http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34178998
My first reaction to this news was "Good".
The media, and some Labour politicians have since been at pains to cry about this decision, and to question the legality of the strike. They don't seem to care that these two were planning IS attacks on Britain. I just don't get what side they're on. Do they want to be reporting, and bemoaning IS atrocities instead? What a bunch of ar*eholes! It's hard for a terrorist to commit an atrocity if they're dead.
Neither of the IS pair were native Brits, but settlers. You'd think they'd be grateful the Brits let them live there, provided education, healthcare etc, but it seems not, preferring a sick culture where rape and murder are the norm.
Problem is airstrikes won't stop the IS...either get boots on the ground, realize there's a real war to fight and do it, or continue with these PR maneuvers and nothing will change. These Muslim fanatics laugh at us...
Well, there's two less of them laughing at us.
Yeah, great success - thousands still laugh...
Gotta start somewhere. Two less violent extremists in the world, plotting murder, is okay by me.
They interviewed the farther of one of them; he said that he though it was justified, although he would have liked to see some evidence that they were plotting terror against the UK. To me, if they had joined ISIS then they are fair targets no matter what.
They also interviewed the farther of 2 more young men who had also gone out to join ISIS. He said that he expected that they would also be targeted and that it would be justified.
Whatever, as a dad, I can't help but feel sorry for these 2 men.
Quote from: bob48 on September 08, 2015, 03:21:36 PM
To me, if they had joined ISIS then they are fair targets no matter what.
+1
Quote from: bob48 on September 08, 2015, 03:21:36 PM
Whatever, as a dad, I can't help but feel sorry for these 2 men.
Precisely because I am a dad, I have no sympathy for these 2 men. If they had been able to carry out attacks in the UK it could be members of my family - or yours, come to that - that could be hurt. I have NO sympathy for these basta*ds at all, as they're part of a savage cult that wouldn't think twice about murdering us, or abusing own families given the opportunity.
What annoys me even more is that the parents of these creatures were given a home in the UK, and yet their venomous snake kids would join IS, which would destroy our society if they could. Khan apparently was tweeting about how he enjoyed participating in a beheading of some poor person. As a dad how can you feel sorry for them. They got what they deserved, the evil bastar*s. >:(
It's about time the government faces facts, and recognises IS as a
de facto government in the middle east, then declares war on them for the murder of our citizens (a valid casus belli), then we can really go after them with the gloves off: as a belligerent, and not as a political "police action". I suspect our government is too spineless to do that.
I have no sympathy at all for the men who joined ISIS - As a father, I was expressing sympathy for the fathers.
Recognizing them as a state legitimizes them in a way that we may not want. Better to treat them as the terrorist organization that they are and go after them accordingly.
Quote from: bob48 on September 08, 2015, 04:54:13 PM
I have no sympathy at all for the men who joined ISIS - As a father, I was expressing sympathy for the fathers.
Bob, I get that - and I can understand how devastated one would feel as a parent. I do respect your humanity for what you said, and without any sarcasm you are being very charitable and empathic.
However, I wonder how much their fathers actually knew, and whether there was any tacit approval of their sons actions. They didn't seem too surprised, so I also wonder what sort of value sets they encouraged as parents? It mainly seems to be one community (the elephant in the room) that always seems attracted to jihadi terrorism. I don't think that would be so commonplace if there was not tacit approval, if not actual encouragement. Am I being unreasonable in questioning that?
Quote from: mirth on September 08, 2015, 04:55:35 PM
Recognizing them as a state legitimizes them in a way that we may not want. Better to treat them as the terrorist organization that they are and go after them accordingly.
They are a terrorist organisation, but arguably represent much more than that. Treating them as a terrorist organisation creates jurisdiction problems on the wider international stage. De facto they are the regime ruling a state carved out by their forces. By recognising the reality that they are actually a state, you circumvent a lot of political difficulties in trying to get around those jurisdictional issues.
For example, the UK will fight IS in Iraq, at the invitation of the Iraqi government, but until now not in Syria, and even that is attracting a lot of criticism by the media and government opposition as to the legality of the strike. If you are at war with an enemy state then the gloves are off, and in many ways things are a lot more straightforward. Recognising IS as a state doesn't mean you like, or respect them. They are the Nazis of this century.
Quote from: bob48 on September 08, 2015, 04:54:13 PM
I have no sympathy at all for the men who joined ISIS - As a father, I was expressing sympathy for the fathers.
Their fathers are the one that sent them to muslim bible schools in the first place. So many muslims in Europe refuse to let their children integrate into society and instead send their children home to their old fatherland to be re educated. These same parents also send their children to muslim bible schools where it has been documentet on several occasion they teach the children to hate the country the currently live in. And the governments in europe dont do shit about it, because apparently they dont want their own children to be raised in a secure secular country.
Quote from: Boggit on September 08, 2015, 06:14:55 PM
Quote from: bob48 on September 08, 2015, 04:54:13 PM
I have no sympathy at all for the men who joined ISIS - As a father, I was expressing sympathy for the fathers.
Bob, I get that - and I can understand how devastated one would feel as a parent. I do respect your humanity for what you said, and without any sarcasm you are being very charitable and empathic.
However, I wonder how much their fathers actually knew, and whether there was any tacit approval of their sons actions. They didn't seem too surprised, so I also wonder what sort of value sets they encouraged as parents? It mainly seems to be one community (the elephant in the room) that always seems attracted to jihadi terrorism. I don't think that would be so commonplace if there was not tacit approval, if not actual encouragement. Am I being unreasonable in questioning that?
There is much truth in what you say. When I read the statements made by the fathers, my reaction was that of a non Muslim farther of two boys (or I should say, men, as they are now both in their thirties). Mayhap I should have considered the situation a little more before making the comment that I did.
To be clear, I will shed no tears over the demise, by any means, of anyone who is associated in any way with ISIS, or any other terror organisation - no matter what they choose to call themselves.
I think Grimnirsson has a pretty good grasp of the situation.
While it's well and good to wipe a couple of punks out with drones, what is needed is boots on the ground.
Watched an interview with Lindsey Graham, a GOP contender. (If you asked "who?" you were justified. His poll numbers have him hovering around 1% support.)
His answer to the Syria/Daesh problem was interesting. He called for a force of 80,000 - 100,000 troops to go in there and fix things. Of which he believed the US could/would/should send 10,000. The rest would come from nations around Syria.
I'm not sure that's the proper mix for a winning ground force, but it is the first quasi-specific plan for ground action that I've heard articulated. So there is that.
Not a bad idea, but it's not going to happen.
Quote from: mirth on September 09, 2015, 10:00:07 AM
Not a bad idea, but it's not going to happen.
Not under this president.
Unless I'm mistaken, history is going to judge him rather harshly. He's already demonstrated he is worse than Carter. I think he's targeting rock bottom last place and attempting to set the bar so low that it cannot be surpassed.
I don't think it's going to happy under a Republican administration either. What organization would lead an intervention? The UN? NATO? Nope and nope again. And we're not going to do it unilaterally.
Quote from: mirth on September 09, 2015, 10:14:08 AM
I don't think it's going to happy under a Republican administration either. What organization would lead an intervention? The UN? NATO? Nope and nope again. And we're not going to do it unilaterally.
I'm not sure I agree. I believe that if the US made a concerted diplomatic push to rally Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and maybe Turkey that would couldn't gain their support to pledge troops to the effort.
I'm not sure if we only pledged to be 10% of that force that we'd get any traction, but I think it would work.
Quote from: LongBlade on September 09, 2015, 09:52:24 AMWatched an interview with Lindsey Graham, a GOP contender. (If you asked "who?" you were justified. His poll numbers have him hovering around 1% support.)
Well,
I know who he is, but that's b/c I used to live in SC and I've actually met him.
:)
Nice guy, with occasionally loopy ideas
Quote from: bayonetbrant on September 09, 2015, 10:43:16 AM
Quote from: LongBlade on September 09, 2015, 09:52:24 AMWatched an interview with Lindsey Graham, a GOP contender. (If you asked "who?" you were justified. His poll numbers have him hovering around 1% support.)
Well, I know who he is, but that's b/c I used to live in SC and I've actually met him.
:)
Nice guy, with occasionally loopy ideas
Yeah, I know who is is, too. Because I watch the news - and don't fall asleep during it.
Never thought he stood a chance running for Pres. Couldn't figure out why he tossed his hat in the ring, but that's his problem, not mine.
Quote from: Boggit on September 08, 2015, 06:14:55 PM
It mainly seems to be one community (the elephant in the room) that always seems attracted to jihadi terrorism. I don't think that would be so commonplace if there was not tacit approval, if not actual encouragement. Am I being unreasonable in questioning that?
Nope, not unreasonable.
It's endemic with that religion, worldwide. Has been for a very long time. Poll results regarding Jihadi support in Islamic countries show it to be widely supported by the general populace. Even having been openly supported by a slight majority in some places, at certain times, despite many of those countries having some level of gov't crackdown on same (likely resulting in a neutral response more often which, in the case of supporting murderous jihadis is a bit self explanatory as to the interpretation of the neutral response).
Let's see if Putin can bring some oomph into this situation...he seems the only one able and willing to actually do something against the IS. Russian Spetsnaz troops are already in Syria it is said...
Quote from: Grimnirsson on September 09, 2015, 02:08:07 PM
Let's see if Putin can bring some oomph into this situation...he seems the only one able and willing to actually do something against the IS. Russian Spetsnaz troops are already in Syria it is said...
The enemy of our enemy is our friend...
But there are still things that are unresolved...
If he will leave Ukraine alone...
A Russian resolve in Syria may cut IS to the bone...
But where will it end...
Personally I don't care how and by whom IS is destroyed and what will follow so long as it is destroyed completely and hopefully with the same brutal force that these fanatics show in their videos. Russian troops might be able to do exactly that. The IS is not only killing people, sending millions of refugees over to Europe but as we have seen recently again in Palmyra they are going to destroy the cultural heritage of mankind piece by piece. Blowing up such archaeological sites is unforgivable and we can not bring them back and we depend on them to remember who we are and where we come from. This has to stop but nobody seems to have the balls to stop them. The whole world with all their military power sits there paralyzed because of some rampaging religious fanatics...I mean WTF?
Quote from: Grimnirsson on September 09, 2015, 02:08:07 PM
Let's see if Putin can bring some oomph into this situation...he seems the only one able and willing to actually do something against the IS. Russian Spetsnaz troops are already in Syria it is said...
That base was placed there in case the West decided to get frisky and knock off Assad. Can't have NATO shooting too many Ruskies guarding Assad's palace, now can we? ::)
Quote from: Grimnirsson on September 09, 2015, 03:03:30 PM
Personally I don't care how and by whom IS is destroyed and what will follow so long as it is destroyed completely and hopefully with the same brutal force that these fanatics show in their videos. Russian troops might be able to do exactly that. The IS is not only killing people, sending millions of refugees over to Europe but as we have seen recently again in Palmyra they are going to destroy the cultural heritage of mankind piece by piece. Blowing up such archaeological sites is unforgivable and we can not bring them back and we depend on them to remember who we are and where we come from. This has to stop but nobody seems to have the balls to stop them. The whole world with all their military power sits there paralyzed because of some rampaging religious fanatics...I mean WTF?
I share your concern, but the doctrines governing IS are nothing new. All it is doing is following the principles shown by Mohammed, and his political successors Abu Bakr, and Khalid ibn al Walid.
Child marriage for 9 year old girls is legitimate under IS - the role model for that is Mohammed who consummated his marriage to Aisha (then aged 9 years old) when he was 54 years of age (She was betrothed at the age of 5/6 years). The authority for that comes from the Sahih Al-Bukhari widely regarded as the codification of the Hadiths (muslim traditions).
Islam as the "religion of peace". Nice piece of propaganda, but for 400 years from the formation of Islam conversion was at the point of a sword. Growth of the religion went hand in hand with conquest and the marginalisation, or worse of the religions of those conquered. I have also seen statuary in Turkey with faces smashed by 8th century muslim forces, which is exactly what IS was doing now in Palmyra. Death is the verdict for apostasy. You'd have thought the persuasiveness of theological argument would sway the waverer, but apparently violence is the answer. Does IS deal with this any differently?
While we all love to hate the barbaric IS for their beastly actions, we do not take the time to understand what it is about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha#Marriage_to_Muhammad
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests_on_the_Indian_subcontinent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Persia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ridda_wars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad_conquest_of_Hispania
Without a serious causus belli I don't think anyone will do anything to put an end to this scourge. Once the bad guys cross the line and do something that is absolutely inexcusable in that our way of life is on the verge of elimination then and only then do I see a coalition being formed to wipe this problem out.
I'm not saying the terrible things these groups have done to date are inexcusable, I'm just saying that the limit of toleration has not been exceeded yet and so we put up with the nonsense that is currently occurring.
All the wars of the past have not started without some single unbearable event, whether fabricated or naturally induced, happening to give justification for war.
My impression, which admittedly could be wrong, is that as much as other nations complain about the US acting unilaterally, they expect us to at least take the lead in these matters -- which is reasonable given our massive firepower capabilities -- and there is practically no way this administration is going to do that, because that would be an admission that pulling US power out was a mistake.
Also, wars (and post-war occupation and quasi-nation-building ;) ) cost money, and we're already spending ridiculously more money than we can afford already.
But the people being terrorized in the region can be consoled that Obama funded the AHA during his reign! LEGACY! O0
only problem is that if we are to successful against IS then they will become refugees, and guess where they will head for ?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/09/us-mideast-crisis-syria-exclusive-idUSKCN0R91H720150909
Apparently it is more than Spetsnaz, there is naval infantry as well. I thought that there has been Spetsnaz on the ground in Syria for years, protecting Russians supporting the Assad regime.
Anyway, like Grim, I wish the Russians well in their escapades against ISIS. If they want to spill blood and grind-up resources in that fight, more power to them. If I were a Syrian, I'd rather live under Russian red, white & blue than ISIS black. The whole place is FUBAR to start with, can the Russians really make it any worse? Still, I doubt that their plan is destroy ISIS; it is probably more like help the Syrian government consolidate territory and build a Mediterranean base for the Russian Navy and Air Force. I trust that the Russians will enjoy their stay in Syria a bit more than they enjoyed their stay in Afghanistan. FUBAR.
Saw a news article yesterday that the reds are already working with Assad's combat units.
I do worry about future terrorists living among the current wave of Syrian refugees.
Here in Canada, some people are making comparisons to us offering safe harbour to Syrians in the same way that we did with Kosovars. The Kosovars, although nominally Muslim, were (thanks to decades of Yugoslav communist rule) truly non-religious. My concern is that many of the Syrian refugees will be religious Muslims (and not religious Christians, Druze or Yazidis), and that has the potential to be bad news in the near future.
Quote from: LongBlade on September 10, 2015, 01:06:59 PM
Saw a news article yesterday that the reds are already working with Assad's combat units.
I saw evidence of that on Channel 4 news tonight. They said it was just supply of weapons and equipment, but I got the impression that it was a lot more. Back to "the enemy of my enemy is my friend...". We shall have to monitor events.
QuoteI do worry about future terrorists living among the current wave of Syrian refugees.
That is what the IS announced to do and what will happen. Trojan horse...
And since Canada said they will take...what? 3600 refugees till the end of the year, you are pretty save. We get 20.000 on a weekend now and will be close to 1.000.000 before the year is over. Besides the fact that it will cost us 6,6 Billion € and counting (since it won't stop at 1 Million...) our politicians simply opened the borders, there is no regulation, no one is checking the folks who stream in from all sides. I'm all for helping if the going gets tough but what we do now is pure madness and it destabilizes the EU as a political homogeneous structure. And I definitely expect bad surprises in the near future by terrorists who are among the refugees...
The US is taking 10,000 refugees. Germany half a million.
Just six months ago this is what the FBI said about being able to successfully ID Syrian refugees from the bad guys.
QuoteWASHINGTON — The FBI does not have a way to properly vet incoming Syrian refugees and the Federal Bureau of Investigation said so at a House Homeland Security committee hearing in February.
Officials from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), FBI and the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) told committee members that an intelligence gap exists about terrorists who joined the fight in the civil war happening in Syria and that more than 20,000 foreign fighters have joined the conflict.
"We don't have it under control," Mr. Michael Steinback, Assistant Director for the FBI told the committee. "Absolutely, we're doing the best we can. If I were to say that we had it under control, then I would say I know of every single individual traveling. I don't. And I don't know every person there and I don't know everyone coming back. So it's not even close to being under control."
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/11/flashback-fbi-no-way-to-vet-incoming-syrian-refugees-video/
Quote from: Boggit on September 07, 2015, 07:09:19 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34178998
My first reaction to this news was "Good".
The media, and some Labour politicians have since been at pains to cry about this decision, and to question the legality of the strike. They don't seem to care that these two were planning IS attacks on Britain. I just don't get what side they're on. Do they want to be reporting, and bemoaning IS atrocities instead? What a bunch of ar*eholes! It's hard for a terrorist to commit an atrocity if they're dead.
Neither of the IS pair were native Brits, but settlers. You'd think they'd be grateful the Brits let them live there, provided education, healthcare etc, but it seems not, preferring a sick culture where rape and murder are the norm.
Absolutely one hundred percent agree with this. They are better off dead and the world is a better place without them. Not all human life is sacred.
Don't know what depresses me more - the fuckers we killed or our navel gazing and pontificating about "law" when we do.