ISIS claims to have beheaded captured U.S. journalist

BAGHDAD/BEIRUT (Reuters) - Islamic State insurgents released a video on Tuesday purportedly showing the beheading of U.S. journalist James Foley, who had gone missing in Syria nearly two years ago, and images of another U.S. journalist whose life they said depended on U.S. action in Iraq.

The video, titled "A Message To America," was posted on social media sites. It was not immediately possible to verify its authenticity.

Foley, who has reported in the Middle East for five years, was kidnapped on Nov. 22, 2012, by unidentified gunmen. Steven Sotloff, who appeared at the end of the video, went missing in northern Syria while he was reporting in July 2013.

A Twitter account set up by his family to help find him said early on Wednesday: "We know that many of you are looking for confirmation or answers. Please be patient until we all have more information, and keep the Foleys in your thoughts and prayers."

The White House said that U.S. intelligence agents were working to verify the authenticity of a video.

http://news.yahoo.com/islamic-state-says-beheads-u-journalist-214008202.html

Why are we pussy footing around with these murdering scum? get "boots on the ground" with all the latest weaponry and wipe out the fcuking lot of them and give a message that we wont stand by and let these Islamic murderers get away with it!

I don't think anyone is pussy footing around nicko; Cameron will be more than aware of the amount of animosity Blair got (rightly so imo) for his dragging Britain into Iraq in 2003, and will want to make sure he makes the right decision (both strategically and politically). He isn't going to take a course of action that costs him the election is he?

My two cents though is we should go in, and send the ISIS Islamists to the ridiculous 'Paradise' and whatever virgins they go on about a little sooner than they intended to   

They really are asking for it, aren't they? I can't help but hope they get what they want.

Eilzel wrote:I don't think anyone is pussy footing around nicko; Cameron will be more than aware of the amount of animosity Blair got (rightly so imo) for his dragging Britain into Iraq in 2003, and will want to make sure he makes the right decision (both strategically and politically). He isn't going to take a course of action that costs him the election is he?

My two cents though is we should go in, and send the ISIS Islamists to the ridiculous 'Paradise' and whatever virgins they go on about a little sooner than they intended to   

The problem with the west involving themselves yet again, is that it is golden propaganda for the extremists to claim the west is out to destroy Islam, as it always is used by them. What is completely wrong is why the likes of Turkey, Jordan, Iran, Saudi etc are not taking on the role to oust these groups, by doing so it is then Muslims actively taking on extremists, thus denying the extremists the propaganda they grave to lure vulnerable Muslims to their cause. I am all for us playing an active role in support, but the ground work should come from Arab countries, as they are the ones who if ISIS win, will be next on their list. 
I agree with you we should obliterate them, but of those that survive and then go back to their European countries of birth, then creates another problem, their resentment of destroying their Caliphate state, where they would recruit this to garner more support and we would then face, more terrorism here, unless we ensured we either wiped them out or they are denied and legal rights to return to any European nation.

Again it should be the Arab nations taking an active role but as usual it will be the west who has to do all the hard work

nicko wrote:Why are we pussy footing around with these murdering scum? get "boots on the ground" with all the latest weaponry and wipe out the fcuking lot of them and give a message that we wont stand by and let these Islamic murderers get away with it!

Good morning Nicko.

No thanks mate.We tried all that before & failed due to the rules of engagement etc.

If troops were allowed to kill without mercy & without taking prisoners & carry out wholesale slaughter then that would be different.

But that ain't gonna happen,so the best we can do is continue supporting the Iraqi armed forces & Kurds with air strikes.

Like I always say,why should any of us die for any of them?.....Why?

And what is the first thing I read on this:


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08/18/richard-barrett_n_5688484.html?1408440934&utm_hp_ref=uk


Catch you all later

Didge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:I don't think anyone is pussy footing around nicko; Cameron will be more than aware of the amount of animosity Blair got (rightly so imo) for his dragging Britain into Iraq in 2003, and will want to make sure he makes the right decision (both strategically and politically). He isn't going to take a course of action that costs him the election is he?

My two cents though is we should go in, and send the ISIS Islamists to the ridiculous 'Paradise' and whatever virgins they go on about a little sooner than they intended to   

The problem with the west involving themselves yet again, is that it is golden propaganda for the extremists to claim the west is out to destroy Islam, as it always is used by them. What is completely wrong is why the likes of Turkey, Jordan, Iran, Saudi etc are not taking on the role to oust these groups, by doing so it is then Muslims actively taking on extremists, thus denying the extremists the propaganda they grave to lure vulnerable Muslims to their cause. I am all for us playing an active role in support, but the ground work should come from Arab countries, as they are the ones who if ISIS win, will be next on their list. 
I agree with you we should obliterate them, but of those that survive and then go back to their European countries of birth, then creates another problem, their resentment of destroying their Caliphate state, where they would recruit this to garner more support and we would then face, more terrorism here, unless we ensured we either wiped them out or they are denied and legal rights to return to any European nation.

Again it should be the Arab nations taking an active role but as usual it will be the west who has to do all the hard work

Good morning Didge.

Just a quick response before I get up for breakfast.....Your final comment is bang on the nose & one which I totally agree with.And have been screaming out for years.

Why aren't the Arab nations sorting this out? They most certainly do have the weaponry & money to deal with ISIS without involving the west.

Didge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:I don't think anyone is pussy footing around nicko; Cameron will be more than aware of the amount of animosity Blair got (rightly so imo) for his dragging Britain into Iraq in 2003, and will want to make sure he makes the right decision (both strategically and politically). He isn't going to take a course of action that costs him the election is he?

My two cents though is we should go in, and send the ISIS Islamists to the ridiculous 'Paradise' and whatever virgins they go on about a little sooner than they intended to   

The problem with the west involving themselves yet again, is that it is golden propaganda for the extremists to claim the west is out to destroy Islam, as it always is used by them. What is completely wrong is why the likes of Turkey, Jordan, Iran, Saudi etc are not taking on the role to oust these groups, by doing so it is then Muslims actively taking on extremists, thus denying the extremists the propaganda they grave to lure vulnerable Muslims to their cause. I am all for us playing an active role in support, but the ground work should come from Arab countries, as they are the ones who if ISIS win, will be next on their list. 
I agree with you we should obliterate them, but of those that survive and then go back to their European countries of birth, then creates another problem, their resentment of destroying their Caliphate state, where they would recruit this to garner more support and we would then face, more terrorism here, unless we ensured we either wiped them out or they are denied and legal rights to return to any European nation.

Again it should be the Arab nations taking an active role but as usual it will be the west who has to do all the hard work

I fully agree didge, Turkey, Egypt and Saudi alone have the military power to take on ISIS. But we know they wont. And ISIS will become a threat to European nations IF it is able to grow in power and achieve its ME ambitions. Like it or not, as you say, it will be western nations who have to do it.

I have fought in two wars, Vietnam and Ireland, I have learnt one thing.If you want to win a war go all out to win it, take no notice of Rules of Engagement, take no notice of "we can't do that it's not right" Take no notice of the "do gooders" go in hard with no mercy. fight the enemy as they fight us. Shady got it right.

nicko wrote:I have fought in two wars, Vietnam and Ireland, I have learnt one thing.If you want to win a war go all out to win it, take no notice of Rules of Engagement, take no notice of "we can't do that it's not right" Take no notice of the "do gooders" go in hard with no mercy. fight the enemy as they fight us.   Shady got it right.

But the point remains, if public opinion in general seems to be against intervention, Cameron may not go there.

As to the idea we should lower ourselves to enemy standards; well as has been said we could create many more enemies if we begin indiscriminate and brutal killing in Iraq. The whole point, IF we go there, would be to get rid of ISIS and leave behind a situation which doesn't breed more violence and more radicals. We failed last time and would fail again if we showed ourselves to be just as bad as the savage fundamentalists.

Eilzel wrote:

nicko wrote:I have fought in two wars, Vietnam and Ireland, I have learnt one thing.If you want to win a war go all out to win it, take no notice of Rules of Engagement, take no notice of "we can't do that it's not right" Take no notice of the "do gooders" go in hard with no mercy. fight the enemy as they fight us.   Shady got it right.

But the point remains, if public opinion in general seems to be against intervention, Cameron may not go there.

As to the idea we should lower ourselves to enemy standards; well as has been said we could create many more enemies if we begin indiscriminate and brutal killing in Iraq. The whole point, IF we go there, would be to get rid of ISIS and leave behind a situation which doesn't breed more violence and more radicals. We failed last time and would fail again if we showed ourselves to be just as bad as the savage fundamentalists.

Problem is though Les, how do you achieve that?

These are not normal people they are dealing with, I didn't watch the video but apparently they didn't just chop his head off, he did it with a small knife and it took 7 minutes. Trying to reason with people like that is out of the window, they have gone out there to die so death means nothing to them.

My heart says we shouldn't get involved, because of the loss of US and UK serviceman, my head says that unless we do these people are not going to be happy staying there and executing the odd person they manage to get hold of. They will have infiltrated the UK and USA by now, we will be getting another 9/11 or worse and soon unless someone stops them.

And frankly we are not going to do that by capturing them, loading them onto a plane and trying them in a court as war criminals.

I always believe that we should comply with the Geneva Convention during acts of war but in this case these nutters are not normal so to hell with that. And there’s no good just scattering them to the wind because they will just regroup and be back again. They need to wiped out completely.

And the Saudi’s and all the other controlling bodies in the Middle East will do nothing fearing it will undermine unrest within their own countries and dump them out of power. There is already unrest in many of these countries which is suppressed but we have seen evidence of this quite recently and you only have to look to Iran and Bahrain for examples of this.

The West have supplied billions of tangible and intangible assets in equipping and training the Iraqi military and security forces but when it comes to crunch where they are needed they just dissolve away in the face of a force that they should have been able to take full on and defeat.

The Kurds will fight and we are arming them to do that but once they regain control of the region they will be demanding their long standing claim for independence and they now have a very good reason for that due to their central government being unable to protect them.

It’s just a mess.

If there are defeated in Iraq they will be subject to punishment in Iraq. In conflict much of ISIS would be destroyed, the leaders if captured would suffer Iraqi justice, which I believe is execution (as happened with Saddam). I'm all for eradicating ISIS but what do people mean when they say we shouldn't abide by international rules?

That's a point actually, say the US/UK did capture some ISIS terrorists who turn out to be British/American citizens, what would happen to them?

I don't know. I'd hope as they were commiting a crime in Iraq, they'd be tried and punished according to Iraqi Laws. But it doesn't always work out that way I know.

Eilzel wrote:If there are defeated in Iraq they will be subject to punishment in Iraq. In conflict much of ISIS would be destroyed, the leaders if captured would suffer Iraqi justice, which I believe is execution (as happened with Saddam). I'm all for eradicating ISIS but what do people mean when they say we shouldn't abide by international rules?

we should fight them according to THEIR rules....

the aim of war is to win.....the ONLY way to win against these types is to destroy them utterly...

play them the deguello then wipe em out.

too long we have been hampered by "rules" when fighting an enemy that recognises NO rules.....

Honestly though Vic, whay could we do that we don't currently do, against an enemy of this sort that would actually make a difference and doesn't involve murdering civilians en masse?

As expected, the murder of this journalist has caused such a height of emotion, that people have lost all sense of the rational.

To the point where some of you want to ignore the Geneva Conventions and become as savage as ISIS.

Here are a few points to mull over:

1. Do you think the US/West care about the civilians murdered by ISIS? Do you think they care about the 2 journalists (one now murdered)? Would the West be there if they didn't have to protect OIL reserves?

2. Reason why Saudi are not getting involved (explicitly), is because they're playing a 'double game'. isis want the House of Saud removed. The Saudi's have some control (so far) over their extremist element (thanks to the US) but are then using ISIS to fund a war against the Shia. Not to mention the price of oil would skyrocket if the US lose control over Iraqi oil.

Regardless of that Zack, the fact is that ISIS COULD become a threat to Europe. Foley's executioner appears to be British (at least his accent would suggest), and that means we have a situation where savages fighting for ISIS could end up here. If ISIS did manage to control Iraq they woyld not stop there. Frankly I agree with the view they should be obliterated before being given the opportunity to grow. If oil is the excuse fine, but letting this Islsmic fundamentalism spread and gain power in the ME will only create a bigger problem in the long term. The radicals dream of a global caliphate, a carry out brutal murders to get their own way. That will make people emotional. Why give this monstrous ideology a chance to get anywhere?

Eilzel wrote:Regardless of that Zack, the fact is that ISIS COULD become a threat to Europe. Foley's executioner appears to be British (at least his accent would suggest), and that means we have a situation where savages fighting for ISIS could end up here. If ISIS did manage to control Iraq they woyld not stop there. Frankly I agree with the view they should be obliterated before being given the opportunity to grow. If oil is the excuse fine, but letting this Islsmic fundamentalism spread and gain power in the ME will only create a bigger problem in the long term. The radicals dream of a global caliphate, a carry out brutal murders to get their own way. That will make people emotional. Why give this monstrous ideology a chance to get anywhere?

"Isis could become a threat to Europe" is another emotional judgement, albeit IMO.

Even if the West do nothing (or just assist with Air Force), ISIS will be consolidating their power in the ME for many years to come. Only then will the Europe come under their radar.

This could change if the West continues to bomb them - they (ISIS) will take more desperate action. As we've seen.

You can't destroy ISIS (or what they represent) - only the naive and the emotional would think otherwise. A gorilla war will also cost many European lives too.

ISIS are enjoying success because of the power vacuum left after Iraq and the civil war in Syria. Now tell me if you think Western, imperialist involvement will make that situation better or worse?

I think western involvement would cause problems and probably create more recruits for ISIS, almost certainly.

However, even in your post there you concede that if ISIS were successful in Iraq it would be only a matter of time before Europe falls 'under their radar'.

My point is, why wait for to consolidate their power? Why let them become so embedded they become as impossible to remove as the Taliban if Afghanistan? Would it not be for the best in the long term to destroy them sooner rather than later?

Of course lives would be lost, but it would be far fewer than the number that will be killed if we just give ISIS free run in the middle east.

Eilzel wrote:I think western involvement would cause problems and probably create more recruits for ISIS, almost certainly.

However, even in your post there you concede that if ISIS were successful in Iraq it would be only a matter of time before Europe falls 'under their radar'.

My point is, why wait for to consolidate their power? Why let them become so embedded they become as impossible to remove as the Taliban if Afghanistan? Would it not be for the best in the long term to destroy them sooner rather than later?

Of course lives would be lost, but it would be far fewer than the number that will be killed if we just give ISIS free run in the middle east.

I also said you can't destroy what ISIS represents. ISIS is a conglomeration of all the other terrorist groups the West thought they had destroyed.

Don't worry, the west won't let them consolidate power. But let's not pretend it's out of some moral sense of duty. It's to protect the Oil supply and the influence of the US dollar.

For any soldiers who end up out there, and for the public at home, the cause will be to protect our way of life from brutal, savage, oppressive Islamism. Politicians may have whatever interests they like, but that doesn't change the fact the threat we'd be opposing IS real. And unless you seriously jaded about every single politician out there ir would be unfair to think some were not more concerned with protecting the British public than oil fields.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:As expected, the murder of this journalist has caused such a height of emotion, that people have lost all sense of the rational.

To the point where some of you want to ignore the Geneva Conventions and become as savage as ISIS.

Here are a few points to mull over:

1. Do you think the US/West care about the civilians murdered by ISIS? Do you think they care about the 2 journalists (one now murdered)? Would the West be there if they didn't have to protect OIL reserves?

2. Reason why Saudi are not getting involved (explicitly), is because they're playing a 'double game'. isis want the House of Saud removed. The Saudi's have some control (so far) over their extremist element (thanks to the US) but are then using ISIS to fund a war against the Shia. Not to mention the price of oil would skyrocket if the US lose control over Iraqi oil.

Geneva convention?

ISIS do not abide by the Geneva convention, thus all aspect of fair play should go out of the window, as the reason is their whole aspect is one of terror and they thrive on the fact the west is utterly soft. When the west has won conflicts like WW2 or for example taking on the IRA, they were not soft, like Gibraltar, when the SAS shot some IRA. Of course some wet fish were up in arms, but you do not fight terror with one arm tied behind your back, or you will constantly be on the back foot, as the west has been in these conflicts, because the extremists have been allowed their voice to be heard within western nations and little has been done to prevent this, even worse the Muslim community has feared speaking up also.

IF the west show they are not weak or soft and take a hard stance against extremism, with zero tolerance and a shoot to kill policy for those who do not advocate the Geneva convention, then they know the west is not afraid to hit back and hit back hard. It has been wet lefty groups that have stopped are secret service from doing what they are meant to do. The reality is Churchill had to make hard line decisions and did not tremble at making them, and this is the problem today, where we have no backbone to act tough against such groups.

This is not about some journalist, this has been a growing problem over the last 15 years, where little has been done to stem the rise of extremism within Islam and more to the point how Muslims themselves have done little to combat it. Yes they have helped the security services, but it should be Muslim nations taking the lead in ousting such extremism, but they shy away from it. That does not mean western nations should not. I have no problem with a shoot to kill policy, fuck em, they give no shit and laugh at the fact we are restricted by said rules of which they do not adhere to. Bring in a new law, where those who do not abide by such conventions, should not be treated as combatants and a policy of shoot to kill for terrorist.

Another point, the west knows who is funding these groups and they should stop fucking around and take them out, kill the head at its source, and yes I agree the Saudi's are playing a very dangerous double game, which will see their nation fall also, they fund much of the extreme Islam as it is through wahabbism, which should be outlawed in schools etc, in fact there should be no religious schools, full stop. it should be a subject nothing more. Again we need to stop fucking about, take out as we always did in the past those behind such organisations, take the battle to them and do not stop until their resources are wipe out

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Eilzel wrote:I think western involvement would cause problems and probably create more recruits for ISIS, almost certainly.

However, even in your post there you concede that if ISIS were successful in Iraq it would be only a matter of time before Europe falls 'under their radar'.

My point is, why wait for to consolidate their power? Why let them become so embedded they become as impossible to remove as the Taliban if Afghanistan? Would it not be for the best in the long term to destroy them sooner rather than later?

Of course lives would be lost, but it would be far fewer than the number that will be killed if we just give ISIS free run in the middle east.

I also said you can't destroy what ISIS represents. ISIS is a conglomeration of all the other terrorist groups the West thought they had destroyed.

Don't worry, the west won't let them consolidate power. But let's not pretend it's out of some moral sense of duty. It's to protect the Oil supply and the influence of the US dollar.

Utter Babble, the USA is now the leading oil exporter and within 10 years will not even need to bring in oil, being as it sits on a larger oil reserve than any Middle Eastern country, it learnt to start harnessing its resources because of Iraq and this has more to do with trying to stabilize a region, which has completely grown out of hand. Why is it so many people are easily gullible to the belief on oil.

Shady wrote:

Didge wrote:


The problem with the west involving themselves yet again, is that it is golden propaganda for the extremists to claim the west is out to destroy Islam, as it always is used by them. What is completely wrong is why the likes of Turkey, Jordan, Iran, Saudi etc are not taking on the role to oust these groups, by doing so it is then Muslims actively taking on extremists, thus denying the extremists the propaganda they grave to lure vulnerable Muslims to their cause. I am all for us playing an active role in support, but the ground work should come from Arab countries, as they are the ones who if ISIS win, will be next on their list. 
I agree with you we should obliterate them, but of those that survive and then go back to their European countries of birth, then creates another problem, their resentment of destroying their Caliphate state, where they would recruit this to garner more support and we would then face, more terrorism here, unless we ensured we either wiped them out or they are denied and legal rights to return to any European nation.

Again it should be the Arab nations taking an active role but as usual it will be the west who has to do all the hard work

Good morning Didge.

Just a quick response before I get up for breakfast.....Your final comment is bang on the nose & one which I totally agree with.And have been screaming out for years.

Why aren't the Arab nations sorting this out? They most certainly do have the weaponry & money to deal with ISIS without involving the west.

Good Afternoon Commander

I think it was time, like before we allowed are secret service to do the job they used to excel, out, taking out our enemies, where people do not need to know, like they think they should. We never won conflicts in some manner and no strategy I know wins where you are constantly fighting with one hand tied behind your back. Things are meant to be clandestine for a reason, so our enemies do not know our intentions, where we need to have people in charge that have backbone to back tough decisions. 
I agree, it should be the Arab nations taking the lead and it is about time the west applied pressure to them to take action, as why should we keep spending a fortune to clean up, whilst they sit back and do very little?

Didge wrote:Another point, the west knows who is funding these groups and they should stop fucking around and take them out, kill the head at its source, and yes I agree the Saudi's are playing a very dangerous double game, which will see their nation fall also, they fund much of the extreme Islam as it is through wahabbism, which should be outlawed in schools etc, in fact there should be no religious schools, full stop. it should be a subject nothing more. Again we need to stop fucking about, take out as we always did in the past those behind such organisations, take the battle to them and do not stop until their resources are wipe out

An extremist, reactionary, emotional and an irrational response.

You have truly become Smelly-fied. Lol!

Well done.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

I also said you can't destroy what ISIS represents. ISIS is a conglomeration of all the other terrorist groups the West thought they had destroyed.

Don't worry, the west won't let them consolidate power. But let's not pretend it's out of some moral sense of duty. It's to protect the Oil supply and the influence of the US dollar.

Utter Babble, the USA is now the leading oil exporter and within 10 years will not even need to bring in oil, being as it sits on a larger oil reserve than any Middle Eastern country, it learnt to start harnessing its resources because of Iraq and this has more to do with trying to stabilize a region, which has completely grown out of hand. Why is it so many people are easily gullible to the belief on oil.

Lol! Do you really think the US would be involved if the Kurdish oil fields were not under threat?

Do you really think that wouldn't have a dramatic impact on world oil prices and the strength of the US dollar?

HA HA!

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


Utter Babble, the USA is now the leading oil exporter and within 10 years will not even need to bring in oil, being as it sits on a larger oil reserve than any Middle Eastern country, it learnt to start harnessing its resources because of Iraq and this has more to do with trying to stabilize a region, which has completely grown out of hand. Why is it so many people are easily gullible to the belief on oil.

Lol! Do you really think the US would be involved if the Kurdish oil fields were not under threat?

Do you really think that wouldn't have a dramatic impact on world oil prices and the strength of the US dollar?

HA HA!

Shows how little you know about American Oil and your infantile laughs do not score you any points being as you are wrong. 

Suggest you try again, do you want to see how much the US imports and where from?
Do you want to see how they will not even need to import?

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Lol! Do you really think the US would be involved if the Kurdish oil fields were not under threat?

Do you really think that wouldn't have a dramatic impact on world oil prices and the strength of the US dollar?

HA HA!

Shows how little you know about American Oil and your infantile laughs do not score you any points being as you are wrong. 

Suggest you try again, do you want to see how much the US imports and where from?
Do you want to see how they will not even need to import?

I see you're avoiding questions again. Lol!

Try again.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:Another point, the west knows who is funding these groups and they should stop fucking around and take them out, kill the head at its source, and yes I agree the Saudi's are playing a very dangerous double game, which will see their nation fall also, they fund much of the extreme Islam as it is through wahabbism, which should be outlawed in schools etc, in fact there should be no religious schools, full stop. it should be a subject nothing more. Again we need to stop fucking about, take out as we always did in the past those behind such organisations, take the battle to them and do not stop until their resources are wipe out

An extremist, reactionary, emotional and an irrational response.

You have truly become Smelly-fied. Lol!

Well done.

Not really, I am looking from this from a tactical point of view, show me where any such conflicts have bee really won by being soft?
I know history well, especially military, hence why this is not emotive but strategical thinking, where I know what works, so again all you can do is not take on my points but sadly divert onto me because you have not the first clue what you are on about

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


Shows how little you know about American Oil and your infantile laughs do not score you any points being as you are wrong. 

Suggest you try again, do you want to see how much the US imports and where from?
Do you want to see how they will not even need to import?

I see you're avoiding questions again. Lol!

Try again.

Or avoiding mine as you always do, my answer to your is no, which was obvious accept to someone blind I guess

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

An extremist, reactionary, emotional and an irrational response.

You have truly become Smelly-fied. Lol!

Well done.

Not really, I am looking from this from a tactical point of view, show me where any such conflicts have bee really won by being soft?
I know history well, especially military, hence why this is not emotive but strategical thinking, where I know what works, so again all you can do is not take on my points but sadly divert onto me because you have not the first clue what you are on about

Luckily you're not in power.

Those who are seem to be making the right calls, so far. Getting Maliki is a start.

The ISIS problem is not going to be resolved instantaneously or on the battle field.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


Not really, I am looking from this from a tactical point of view, show me where any such conflicts have bee really won by being soft?
I know history well, especially military, hence why this is not emotive but strategical thinking, where I know what works, so again all you can do is not take on my points but sadly divert onto me because you have not the first clue what you are on about

Luckily you're not in power.

Those who are seem to be making the right calls, so far. Getting Maliki is a start.

The ISIS problem is not going to be resolved instantaneously or on the battle field.

lol read back and see what I have written about taking people out.

What a wally, ha ha, that shows you do not read any of the posts properly.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

I see you're avoiding questions again. Lol!

Try again.

Or avoiding mine as you always do, my answer to your is no, which was obvious accept to someone blind I guess

Then you're quite clearly clueless. The US are obviously there to protect oil fields.

And they won't do anything unless an oil field is under threat again. Watch and see.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Luckily you're not in power.

Those who are seem to be making the right calls, so far. Getting Maliki is a start.

The ISIS problem is not going to be resolved instantaneously or on the battle field.

lol read back and see what I have written about taking people out.

What a wally, ha ha, that shows you do not read any of the posts properly.

Lol! It seems you're still upset about last week.

Chill out. You'll blow a fuse.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


Or avoiding mine as you always do, my answer to your is no, which was obvious accept to someone blind I guess

Then you're quite clearly clueless. The US are obviously there to protect oil fields.

And they won't do anything unless an oil field is under threat again. Watch and see.

More like as seen you know fuck all:




The advance of the ISIS-insurgents in Iraq’s northwest has to date produced hardly a ripple on oil markets, ABN AMRO observes, with oil prices edging up by just a few US dollars. Given that oil production in Iraq’s northeast has been blocked for several months already, the country’s entire oil export is now coming from the southeastern city of Basra, where oil production and exports hit ten-year highs in May and June.

ABN AMRO is convinced, moreover, that neither neighbouring oil-producing countries nor the international community at large, and the United States in particular, will allow ISIS to gain control over the large oil fields in Iraq’s south. As a consequence, the bank’s economists see little risk of Iraqi oil exports coming to a standstill. Besides, any dip in Iraqi production can be offset by extra oil production in other OPEC countries, notably Saudi Arabia. Going forward, Iraq will remain a key oil producer as global – read Asian - demand continues to grow.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Then you're quite clearly clueless. The US are obviously there to protect oil fields.

And they won't do anything unless an oil field is under threat again. Watch and see.

More like as seen you know fuck all:




The advance of the ISIS-insurgents in Iraq’s northwest has to date produced hardly a ripple on oil markets, ABN AMRO observes, with oil prices edging up by just a few US dollars. Given that oil production in Iraq’s northeast has been blocked for several months already, the country’s entire oil export is now coming from the southeastern city of Basra, where oil production and exports hit ten-year highs in May and June.

ABN AMRO is convinced, moreover, that neither neighbouring oil-producing countries nor the international community at large, and the United States in particular, will allow ISIS to gain control over the large oil fields in Iraq’s south. As a consequence, the bank’s economists see little risk of Iraqi oil exports coming to a standstill. Besides, any dip in Iraqi production can be offset by extra oil production in other OPEC countries, notably Saudi Arabia. Going forward, Iraq will remain a key oil producer as global – read Asian - demand continues to grow.

Note the words 'to date'.

Hmm!

Like I said, chill out. Or don't bother replying.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


lol read back and see what I have written about taking people out.

What a wally, ha ha, that shows you do not read any of the posts properly.

Lol! It seems you're still upset about last week.

Chill out. You'll blow a fuse.

Oh dear, I made you look a wally, as all you can do is divert where I am giving you a master class in tactics, and all can see is you spoil debates with your infantile posts.
I suggest you come back when you have something intelligent where how you failed to answer who was the USA was the best fuck up to date
I am very cool and your poor attempts to goad are about as bad as you smell

Like I said, you're all emotionally spun and not rational. As proven above.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:



More like as seen you know fuck all:




The advance of the ISIS-insurgents in Iraq’s northwest has to date produced hardly a ripple on oil markets, ABN AMRO observes, with oil prices edging up by just a few US dollars. Given that oil production in Iraq’s northeast has been blocked for several months already, the country’s entire oil export is now coming from the southeastern city of Basra, where oil production and exports hit ten-year highs in May and June.

ABN AMRO is convinced, moreover, that neither neighbouring oil-producing countries nor the international community at large, and the United States in particular, will allow ISIS to gain control over the large oil fields in Iraq’s south. As a consequence, the bank’s economists see little risk of Iraqi oil exports coming to a standstill. Besides, any dip in Iraqi production can be offset by extra oil production in other OPEC countries, notably Saudi Arabia. Going forward, Iraq will remain a key oil producer as global – read Asian - demand continues to grow.

Note the words 'to date'.

Hmm!

Like I said, chill out. Or don't bother replying.

I am very chilled thanks, just enjoying making you look very thick to be honest:

Although risk levels have risen, ABN’s basic scenario (which focuses on the next two years) envisages a situation in which oil prices will remain stable or fall slightly. This scenario assumes that the supply of oil will remain sufficient in the years ahead. Global demand is set to increase at a very modest pace, and this extra demand can be met thanks to surging oil production in non-OPEC countries like the US and Canada. 

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Like I said, you're all emotionally spun and not rational. As proven above.

Blah blah blah, you are boring, shall wait for someone who has intelligence, which clearly you lack on strategy.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Lol! It seems you're still upset about last week.

Chill out. You'll blow a fuse.

Oh dear, I made you look a wally, as all you can do is divert where I am giving you a master class in tactics, and all can see is you spoil debates with your infantile posts.
I suggest you come back when you have something intelligent where how you failed to answer who was the USA was the best fuck up to date
I am very cool and your poor attempts to goad are about as bad as you smell

Sorry mate. But you're clearly agitated. Calm down. You're a legend in your own mind only.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Like I said, you're all emotionally spun and not rational. As proven above.

Blah blah blah, you are boring, shall wait for someone who has intelligence, which clearly you lack on strategy.

Lol! Tell me again how calm you are? Blah, blah, blah! HA HA!

Are you going to threaten to flatten me for a third time and then chicken out again?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:



Oh dear, I made you look a wally, as all you can do is divert where I am giving you a master class in tactics, and all can see is you spoil debates with your infantile posts.
I suggest you come back when you have something intelligent where how you failed to answer who was the USA was the best fuck up to date
I am very cool and your poor attempts to goad are about as bad as you smell

Sorry mate. But you're clearly agitated. Calm down. You're a legend in your own mind only.

Yes so agitated I am taking you to the cleaners on this, dear me, if this is all you can I suggest you start taking the piss out of the wall as that is about you can manage, best you run along, your milk break is over, the other kiddies are waiting.

You see how you spoil good debates, because I expose you for the child you are ha ha

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Note the words 'to date'.

Hmm!

Like I said, chill out. Or don't bother replying.

I am very chilled thanks, just enjoying making you look very thick to be honest:

Although risk levels have risen, ABN’s basic scenario (which focuses on the next two years) envisages a situation in which oil prices will remain stable or fall slightly. This scenario assumes that the supply of oil will remain sufficient in the years ahead. Global demand is set to increase at a very modest pace, and this extra demand can be met thanks to surging oil production in non-OPEC countries like the US and Canada. 

Oh yeah, abn amro.  The great sages. HA HA! Stick to history mate. Not the futures.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


Blah blah blah, you are boring, shall wait for someone who has intelligence, which clearly you lack on strategy.

Lol! Tell me again how calm you are? Blah, blah, blah! HA HA!

Are you going to threaten to flatten me for a third time and then chicken out again?

Ah bless, you still looking over your shoulder little zack who had to learn to fight because he was constantly bullied. .
You are boring and as seen cannot debate a topic and act like a child, so please continue acting a tit, I enjoy seeing you struggle.
Think I shall start calling you Danger Mouse

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


I am very chilled thanks, just enjoying making you look very thick to be honest:

Although risk levels have risen, ABN’s basic scenario (which focuses on the next two years) envisages a situation in which oil prices will remain stable or fall slightly. This scenario assumes that the supply of oil will remain sufficient in the years ahead. Global demand is set to increase at a very modest pace, and this extra demand can be met thanks to surging oil production in non-OPEC countries like the US and Canada. 

Oh yeah, abn amro.  The great sages. HA HA! Stick to history mate. Not the futures.

Plenty more to choose from, who are better than you at predicting, stick to being gullible, it is what you do best Zack