nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

ISIS are pure evil.

[Deleted User]

<mod snip>

WARNING GRAPHIC PHOTOS (RAW) - ISIS begins killing Christians in Mosul, CHILDREN BEHEADED

While the world focuses on Gaza , ISIS continue their genocide of anyone and everything.

They have now been reported to have captured a group of women and children, and are beheading them.

warning, very graphic

Mod: Do not post graphic images here.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Zebra3

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I don't see anyone cheerleading anything, only someone trying to drag their usual hobby horse in to the discussion.

You should actually read the thread then.

My hobby horse? Highlighting the crimes of the West that so many are happy to ignore/praise?

fran oconnor

Boring username wrote: »

I expect Jordan will follow through on their promise to execute all ISIS prisoners if their pilot was not returned alive.

Hopefully.

ireland.man

Boring username wrote: »

I expect Jordan will follow through on their promise to execute all ISIS prisoners if their pilot was not returned alive.

Jordan doesn't have the resources, the national integrity or the appetite for fighting ISIS, sadly. It may execute a handful of ISIS members and do something in the coming week but watch and see the country reduce its involvement in the conflict in the coming months.

The only hope I have is for ISIS to disintegrate by itself. It'll run out of steam and it won't have enough money to run the territory it has conquered and defend its borders against the Kurds, Hezbollah and the Iraqi army.

Karl Stein

The Aussie wrote: »

Boots on the ground with the authorisation of the Iraqi Government

Isn't that exactly what these fuckers want? Wasn't one of Al-Qaeda's goals to draw the US/West into wars in the middle east?

Iraq 2003 is projected to cost the US public $6,000,000,000,000 (six trillion USD). 9/11 is thought to have cost Al-Q half a million dollars.

Streetwalker

fran oconnor wrote: »

Hopefully.

So let me get this straight, you want the Jordanians to execute people but yet are appalled when ISIS do so? Two wrongs don't make a right.

DeJa VooDoo

Streetwalker wrote: »

So let me get this straight, you want the Jordanians to execute people but yet are appalled when ISIS do so? Two wrongs don't make a right.

Pouring petrol on a man trapped in a steel cage and burning him to death isn't the same as executing someone.

smurgen

horrific,I actually feel sick after reading the report of his death.i'm normally a total pacifist but the idea of these animals inflicting such pain on another makes my blood simmer. I don't believe they're muslims, their more like the actions of total anarchists.

cpg093

Streetwalker wrote: »

So let me get this straight, you want the Jordanians to execute people but yet are appalled when ISIS do so? Two wrongs don't make a right.

the jordanians are not executing "people" they are executing a failed suicide bomber. i think it is vastly different than burning a pilot alive who was fighting these scum

Arsemageddon

Manic Moran wrote: »

No, it's not.

The most common use for it today is in smokescreening, but there is nothing in the laws of war which prohibits its use against personnel or equipment. Don't believe me? Try to quote chapter and verse from the appropriate international treaty.

The gailure yo mention its use for smokescreens was an slip of the thumb on my behalf.

Article 1 Protocol III of the Convention of Certain Chemical Weapons bans the use of certain chemical incendiary weapons. White phosphorous is not listed specifically as it has dual use (smoke screen & illimination). however its use against civilian targets (and military personnel is implicit in the treaty. All impartial, independent legal opinions are pretty clear on this.

Similar to all weapon indiscriminate use in areas where civilians are present is clearly illegal under the Geneva convention.

It was also deemed illegal to use it for such in the US army ST100-3 battle book. Pretty sure thay manual is no longer in use.

If the use of WP is all above board and legal then why did the US military feel the need at first to repeatedly deny its use in Fallujah only to admit that it had done so after the Washington Post broke the story? Same question for Israels similar initial demial of its use in Gaza in 2009?

Most cointries consider the use of WP against people illegal. US use of WP for the same purpose is a very, very grey area.

Karl Stein

When the Western/Saudi backed Mujahideen caught Soviet Soldiers they often tortured them to death - their reputation for cruelty was such that potential POW's blew themselves up in favour of capture:

Seven soldiers of the 1st Squadron prefer death over capture and torture which was the normal treatment of Russian POW's during the war by the enemy, also took their own lives with a grenade made from a OZM-72 mine. They were as follows; Gavrash, Kukharchuk, Vakuljuk, Marchenko, Musika, Mustafin, and Boitchuk.

The dead were disemboweled and their eyes were poked out and then burned. Many were wounded and still alive when this was going on a suffered a horrible death at the hands of the enemy.

forums.beyondunreal.com

When Islamofascist nutters were carrying out these acts backed by the West/Saudis they even had entire blockbuster movies dedicated to them.

BuilderPlumber

Karl Stein wrote: »

When the Western/Saudi backed Mujahideen caught Soviet Soldiers they often tortured them to death - their reputation for cruelty was such that potential POW's blew themselves up in favour of capture:

When Islamofascist nutters were carrying out these acts backed by the West/Saudis they even had entire blockbuster movies dedicated to them.

This is precisely the problem. Afghanistan was grand when it was a monarchy and it was grand when it was communist. When the fascists took over, it was hell on earth: especially the 1996-2001 regime of fascists styled as Taliban and controlled by al Qaeda.

The West supported these when it suited. From that time to now, fascism in Muslim countries has remained a grave problem.

ISIS are without doubt among the most evil terrorist organisations ever. They even make the original Taliban and al Qaeda look mild by comparison. But, where did this violent organisation start off. In 2004 in Iraq actually lead by a guy called Zarqawi. The 2003 invasion of Iraq started off this awful organisation and the West-encouraged 'Arab Spring' gave it a new lease of life just when it was on the wane (with Zarqawi dead for years). The Syria war and Western meddling again gave this organisation then known as 'Al Qaeda in Iraq' a new cause. Then, they got a new name: ISIS, ISIL or Islamic State.

Since the 1970s, there have been too many Middle East wars all of which featured meddling from the West. First there was Lebanon, then the USSR/Afghan war (with Western provided support to the Mujahedin which included Taliban and Arab al Qaeda), then a brief civil war in Iran (where the West made sure the communists were not going to take control), then the Iran/Iraq (Gulf War 1), then the first Iraq War (Gulf War 2/Desert Storm) and then Afghanistan/US war. After that, we got the Third Gulf War (aka the 2nd Iraq War, Shock and Awe) and then Libya/NATO. Israel obo the West were meanwhile dealing with Hamas and Hezbollah. And finally Syria's civil war.

Worse and worse terrorists have come into being and the same mistakes are made over and over. At present, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, most of North Africa, a lot of Pakistan, Somalia, a lot of Sudan, North Nigeria, the Central African Republic, Yemen, and Palestine are complete messes: failed entities with no future. Other countries like Jordan and Lebanon are 100% surrounded by failed entities. And who knows what will happen next?

The West should think before going to war or helping out rebel groups. Granted, the US alone can defeat any Middle East regime in a matter of 3 weeks to a month. We have seen Saddam, Gadafi, Taliban, etc. driven from power within a month of a campaign to launch a military strike on them.

If the US decided to go into Syria and take out Assad, the same would happen. If the US decided it was time to obliterate the Revolutionary Guards/Ali Khamenei regime in Iran, the same. A month is all any would last. The regime that is. The leaders no doubt would be killed or caught. BUT while the US is great at ending regimes, it is not great at country building afterwards. What would happen if the US decided to get very ambitious and decides to take out Assad and Rev Guards all at once?

Weeks 1-4: Syria: Assad is taken out and the US kills some of Iran's rev guards too thus there is some retaliation from them in the region.
Weeks 5-8: the US takes down the regime in Iran. A puppet is installed in Syria.
Weeks 9-12: A puppet is installed in Iran.
The next 10 years: all types of fighters flock into Iran and Syria. Those 2 countries are rendered unstable and Iraq becomes more unstable too. Insurgencies and civil wars predominate. The world goes into recession again. Another brutal terrorism emerges that shocks the world.

Infini

wprathead wrote: »

And suggesting dropping a nuclear bomb isn't stooping to their level?

Their level involves sadistic torture, dismemberment, rape, sex slavery, ethnic cleansing and violence on a level so depraved to the point that even a demon would be shamed by these animals and all because of a twisted distorted version of what they call a religion. They're more akin to a cult than a religion and they drag normal Muslims into disrepute.

Their is no reasoning or proper negotiating with these psychos they've abandoned all reason for religious fanaticism and they're getting worse.

Like I said the only way these nut jobs are gonna be stopped is either by a large multinational force to go in and pacify and purge these psychotic nut jobs or resorting to the one option that will force them to understand and that's a nuke. As for innocents caught in it regardless of what happens innocents are caught up in this one way or another because they didn't deal with this problem as soon as it began by sending in a UN force to put them down when it all kicked off.

Tugboats

Does anyone know how many hostages are left?

Karl Stein

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Another brutal terrorism emerges that shocks the world.

And the weapons manufacturers, armies, navies and 'security' industry (whose security?) continues to syphon off billions from the public coffers because they have to fight the terrorism and instability they've been instrumental in fomenting.

BorneTobyWilde

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/f5/f50df9f05f5913232c5772c049c228510b14b3cfbfd3532c3d3f9d29a38573f8.jpg

InTheTrees

Infini2 wrote: »

Like I said the only way these nut jobs are gonna be stopped is either by a large multinational force to go in and pacify and purge these psychotic nut jobs or resorting to the one option that will force them to understand and that's a nuke.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCbfMkh940Q

InTheTrees

Karl Stein wrote: »

And the weapons manufacturers, armies, navies and 'security' industry (whose security?) continues to syphon off billions from the public coffers because they have to fight the terrorism and instability they've been instrumental in fomenting.

And probably many tens of thousands of peoples jobs and livelihoods depend on "defense" spending.

And its been this way for most of human history.

jobbridge4life

Its not islam... its the west...

its not despondent thugs being misled... its the west...

its not a charismatic and well resourced cult like figure whipping a desperate population into a frenzy... its the west...

its not a region that has been chronically warring and backward for over a century... its the west...

its not a complicated problem involving multifaceted issues with blame to be apportioned appropriately... its the west...

And even if it is one of these things then I am pretty sure there is some way we can find to blame the West. Meanies.

BobbyPropane

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Its not islam... its the west...

its not despondent thugs being misled... its the west...

its not a charismatic and well resourced cult like figure whipping a desperate population into a frenzy... its the west...

its not a region that has been chronically warring and backward for over a century... its the west...

its not a complicated problem involving multifaceted issues with blame to be apportioned appropriately... its the west...

And even if it is one of these things then I am pretty sure there is some way we can find to blame the West. Meanies.

You forgot to mention that it's just the white people in the west as well! That's very important :rolleyes:

Ash.J.Williams

I watched it. Absolute evil bast**ds...and to be honest hearing that Jordan executed some prisoners doesn't make me feel any better. It's a cycle of violence and the only way to stop it is to cease being violent.

An international effort is now required to eliminate ISIS and USA needs to f**k out of there for good.

and i know it's not that simple.

jobbridge4life

BobbyPropane wrote: »

You forgot to mention that it's just the white people in the west as well! That's very important :rolleyes:

Oh and male.

Manic Moran

Arsemageddon wrote: »

The gailure yo mention its use for smokescreens was an slip of the thumb on my behalf.

Article 1 Protocol III of the Convention of Certain Chemical Weapons bans the use of certain chemical incendiary weapons. White phosphorous is not listed specifically as it has dual use (smoke screen & illimination). however its use against civilian targets (and military personnel is implicit in the treaty. All impartial, independent legal opinions are pretty clear on this.

Similar to all weapon indiscriminate use in areas where civilians are present is clearly illegal under the Geneva convention.

Full text is found here: https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/icrc_002_0811.pdf

With respect, and as you allude to at the end, all but one of those rules already applied to -all- weapons, not WP. It is illegal to indiscriminately shell an area in which civilians are found with High Explosive every bit as much as it is with WP. On the other hand, it is just as legal to lob a WP grenade into a room to clear it as it is to use a fragmentation grenade. The -only- notable restriction which Art III adds on top of already extant law is the flat prohibition of air-delivered incendiaries over civilian areas. And since the US Air Force wasn't dropping napalm (or WP) over Fallujah, that prohibition is not triggered.

Anything further than that with respect to the US use of WP in Fallujah (or Israeli use in Gaza, since you bring it up) becomes a matter of taking things on a case-by-case basis, and proving that the provisions of Prot III, Art 2, Para 3 have been violated.

In either case, your flat statement that "It is illegal under the laws of war to use WP for any purpose other than illumination (or screening)." is not in any way supported by that convention. The very existence of Art 2 Par 3 is proof to that. If it were not in any way legal to use incendiaries to make something "within a concentration of civilians the object of an attack" then why would Art 2 Par 3 provide cases where you could do just that?

It was also deemed illegal to use it for such in the US army ST100-3 battle book. Pretty sure thay manual is no longer in use.

Probably because it was never a manual in the first place. An "ST" is a Student Text, created as a local learning aid by a schoolhouse and not subjected to review by higher (or legal) authority. Put simply, the guy who wrote it was wrong. If you look up the FMs, however (Field Manuals, Army-wide application, and which have legal authority by order of Secretary of Defense), you will find reference to the use of WP in a weapon role.

If the use of WP is all above board and legal then why did the US military feel the need at first to repeatedly deny its use in Fallujah only to admit that it had done so after the Washington Post broke the story?

They didn't. Some idiot in the State Department who was apparently more worried about PR repercussions about something he felt was an issue than staying in his lane made the denial. The US military's response was "Yeah, we used it, what of it?"

Same question for Israels similar initial demial of its use in Gaza in 2009?

No idea. Initial thoughts are that they didn't want the PR issue and tried to cover it up, or that the person who spoke was unaware of the facts.

Most cointries consider the use of WP against people illegal.

Name six.

Not contrary to policy because it's nasty, not withdrawn from service because newer technologies have relegated WP to minority roles, but illegal.

willmunny1990

Yep, this would really encourage you to join up alright!:pac:

http://news.sky.com/story/1421809/is-reaches-out-to-women-with-inequality-message

topmanamillion

ISIS are an extremely dangerous force, its never happened before where a terrorist group has actually managed to conquer and rule an area as long as ISIS have managed in Iraq and Syria.

They have vast resources with somewhere in the region of 3 billion dollars in the bank, oil fields, land, vast and sophisticated military equipment and an ability to conscript more soldiers from a pool of about 5 million.

The most galling thing is ISIS have managed to do this while being vastly outnumbered by the Iraqi army. ISIS had about 7000 members against 250,000 Iraqi soldiers and still managed to win mostly because the Iraqi soldiers just ran away leaving behind shed loads of western military equipment.

while im not going to come on here and sing the praises of someone like Sadam Hussein a man who gassed and tortured women and children the simple fact is ISIS would not have come to power had he been in power. Those soldiers would not have ran away because they would have been too afraid of him. Instead these "soldiers" extorted money from people in the regions they were stationed and acted as rulers and when ISIS showed up ran away with their tails between their legs.

ISIS will remain a major threat in the region for a long time simply because they are the most organised leadership option in the region. There's no point in having a democracy when a relatively small military group can overthrow it.

Obama is in wind down as US president so its difficult to see him letting putting troops on the ground be his final act in office. As long as ISIS remain in Iraq and Syria the likes of Iran, Turkey, Jordan and Israel (while not fans of ISIS) are happy to leave the countries in ruins as long as it does not effect them.

Unfortunately, the people who will be effected most are the Iraqis and Syrian people who have not managed to flee. For them mass executions, beheadings and setting people alight happen every day, its only when it happens to a westerner we become outraged.

BuilderPlumber

topmanamillion wrote: »

ISIS are an extremely dangerous force, its never happened before where a terrorist group has actually managed to conquer and rule an area as long as ISIS have managed in Iraq and Syria.

They have vast resources with somewhere in the region of 3 billion dollars in the bank, oil fields, land, vast and sophisticated military equipment and an ability to conscript more soldiers from a pool of about 5 million.

The most galling thing is ISIS have managed to do this while being vastly outnumbered by the Iraqi army. ISIS had about 7000 members against 250,000 Iraqi soldiers and still managed to win mostly because the Iraqi soldiers just ran away leaving behind shed loads of western military equipment.

while im not going to come on here and sing the praises of someone like Sadam Hussein a man who gassed and tortured women and children the simple fact is ISIS would not have come to power had he been in power. Those soldiers would not have ran away because they would have been too afraid of him. Instead these "soldiers" extorted money from people in the regions they were stationed and acted as rulers and when ISIS showed up ran away with their tails between their legs.

ISIS will remain a major threat in the region for a long time simply because they are the most organised leadership option in the region. There's no point in having a democracy when a relatively small military group can overthrow it.

Obama is in wind down as US president so its difficult to see him letting putting troops on the ground be his final act in office. As long as ISIS remain in Iraq and Syria the likes of Iran, Turkey, Jordan and Israel (while not fans of ISIS) are happy to leave the countries in ruins as long as it does not effect them.

Unfortunately, the people who will be effected most are the Iraqis and Syrian people who have not managed to flee. For them mass executions, beheadings and setting people alight happen every day, its only when it happens to a westerner we become outraged.

Unfortunately, all true. The sad truth for countries like Iraq is to be lead by a dictator/strongman like Saddam or else by a violent so-called 'Islamist' terror group like ISIS.

ISIS came to prominence for a variety of reasons. Firstly, there's not one country in the region who has the military might to fight them bar Israel. They have been careful not to antagonise Israel much, so Israel ignores them and Hamas are a bigger threat to them.

With regard to the US/UK: the last thing the American and British people want is yet another Middle East war. So, ISIS have thus far gotten away with a lot of things. But if they go too far, they will be obliterated. They are the common enemy of countries as diverse as the US, all EU countries, Iran and Israel.

Sufa

Karl Stein wrote: »

And the weapons manufacturers, armies, navies and 'security' industry (whose security?) continues to syphon off billions from the public coffers because they have to fight the terrorism and instability they've been instrumental in fomenting.

What's your solution then?

Should nations that chose to spend money on defence simply stop doing so? Should the Islamic State's unprecedented rise be left to continue unchecked until they are a firmly established and unmoveable regional power? Should those coalition members who are both strategically opposed to, and morally outraged by the aggressive imperialism and murderous, barbarous techniques of IS simply stand back and watch? Should we do all that in the name of being righteous and pure?

Your spurious indignation towards those nations who have decided to react to the unfolding and ever increasing threat to regional and global security is perplexing.

Egginacup

Everyone take a deep breath.......hold it for a second....then release.

Now, why do militant groups in various states exist?

Please, no answers such as:

. Muslims are crazy
. Muslims want to take over the world
. Muslims hate this that the other.

There is the possibility that among these militant groups that many classify as religious radical fundamentalists are those who have no religious or ideological slant.
Why are they fighting?

BuilderPlumber

Karl Stein wrote: »

When the Western/Saudi backed Mujahideen caught Soviet Soldiers they often tortured them to death - their reputation for cruelty was such that potential POW's blew themselves up in favour of capture:

When Islamofascist nutters were carrying out these acts backed by the West/Saudis they even had entire blockbuster movies dedicated to them.

I remember I think it was the third Rambo film was about the Mujahedin and Rambo doing battle against the Russians. In this and similar films, the Russians were the ones shown to be cruel with all torture scenes in the film done by them with the Mujahedin side looking like the heroes. There was a huge anti-USSR bias in such films as this and the second Rambo film set in Vietnam.

In reality, it was not as cut and dry as this: atrocities were committed on both sides and things got much worse in Afghanistan after the Russians left. And one day, some of the Mujahedin factions would become Taliban and al Qaeda.

Ironic as well about the third Rambo film: set in Afghanistan but filmed in .... ISRAEL!! Israel is not recognised by Afghanistan.

BlaasForRafa

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

This is precisely the problem. Afghanistan was grand when it was a monarchy and it was grand when it was communist

That just displays a complete ignorance of history. Thousands of people were killed by the Taraki regime in it's brief existence before the ill-fated soviet invasion. It was the reforms that Taraki's government tried to impose on Afghanistan which got the conservative tribes riled up and started the ball rolling in Afghanistan's descent.

Karl Stein wrote: »

And the weapons manufacturers, armies, navies and 'security' industry (whose security?) continues to syphon off billions from the public coffers because they have to fight the terrorism and instability they've been instrumental in fomenting.

Perhaps you should take a look at the arms that most of the forces in the area are using. I'll give you a hint, most of them are supplied by your buddies, the russians and chinese.

topmanamillion

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

ISIS came to prominence for a variety of reasons. Firstly, there's not one country in the region who has the military might to fight them bar Israel. They have been careful not to antagonise Israel much, so Israel ignores them and Hamas are a bigger threat to them.

Surely Iran has the military might as well but if they were to invade Iraq they would not leave and would become an occupying force as bad as ISIS. ISIS have been very shrewd in not going too far, they are fully aware of their strengths and weaknesses.

Im not so sure ISIS are surrounded by enemies as they must have supply routes open to fuel their army. While they have large taken military supplies left behind by the Iraqi army they would need to be able to buy things like ammunition and fuel.