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

BattleCorp

BoatMad wrote: »

who do you ceed control to after the west military runs over ISIS ( which it could do in a heartbeat).

I'm not sure that the Western military could run over ISIS in a heartbeat. They could blow the fcuk out of them but then ISIS would go back indoors and pretend that they are locals (which a lot of them are). They'd then wage their war like the Taliban in Afghanistan. Hitting here and there, but not like a conventional army.

Not easy get rid of those kinds of people.

BoatMad

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm not sure that the Western military could run over ISIS in a heartbeat. They could blow the fcuk out of them but then ISIS would go back indoors and pretend that they are locals (which a lot of them are). They'd then wage their war like the Taliban in Afghanistan. Hitting here and there, but not like a conventional army.

Not easy get rid of those kinds of people.

what I mean is that the land they grabbed would be taken from them in a heartbeat . Its whats next thats the problem

jobbridge4life

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm not sure that the Western military could run over ISIS in a heartbeat. They could blow the fcuk out of them but then ISIS would go back indoors and pretend that they are locals (which a lot of them are). They'd then wage their war like the Taliban in Afghanistan. Hitting here and there, but not like a conventional army.

Not easy get rid of those kinds of people.

They could obliterate them in a matter of weeks. All that it takes is boots and vehicles on the ground.

I am increasingly convinced that our failure to properly confront ISIS will be recorded in history as a great shame upon us. The cruel regime of death that they have established ought to be flattened. Each and every ISIS soldier hunted down and exterminated. All sympathizers and collaborators the same. They stand as an affront to literally every value we have.

SEPT 23 1989

jobbridge4life wrote: »

They could obliterate them in a matter of weeks. All that it takes is boots and vehicles on the ground.

I am increasingly convinced that our failure to properly confront ISIS will be recorded in history as a great shame upon us. The cruel regime of death that they have established ought to be flattened. Each and every ISIS soldier hunted down and exterminated. All sympathizers and collaborators the same. They stand as an affront to literally every value we have.

Hopefully there will be a republican president in 2016 who will take the gloves off and go after them and reverse the damage caused by one of the worst presidents in the history of America Barack Obama

seiphil

A republican president started this!

jobbridge4life

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Hopefully there will be a republican president in 2016 who will take the gloves off and go after them and reverse the damage caused by one of the worst presidents in the history of America Barack Obama

No need for a it to be a Republican and the last one was an absolute sh*tshow. Barack Obama is no where, no where near being one of the worst American presidents but he has been quite poor with regard to foreign policy.

Wurzelbert

seiphil wrote: »

A republican president started this!

can you elaborate? and btw, democratic presidents got the usa into ww1, ww2 and vietnam…and a democrat was also president when the ottoman empire was broken up and large parts of the middle east handed to britain and france, when iraq first came in to existence among other things…democrats sat in the white house when the world was screwed up to create the mess it is today…

Dan_Solo

Wurzelbert wrote: »

can you elaborate? and btw, democratic presidents got the usa into ww1, ww2 and vietnam…

Sorry, a democrat started WW2? Are you kidding?

Grayson

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm not sure that the Western military could run over ISIS in a heartbeat. They could blow the fcuk out of them but then ISIS would go back indoors and pretend that they are locals (which a lot of them are). They'd then wage their war like the Taliban in Afghanistan. Hitting here and there, but not like a conventional army.

Not easy get rid of those kinds of people.

I don't think there should be western boots on the ground. However ISIS do need to be beaten militantly as a first step. The west can help with logistics, training and stuff like that.

jobbridge4life

Grayson wrote: »

I don't think there should be western boots on the ground. However ISIS do need to be beaten militantly as a first step. The west can help with logistics, training and stuff like that.

Firstly they are already providing these things as well as a massive support bombing campaign. It is failing.

Secondly help who? Iraq? Iran? The Assad regime? Saudi Arabia? Which of this awful lot do you think they should properly strengthen? What then if they did? Remember when they helped the mujahideen fight the communists in Afghanistan... that worked out great didn't it. What about the Kurds? We can support them, arm them but then we have to give them a nation, can we do that? If we do can we really expect a raggle tag nationalist force to become strong enough to properly defeat ISIS particularly outside their area of concern? Or should we just give them the weapons and leave them fight a revolution against Iraq, Turkey, etc themselves for the next decade or so.

Thirdly what is so special about Western boots? Are our lives more precious than those of the innocent people now being slaughtered by ISIS as a direct consequence of western meddling? ISIS are the creation of the West. We are morally obligated to finish them. We could have done it months and months ago if the courage had been there.

[Deleted User]

BoatMad wrote: »

The Bosian conflict involved several so called christian factions and countries that engaged in abominable behaviour and virtual genocide , mostly against European Muslims...

The Bosnian conflict was horrific, but it was based primarily on nationalism and certainly was not some religious crusade. Perhaps not dissimilar to NI, where religion was used to mark the main factions, but it was not some effort to convert the opposition.

Wurzelbert

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Sorry, a democrat started WW2? Are you kidding?

did you even read my post? i wrote a democrat got the usa into it...of course he did not start it...

magma69

Wurzelbert wrote: »

did you even read my post? i wrote a democrat got the usa into it...of course he did not start it...

America were justified to get involved in that though. Vietnam and Iraq not so much.

Dan_Solo

Wurzelbert wrote: »

did you even read my post? i wrote a democrat got the usa into it...of course he did not start it...

Have you heard of Pearl Harbor, or was that attack lead by a Democrat?

Wurzelbert

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Have you heard of Pearl Harbor, or was that attack lead by a Democrat?

it is all a tad more complex than that, not like the japanese attacked a peaceful usa out of the blue…and check out the role america played in the asia-pacific region even long before the war and did everything possible to stall japan and starve the japanese into submission in order to protect american imperial and trade interests…also, the "arsenal of democracy" was de facto at war against germany from pretty much the first day of the war in europe on, just not officially and without declaration…

magma69

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Have you heard of Pearl Harbor, or was that attack lead by a Democrat?

jobbridge4life

Wurzelbert wrote: »

it is all a tad more complex than that, not like the japanese attacked a peaceful usa out of the blue…and check out the role america played in the asia-pacific region even long before the war and did everything possible to stall japan and starve the japanese into submission in order to protect american imperial and trade interests…also, the "arsenal of democracy" was de facto at war against germany from pretty much the first day of the war in europe on, just not officially and without declaration…

An the Japanese were friendly pokemon characters fighting the evil Team Rocket across SEA before that? LoL. Your post stinks of anti-Americanism.

Wurzelbert

jobbridge4life wrote: »

An the Japanese were friendly pokemon characters fighting the evil Team Rocket across SEA before that? LoL. Your post stinks of anti-Americanism.

no…all totally normal imperial bully behaviour by the us, just what powerful nations have always done (remember commodore perry for example), and in the end they had the economic power to win…my point is that the whole guilt thing and “who started it” and all that is generally very one-sided nowadays…as we know, history is written by the winners, and history is but a set of lies agreed upon, as napoleon put it…but i am straying off topic here in the isis thread…people should just realise that blaming only the yanks – democrats or republicans - for the whole mess in the middle east and for isis is just wrong as there is so much more to it…

Grayson

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Firstly they are already providing these things as well as a massive support bombing campaign. It is failing.

Secondly help who? Iraq? Iran? The Assad regime? Saudi Arabia? Which of this awful lot do you think they should properly strengthen? What then if they did? Remember when they helped the mujahideen fight the communists in Afghanistan... that worked out great didn't it. What about the Kurds? We can support them, arm them but then we have to give them a nation, can we do that? If we do can we really expect a raggle tag nationalist force to become strong enough to properly defeat ISIS particularly outside their area of concern? Or should we just give them the weapons and leave them fight a revolution against Iraq, Turkey, etc themselves for the next decade or so.

Thirdly what is so special about Western boots? Are our lives more precious than those of the innocent people now being slaughtered by ISIS as a direct consequence of western meddling? ISIS are the creation of the West. We are morally obligated to finish them. We could have done it months and months ago if the courage had been there.

Firstly, ISIS aren't expanding further. It might not be demolishing them but it has stopped their advance.
Secondly. The Kurds and Iraqis. Iran doesn't need our help.
And thirdly as many people have pointed out, westerners just make it worse. This needs to be solved by people in the area. Putting western troops there will act as a polarising factor.

jobbridge4life

Grayson wrote: »

Firstly, ISIS aren't expanding further. It might not be demolishing them but it has stopped their advance.

Completely untrue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/01/world/africa/western-officials-alarmed-as-islamic-state-expands-territory-in-libya.html

Grayson wrote: »

Secondly. The Kurds and Iraqis. Iran doesn't need our help.

The Kurds and Iraqis have already been receiving massive support. In the case of Iraq for literally years now. What have been the results... troops that flee when ISIS approach and the surrendering of territory right up to the edges of Baghdad including huge oil reserves. And you never addressed my point re the long term consequences of empowering the Kurds.

Grayson wrote: »

And thirdly as many people have pointed out, westerners just make it worse. This needs to be solved by people in the area. Putting western troops there will act as a polarising factor.

Western intervention has a troubled history, I myself pointed that out in my post. This is quantively different because ISIS is a Western product, as I and many others pointed out. We made them. Its out duty to terminate them and not just sit in luxury going 'sorz babes thats ya'lls backyard'.

AlekSmart

Grayson wrote: »

Firstly, ISIS aren't expanding further. It might not be demolishing them but it has stopped their advance.
Secondly. The Kurds and Iraqis. Iran doesn't need our help.
And thirdly as many people have pointed out, westerners just make it worse. This needs to be solved by people in the area. Putting western troops there will act as a polarising factor.

Especially when those "Western Troops" find that whilst they are away,fighting the good fight,the likes of this fellah can roam the streets of their home cities spouting stuff like this.......

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/06/23/preacher-who-called-for-gays-to-be-killed-mocks-policeman-for-help-for-heroes-band/?utm_source=PNFB&utm_medium=socialFB&utm_campaign=PNFacebook

AlekSmart

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Western intervention has a troubled history, I myself pointed that out in my post. This is quantively different because ISIS is a Western product, as I and many others pointed out. We made them. Its out duty to terminate them and not just sit in luxury going 'sorz babes thats ya'lls backyard'.

A Western product sure 'nuff...and with each day they manage to stretch those boundaries too.....

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/isis-release-footage-brutal-new-5934960

KingBrian2

AlekSmart wrote: »

A Western product sure 'nuff...and with each day they manage to stretch those boundaries too.....

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/isis-release-footage-brutal-new-5934960

ISIS are supported by American allies, Turkey protected by NATO membership and Saudi Arabia due to the oil. The wests interests are purely selfishness. The term middle east conjures up the age of imperialism as it was a term used to describe the near abroad, it has no meaning to the actual people who live over there. A more neutral term would be east Mediterranean and it would include Israel along with Palestinians.

SummerRebel

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Hopefully there will be a republican president in 2016 who will take the gloves off and go after them and reverse the damage caused by one of the worst presidents in the history of America Barack Obama

**** me. I just saw the latest ISIS video:

- men drowned in a cage filmed with gopro's
- men strapped in a car and then blown up with a RPG
- men tied up with explosive cable around their necks and then blown up

IMO Obama has really ****ed up. He destablised Sryia and was desperate to go to war over dubious chemical weapon claims (only stopped by a vote in the UK parliament). Undeterred he armed the 'moderate' rebels which basically turned out to be ISIS/Al Nusra. He repeated this mess in Libya and now we have the refugee crisis. He bolted out of Iraq so fast that ISIS could take over half of the country.

syklops

SummerRebel wrote: »

**** me. I just saw the latest ISIS video:

- men drowned in a cage filmed with gopro's
- men strapped in a car and then blown up with a RPG
- men tied up with explosive cable around their necks and then blown up

IMO Obama has really ****ed up. He destablised Sryia and was desperate to go to war over dubious chemical weapon claims (only stopped by a vote in the UK parliament). Undeterred he armed the 'moderate' rebels which basically turned out to be ISIS/Al Nusra. He repeated this mess in Libya and now we have the refugee crisis. He bolted out of Iraq so fast that ISIS could take over half of the country.

His main mistake was promising to "Bring our troops home". You dont tell the enemy you are withdrawing. The enemy digs in and waits and gains strength and look what happened then. Ive never hated any group of people before but ISIS/ISIL need to be wiped off the face of the earth. Obama promised peace, but he forgot that sometimes peace is achieved by sending in the marines. This is nolonger a west versus islam war. The turkish are fighting ISIS, The Kurds are fighting ISIS. The Kurds, a people with no country to call their own, are doing what US and UK marines should be doing. I disagree Obama was the worst president ever, but, his inaction will not stand to him in history. That said, its not simply his responsibility to fix the middle east. No-one else did anything did they?

old_aussie

isis are pure evil, and again they show their version of islam

Isis 'crucifies children for not fasting during Ramadan' in Syria

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-crucifies-children-for-not-fasting-during-ramadan-in-syria-10338215.html

Subjugation, a trade they love to ply.

Crucify two children, terrify thousands.

Egginacup

magma69 wrote: »

America were justified to get involved in that though. Vietnam and Iraq not so much.

But I thought America had the same excuse.

Egginacup

Deleted User wrote: »

The Bosnian conflict was horrific, but it was based primarily on nationalism and certainly was not some religious crusade. Perhaps not dissimilar to NI, where religion was used to mark the main factions, but it was not some effort to convert the opposition.

Why was it "horrific"?

Compared to Iraq or Afghanistan or Vietnam it was a mini-riot.

BoatMad

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Hopefully there will be a republican president in 2016 who will take the gloves off and go after them and reverse the damage caused by one of the worst presidents in the history of America Barack Obama

oh god no , no, not another " american intervention ', how unstable can you want the world to be .

stay home, eat apple pie please

BoatMad

syklops wrote: »

His main mistake was promising to "Bring our troops home". You dont tell the enemy you are withdrawing. The enemy digs in and waits and gains strength and look what happened then. Ive never hated any group of people before but ISIS/ISIL need to be wiped off the face of the earth. Obama promised peace, but he forgot that sometimes peace is achieved by sending in the marines. This is nolonger a west versus islam war. The turkish are fighting ISIS, The Kurds are fighting ISIS. The Kurds, a people with no country to call their own, are doing what US and UK marines should be doing. I disagree Obama was the worst president ever, but, his inaction will not stand to him in history. That said, its not simply his responsibility to fix the middle east. No-one else did anything did they?

US military is great for military things , completely useless in solving problems however