Volourn]

"Gadafi, Sadam, Assad etc were the people who had the strength to hold all the wild dogs of their respective countries on a leash. NATO killed most of them and now the dogs are loose and thirsty for blood. "
 

Of course, the fact that Gadafi, Saddam, Assad, etc., were 'dogs' as well who mass murdered people en masse, right? How convienent that fact is forgotten in people's speed and desire to defend these heroes.

 

L0L

[JadedWolf]

 

To be fair, from what I understand the idea back then was to arm the rebels which weren't religious nutjobs. Not sure if that would have worked, because so far a lot of arms sent to the Free Syrian Army have ended up in the hands of the religious nutjobs. Perhaps if the FSA had been sent more weapons they could have better defended themselves against the religious nutjobs, but we'll never know.

 

I don't think that's true, firstly I don't know any official link that says the West has been providing arms to the Free Syrian army, I do stand to be corrected. But the issue was always "what if the arms fall into extremist hands". In fact one of the complaints from the Free Syrian army has been that they aren't getting enough support from the West. Countries like Saudi Arabia have been supplying arms to various groups opposed to Assad

 

Now that is changing, the West will be supporting the Free Syrian Army. (FSA) But the FSA is not the same as ISIS. These groups fight each other and fight Assad

 

Also ISIS gained loads of weaponry when the Iraqi army basically retreated when ISIS first invaded Iraq. That's been there main source of armament and the fact that ISIS was able to buy there own military equipment as they control oil fields in Syria

 

But its very important to understand there is a huge difference between the Free Syrian Army( which the West supports ) and ISIS, they both operate in Syria but have very different ideological objectives

 

 

No direct links no. But...

 

"There is some evidence, however, of small quantities of missiles arriving in Syria for the opposition, some of them apparently obtained from Croatia in a shipment organised by the Americans and paid for by Gulf states earlier this year. More recently the rebels have also used Konkurs wire-guided anti-tank missiles from former Warsaw Pact arsenals, while 82mm recoil-less rifles have been deployed in recent gains near Latakia, a regime stronghold, and in the defence of Aleppo.

 

But the missiles are largely in the hands of Islamist groups such as Jabhat al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham. The Islamists’ ever-increasing power is now a direct threat to the moderates, as was shown by the recent assassination in Latakia of Kamal Hamami, a member of the FSA’s supreme military council, by the al Qa’ida-linked Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Qassem Saadeddine, a FSA official, recalled: “They phoned to say they had carried out the killing of infidels. They said they will kill all of the supreme military council.”

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/revealed-what-the-west-has-given-syrias-rebels-8756447.html

 

Just a quick example. Of course you can choose not to believe it, but if you are waiting for Western countries to admit to sending weapons when they have said that they wouldn't do that you can wait for a long while.

[BruceVC]

 

 

To be fair, from what I understand the idea back then was to arm the rebels which weren't religious nutjobs. Not sure if that would have worked, because so far a lot of arms sent to the Free Syrian Army have ended up in the hands of the religious nutjobs. Perhaps if the FSA had been sent more weapons they could have better defended themselves against the religious nutjobs, but we'll never know.

 

I don't think that's true, firstly I don't know any official link that says the West has been providing arms to the Free Syrian army, I do stand to be corrected. But the issue was always "what if the arms fall into extremist hands". In fact one of the complaints from the Free Syrian army has been that they aren't getting enough support from the West. Countries like Saudi Arabia have been supplying arms to various groups opposed to Assad

 

Now that is changing, the West will be supporting the Free Syrian Army. (FSA) But the FSA is not the same as ISIS. These groups fight each other and fight Assad

 

Also ISIS gained loads of weaponry when the Iraqi army basically retreated when ISIS first invaded Iraq. That's been there main source of armament and the fact that ISIS was able to buy there own military equipment as they control oil fields in Syria

 

But its very important to understand there is a huge difference between the Free Syrian Army( which the West supports ) and ISIS, they both operate in Syria but have very different ideological objectives

 

 

No direct links no. But...

 

"There is some evidence, however, of small quantities of missiles arriving in Syria for the opposition, some of them apparently obtained from Croatia in a shipment organised by the Americans and paid for by Gulf states earlier this year. More recently the rebels have also used Konkurs wire-guided anti-tank missiles from former Warsaw Pact arsenals, while 82mm recoil-less rifles have been deployed in recent gains near Latakia, a regime stronghold, and in the defence of Aleppo.

 

But the missiles are largely in the hands of Islamist groups such as Jabhat al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham. The Islamists’ ever-increasing power is now a direct threat to the moderates, as was shown by the recent assassination in Latakia of Kamal Hamami, a member of the FSA’s supreme military council, by the al Qa’ida-linked Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Qassem Saadeddine, a FSA official, recalled: “They phoned to say they had carried out the killing of infidels. They said they will kill all of the supreme military council.”

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/revealed-what-the-west-has-given-syrias-rebels-8756447.html

 

Just a quick example. Of course you can choose not to believe it, but if you are waiting for Western countries to admit to sending weapons when they have said that they wouldn't do that you can wait for a long while.

 

 

I didn't explain my point properly and you are right , unofficially the USA has more than likely been supplying the FSA with weapons. After all where do the Saudis get there weapons from?

 

But the weapons supplied to the FSA haven't ended up in ISIS hands. The FSA has been using them, ISIS has its own Western weapons that it got from the Iraqi army

 

My post should have been more directed at Teknoman who said " the USA was thinking of supplying weapons to people who have been enemies of the USA for the last 10 years"

 

The FSA isn't an enemy of the USA, Assad and ISIS are the enemy which is now why the FSA is going to get properly supplied and trained by the West

[teknoman2]

"Gadafi, Sadam, Assad etc were the people who had the strength to hold all the wild dogs of their respective countries on a leash. NATO killed most of them and now the dogs are loose and thirsty for blood. "

 

Of course, the fact that Gadafi, Saddam, Assad, etc., were 'dogs' as well who mass murdered people en masse, right? How convienent that fact is forgotten in people's speed and desire to defend these heroes.

 

L0L

 

indeed they did all sort of things any proper dictator would, i do not defend them. i said that if you kill their master and dont have someone capable to hold their leash, the dogs will run pampant. if you look at the situation now, i dont think it's any better than when they were alive... it's actually worse

in all these places we have: civil war, minority massacres, ethnic and religious cleansings... and in a much larger scale than these evil men ever did

they were by no means any better than scum, but at least they kept the rest of the scum in check... and the rest are way too many

[Volourn]

No.

[Malcador]

Like Izzard said once you can kill your own people and the world won't mind. Just don't kill other people.

[Agiel]

USS Philippine Sea (CG-58) launching Tomahawks at IS targets:

 

 

View from the bridge:

 

 

Which kind of reminds me of this image (censored for the benefit of the mods):

 

 

Similar footage from launches by DDG 51 Arleigh Burke.

[Malcador]

Ah, war porn

[Erez]

Gadafi, Sadam, Assad etc were the people who had the strength to hold all the wild dogs of their respective countries on a leash. NATO killed most of them and now the dogs are loose and thirsty for blood. 

Those guys weren't sweet puppies and have repeatedly supported terror through financing and other acts. The assad family regime is part of the reasons why hezbollah is one of the biggest crime and terror organizations active today.  http://www.standupamericaus.org/world-events/hezbollahs-bank-world-wide-crime-syndicate/

[obyknven]

It's clear now that ISIS has just been a covertly supported excuse to finally start bombing Syria after Russia blocked the US / Israeli / Saudi ambitions there. Once the bombs start falling, almost anything can be said to be an ISIS-held target. Meanwhile, US funding the "good extremists", who will now have air support. While ISIS undergoes more name changes until, in six months, the general public forgets them completely.

 

 

First important thing - ISIS is not state, it's secret network fitted for hybrid warfare. They do not have such weak points as rear or rear servicies, their infrastructure can not become of target for airstrikes. All what US can do by these airstrikes it's destruction of Syrian military objects, Syrian property and kill some amount of civilians. It's looks like pure terrorism really.

Other important thing these airstrikes is absolutely non-effective. We see this during last war in Gaza strip, when IDF destroy big amount of Palestinian civilian infrastructure and kill thousands civilians, but reach nothing and retreat. We see same situation in East Ukraine now. Why US do this then? Explanation can be only - main goal of these strikes is defeat of Syria, destroy their country much more, exterminate Syrian military force, state structures, Syrian economics etc, US just continue own 20 year-old expansionist politics in this region.
 

[Agiel]

Ah, war porn

 

I find it more refreshing than Jihad porn:

 

 

...I take that back.

 

*I lost it at the washing machine and the monkey with the AK, starting at 4:26.

Edited September 25, 2014 by Agiel

[Erez]

Repeated Bombings of Isis, will not be very effective due to the high sunni support for the current Isis jihad, mainly among the iraqi, syrian and turkish, sunni population.

[Volourn]

It will be effective in the long term if other things are handled as well. ie. the Iraqi gov't performing better.

[teknoman2]

 

Gadafi, Sadam, Assad etc were the people who had the strength to hold all the wild dogs of their respective countries on a leash. NATO killed most of them and now the dogs are loose and thirsty for blood. 

Those guys weren't sweet puppies and have repeatedly supported terror through financing and other acts. The assad family regime is part of the reasons why hezbollah is one of the biggest crime and terror organizations active today.  http://www.standupamericaus.org/world-events/hezbollahs-bank-world-wide-crime-syndicate/

 

where in what i wrote did you read that they were good people? i said they held the leash of organizations like hezbollah, al quaeda, ISIS etc within their own countries, and these orgs are now loose.