Why must we be......

by Guest Sat Aug 23, 2014 9:58 pm

First topic message reminder :

Better than them??

all across so many threads. about ISIS we keep seeing the words "we must be better than them" or "we must not stoop to their level"

the bleatings of those already beaten and preparing their own eulogy "I was better than you"

cowards and defeatists all

why the hell NOT fight fire with fire...if we HAVE to fight em with boots on the ground then relieve our fighters of ALL responsibility to the enemy period...no quarter no mercy and most certainly NO prisoners...UNTIL THEY learn to act a little civilised and respect human rights /geneva convention rules. IF they want to fight according to "allahs" rules then fine...and so should we...The we=st has the mightiest armies going and is crippled into helplesness in the face of savages....you couldnt make it up.....

and all with the encouragement, indeed coersion of the lefty defeatists and "peaceniks" who would sooner sell tgheir children into slavery of some islamic vson of hell than stand up and kick brutality in the bollocks first...

there is a simple change to the "golden rule".....do unto others as they would do unto you.....but do it first

by Lone Wolf Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:31 am

Didge wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:
wow didge...

think that is a little bit of and over reaction to be told you are sounding like Smelly B (although that is a horrible insult   )

Oh well better to be a wet fish than a dry one I suppose

Fuck the little ----, he knows what he said was wrong, now he will live with his mistake

::hndbg:: ::fishffight:: ::pnchy:: ::gnslnger::

by Guest Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:31 am

Eilzel wrote:Oooh how big and bad you sound didge...

So you don't want to abide by the convention when it suits, that's quite hypocritical don't you think?

Seems you cannot read my boy, I said the Geneva convention should not apply to like for example IS, who does not abide by them, it should apply to nations that do, so no contradiction.
You though did contradict as seen, over Bin Laden's death where you are happy unconventional means have been used.

by Eilzel Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:37 am

If we could just drop the Geneva Convention as it suits old boy we'd have done so first against Assad. And who knows how powerful IS would now be.

by Guest Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:39 am

Eilzel wrote:If we could just drop the Geneva Convention as it suits old boy we'd have done so first against Assad. And who knows how powerful IS would now be.

Why Assad?
He is no direct threat to the west, that is absurd, where as IS are.
IS are very powerful, dear me, they are because as seen the conventional approach has allowed them to be

by Eilzel Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:42 am

We'd have thrown the convention out years ago when he began gassing his own people; with no convention to worry about we'd have dived straight in. Don't forget where this started didge.

by Guest Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:44 am

Eilzel wrote:We'd have thrown the convention out years ago when he began gassing his own people; with no convention to worry about we'd have dived straight in. Don't forget where this started didge.

Really, where did it start Eilzel?

Again Assad is not a threat to the west, IS are, showing your view is not only absurd but bollocks

by Eilzel Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:29 am

Didge wrote:
Eilzel wrote:We'd have thrown the convention out years ago when he began gassing his own people; with no convention to worry about we'd have dived straight in. Don't forget where this started didge.

Really, where did it start Eilzel?

Again Assad is not a threat to the west, IS are, showing your view is not only absurd but bollocks

You appear to have missed the point. Assad was abusing human rights by gassing his people, and violating the Geneva Convention in doing so. Had there been a self made rule about 'enemies forfeiting the right to be dealt with according to the terms of the Geneva Convention', without doubt the west would have taken a more direct approach and been brutal in their reaction against Assad (way before IS showed up).

Unless you are in fact saying that for us to breach the Geneva Convention the enemy has to threaten us directly and it can't just be against any old human rights abuse. In which case I call hypocrisy again.

by Guest Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:31 am

Eilzel wrote:
Didge wrote:

Really, where did it start Eilzel?

Again Assad is not a threat to the west, IS are, showing your view is not only absurd but bollocks

You appear to have missed the point. Assad was abusing human rights by gassing his people, and violating the Geneva Convention in doing so. Had there been a self made rule about 'enemies forfeiting the right to be dealt with according to the terms of the Geneva Convention', without doubt the west would have taken a more direct approach and been brutal in their reaction against Assad (way before IS showed up).

Unless you are in fact saying that for us to breach the Geneva Convention the enemy has to threaten us directly and it can't just be against any old human rights abuse. In which case I call hypocrisy again.

I am missing no point, he is no direct threat to the Uk or any other European nation, where we are not involved with, where as IS are a direct threat to the west. We have rightly not decided to get involved in the Syrian Civil war, so your point is utterly moot.

by Eilzel Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:36 am

Didge wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

You appear to have missed the point. Assad was abusing human rights by gassing his people, and violating the Geneva Convention in doing so. Had there been a self made rule about 'enemies forfeiting the right to be dealt with according to the terms of the Geneva Convention', without doubt the west would have taken a more direct approach and been brutal in their reaction against Assad (way before IS showed up).

Unless you are in fact saying that for us to breach the Geneva Convention the enemy has to threaten us directly and it can't just be against any old human rights abuse. In which case I call hypocrisy again.

I am missing no point, he is no direct threat to the Uk or any other European nation, where we are not involved with, where as IS are a direct threat to the west. We have rightly not decided to get involved in the Syrian Civil war, so your point is utterly moot.

So what you're saying is; a foreign nation can breach the Geneva Convention all it likes and a Dictator can butcher their people but the only time a retaliation can breach the Geneva Convention is when they directly threaten us? Nice attitude to have there.

by Guest Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:39 am

Eilzel wrote:
Didge wrote:

I am missing no point, he is no direct threat to the Uk or any other European nation, where we are not involved with, where as IS are a direct threat to the west. We have rightly not decided to get involved in the Syrian Civil war, so your point is utterly moot.

So what you're saying is; a foreign nation can breach the Geneva Convention all it likes and a Dictator can butcher their people but the only time a retaliation can breach the Geneva Convention is when they directly threaten us? Nice attitude to have there.

Nope you are saying that, not me, there are plenty of nations that commit human rights violations and nothing is done, to make your absurd point on Assad shows your argument is a complete contradiction, where again we are as you stated, talking about IS and them and other extremists being a direct threat to the west.
So your infantile attempt to claim I am saying something further proves you have lost the debate. I suggest you learn some more then come back and debate this when you are more knowledgeable

by Eilzel Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:40 am

Didge wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

So what you're saying is; a foreign nation can breach the Geneva Convention all it likes and a Dictator can butcher their people but the only time a retaliation can breach the Geneva Convention is when they directly threaten us? Nice attitude to have there.

Nope you are saying that, not me, there are plenty of nations that commit human rights violations and nothing is done, to make your absurd point on Assad shows your argument is a complete contradiction, where again we are as you stated, talking about IS and them and other extremists being a direct threat to the west.
So your infantile attempt to claim I am saying something further proves you have lost the debate. I suggest you learn some more then come back and debate this when you are more knowledgeable

I seem to proving that a lot eh Einstein? I'm bored with this now, claim whatever victory you like, it clearly means a lot study

by Guest Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:44 am

Eilzel wrote:
Didge wrote:

Nope you are saying that, not me, there are plenty of nations that commit human rights violations and nothing is done, to make your absurd point on Assad shows your argument is a complete contradiction, where again we are as you stated, talking about IS and them and other extremists being a direct threat to the west.
So your infantile attempt to claim I am saying something further proves you have lost the debate. I suggest you learn some more then come back and debate this when you are more knowledgeable

I seem to proving that a lot eh Einstein? I'm bored with this now, claim whatever victory you like, it clearly means a lot

Bored is a copout and you keep contradicting yourself and like for example I have never seen you be vocal to attack say China, for the atrocities it has committed, or Burma etc , etc showing your whole argument is hypocritical to say the least.
Not my fault I was easily able to rubbish your points, talk about a sore loser ha ha

by Fuzzy Zack Mon Aug 25, 2014 12:07 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Lol!

You say bullshit but then go on to prove my point exactly.

Your emotional side is so heightened that you now think I'm a collaborator, just because I'm a Muslim.

That's why you're an idiot.

no you wanker...i think you are a colaborator because of your words...i did offer you the alternative of defeatist...
there were a number of folks pre WWII who were all for a pacifist stance towards germany.......that didnt make them nazi's ..it did however make em pathetic cowards who would bend their knees to anything......

You see Fuzz old bean...you have no idea of my emotional state...or indeed if I actually have any...(emotion)...
All I see is an infestation of rats to be destroyed like any other infestation. They should be disposed of in the most coldly efficient manner possible. The whole aim of war is simply to win, the only rerasonable proviso is that if yuo are facing an honourable enemy you treat him honourably. If you are facing a monsterous enemy, then you treat him monsterously.

your faux psychology is the brainless whineing of the already beaten...

The ejaculate "no you wanker" betrays your emotions. Your emotional state is quite transparent and pathetic.

And collaboration means 'working with'. Why, just because I'm a Muslim? In that case, you're a bigot when you're scared.

Your emotions are further betrayed when you equate human beings to an infestation of rats.

Like I said, you have been programmed and too naive to see it.

by Fuzzy Zack Mon Aug 25, 2014 12:15 pm

Eilzel wrote:Didge, just spitting out 'wet fish' because you want to resort to base neocon militarism is meaningless.

We won last time in Iraq (it was the way we handled the aftermath that fucked things), we won in the Falklands and in Kosovo without 'playing dirty' as you want.

And you still haven't answered any of my three questions. You are sounding like a SmellyB type militant here. And to an extent Zack is right, IS wanted an emotional response and they are getting one. The fear then is the result- NEVER being able to speak out against China in Tibet, Russia in Ukraine, Assad, Hamas, Israel etc because we were quick to be 'just like them'. And the other result being thousands more recruits to Al Qaeda, IS, the Taliban etc because the west turns out to be 'just like' the apparently evil extremists.

The only wet argument I'm hearing is yours.

Yay! I'm right.

I ignored the 'to an extent' bit.

But even the normally cool, calm and collected Didge has been emotionally rattled by this. Watch him get a little more emotional now you've compared him to Smelly. Lol!

by Fuzzy Zack Mon Aug 25, 2014 12:17 pm

Didge wrote:
Eilzel wrote:Didge, just spitting out 'wet fish' because you want to resort to base neocon militarism is meaningless.

We won last time in Iraq (it was the way we handled the aftermath that fucked things), we won in the Falklands and in Kosovo without 'playing dirty' as you want.

And you still haven't answered any of my three questions. You are sounding like a SmellyB type militant here. And to an extent Zack is right, IS wanted an emotional response and they are getting one. The fear then is the result- NEVER being able to speak out against China in Tibet, Russia in Ukraine, Assad, Hamas, Israel etc because we were quick to be 'just like them'. And the other result being thousands more recruits to Al Qaeda, IS, the Taliban etc because the west turns out to be 'just like' the apparently evil extremists.

The only wet argument I'm hearing is yours.

You are a wet fish Eilzel because you have no comprehension of strategy and now because I show your utter ignorance you now associate me to smelly shows my point is true.
We did not win by not playing dirty tricks, have you never heard of the Belgrano you thick fuck?
How dare you associate me to smelly you fucking wanker
We never won in Kosvo either, showing your complete ignorance to history
Again you cannot show me one example where war has been played fair where we have won, it has always and always will be played unfairly to win.
Now you little turd, you wanna be nasty, I can be nasty too, you wanna be nice or be an ignorant fuckwit?

Told ya. HA HA!

by Fuzzy Zack Mon Aug 25, 2014 12:20 pm

Didge wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:

wow didge...

think that is a little bit of and over reaction to be told you are sounding like Smelly B (although that is a horrible insult   )

Oh well better to be a wet fish than a dry one I suppose

Fuck the little ----, he knows what he said was wrong, now he will live with his mistake

Lol! Forgiveness is really not one of your virtues then.

by Guest Mon Aug 25, 2014 12:32 pm

So in four posts Zack has failed to answer any of the points through the pages laid out.
NO surprises there then, it has nothing to do with emotions but how to deal tactically with enemies that have no rules, his claims to emotion are just as per usual hot air and mere deflection

by Fuzzy Zack Mon Aug 25, 2014 12:35 pm

Didge wrote:I shall now prove your argument has no merit Eilzel and proves you are wet

The US, sent in a team of special forces to Pakistan, without their knowledge to execute Bin Laden, on every level by your views and logic, that is against all rules, where if we applied your logic, would have been to capture him, by asking permission to Pakistan and place him on trial, are you claiming now the execution of Bin Laden was wrong?

You see, rules are broken, because sometimes you have to when combating those that do not abide by any rules

Al Qaeda were absolutely impotent by the time they killed Bin Laden.

by Guest Mon Aug 25, 2014 12:36 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Didge wrote:I shall now prove your argument has no merit Eilzel and proves you are wet

The US, sent in a team of special forces to Pakistan, without their knowledge to execute Bin Laden, on every level by your views and logic, that is against all rules, where if we applied your logic, would have been to capture him, by asking permission to Pakistan and place him on trial, are you claiming now the execution of Bin Laden was wrong?

You see, rules are broken, because sometimes you have to when combating those that do not abide by any rules

Al Qaeda were absolutely impotent by the time they killed Bin Laden.

Incorrect

Next

by Fuzzy Zack Mon Aug 25, 2014 12:37 pm

Eilzel wrote:Way hey give yourself a round of applause didge, you avoided everything asked if you; dictated terms of debate; answered your own questions; and demonstrated how right you are. Well done.

Would love to have marked my own dissertations that way, shame it doesn't work like that IRL eh.

That's classic Didge.

by Guest Mon Aug 25, 2014 12:38 pm

More deflection

Next

by The Puzzler Mon Aug 25, 2014 12:41 pm

The only way we could lower ourselves to the level of ISIS is if we started committing religious genocide - to fight them without the constraints of the GC is NOT going down to their level.

by Fuzzy Zack Mon Aug 25, 2014 12:47 pm

Didge wrote:So in four posts Zack has failed to answer any of the points through the pages laid out.
NO surprises there then, it has nothing to do with emotions but how to deal tactically with enemies that have no rules, his claims to emotion are just as per usual hot air and mere deflection

Your points are meaningless with respect to ISIS. Mere deflections. Everyone can see that, except (as always) you.

Lea is right, we can adhere to the Geneva conventions and still win against ISIS. None of your arguments counter that fact.

by Fuzzy Zack Mon Aug 25, 2014 12:49 pm

Didge wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Al Qaeda were absolutely impotent by the time they killed Bin Laden.

Incorrect

Next

Lol!

by Guest Mon Aug 25, 2014 12:52 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Didge wrote:So in four posts Zack has failed to answer any of the points through the pages laid out.
NO surprises there then, it has nothing to do with emotions but how to deal tactically with enemies that have no rules, his claims to emotion are just as per usual hot air and mere deflection

Your points are meaningless with respect to ISIS. Mere deflections. Everyone can see that, except (as always) you.

Lea is right, we can adhere to the Geneva conventions and still win against ISIS. None of your arguments counter that fact.

More deflection where all you can do is talk about me, flattering as it is, it proves your inability to debate strategies, as seen over ten years of dealing conventionally against Islamic extremists has only served to allow them to grow, where they clearly laugh at the west being weak. A typical example was the jailing of the Royal Marine who shot the injured Taliban soldier, the press coverage and the fact that nobody has understood the strain of soldiers under combat has played into the extremists hands, because again as seen, if the rules had not been applied here, he should have walked rightly free. IS and others know the Allies are thus constrained and use this to their advantage

by Fuzzy Zack Mon Aug 25, 2014 12:52 pm

The Puzzler wrote:The only way we could lower ourselves to the level of ISIS is if we started committing religious genocide - to fight them without the constraints of the GC is NOT going down to their level.

The point is you/we don't have to break the Geneva Conventions or int law to win this war.

Only the emotional hot heads want us to. Pointless and stupid. And we dehumanise ourselves in the process. Didge may want to act like an animal with an over sensitive amygdala but his type don't have to drag the rest of us down with them.

by Guest Mon Aug 25, 2014 12:55 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
The Puzzler wrote:The only way we could lower ourselves to the level of ISIS is if we started committing religious genocide - to fight them without the constraints of the GC is NOT going down to their level.

The point is you/we don't have to break the Geneva Conventions or int law to win this war.

Only the emotional hot heads want us to. Pointless and stupid. And we dehumanise ourselves in the process. Didge may want to act like an animal with an over sensitive amygdala but his type don't have to drag the rest of us down with them.

More absurd answers as we are all animals, the reality is to not apply the Geneva convention to groups like IS that do not abide by them and to use terror means to take out their followers, as at the moment as seen, they hold the advantage of the Allies being constrained in what they can do. Again this belief you have on emotions is moot to say the least, this is understanding how to defeat an enemy strategically, where conventional means have failed for over 10 years

by Fuzzy Zack Mon Aug 25, 2014 12:56 pm

Didge wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Your points are meaningless with respect to ISIS. Mere deflections. Everyone can see that, except (as always) you.

Lea is right, we can adhere to the Geneva conventions and still win against ISIS. None of your arguments counter that fact.

More deflection where all you can do is talk about me, flattering as it is, it proves your inability to debate strategies, as seen over ten years of dealing conventionally against Islamic extremists has only served to allow them to grow, where they clearly laugh at the west being weak. A typical example was the jailing of the Royal Marine who shot the injured Taliban soldier, the press coverage and the fact that nobody has understood the strain of soldiers under combat has played into the extremists hands, because again as seen, if the rules had not been applied here, he should have walked rightly free. IS and others know the Allies are thus constrained and use this to their advantage

Lol! And you have the audacity to accuse others of deflection.

Can we win against ISIS without dehumanising ourselves and breaking int law?

In the words of Obama, "YES WE CAN!"

by Fuzzy Zack Mon Aug 25, 2014 12:57 pm

Didge wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

The point is you/we don't have to break the Geneva Conventions or int law to win this war.

Only the emotional hot heads want us to. Pointless and stupid. And we dehumanise ourselves in the process. Didge may want to act like an animal with an over sensitive amygdala but his type don't have to drag the rest of us down with them.

More absurd answers as we are all animals, the reality is to not apply the Geneva convention to groups like IS that do not abide by them and to use terror means to take out their followers, as at the moment as seen, they hold the advantage of the Allies being constrained in what they can do. Again this belief you have on emotions is moot to say the least, this is understanding how to defeat an enemy strategically, where conventional means have failed for over 10 years

See post above.

by Guest Mon Aug 25, 2014 12:58 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Didge wrote:

More deflection where all you can do is talk about me, flattering as it is, it proves your inability to debate strategies, as seen over ten years of dealing conventionally against Islamic extremists has only served to allow them to grow, where they clearly laugh at the west being weak. A typical example was the jailing of the Royal Marine who shot the injured Taliban soldier, the press coverage and the fact that nobody has understood the strain of soldiers under combat has played into the extremists hands, because again as seen, if the rules had not been applied here, he should have walked rightly free. IS and others know the Allies are thus constrained and use this to their advantage

Lol! And you have the audacity to accuse others of deflection.

Can we win against ISIS without dehumanising ourselves and breaking int law?

In the words of Obama, "YES WE CAN!"

All war is having the ability to dehumanise, showing your lack of understanding war, because in war, people have to kill others, the reality is laws can change and IS do not abide by any rules of engagement. Thus again you failed to understand strategies, no quarter should be given to groups that do not abide by the Geneva convention

by Guest Mon Aug 25, 2014 12:59 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Didge wrote:

More absurd answers as we are all animals, the reality is to not apply the Geneva convention to groups like IS that do not abide by them and to use terror means to take out their followers, as at the moment as seen, they hold the advantage of the Allies being constrained in what they can do. Again this belief you have on emotions is moot to say the least, this is understanding how to defeat an enemy strategically, where conventional means have failed for over 10 years

See post above.

I did, it shows your lack of understanding war

by Fuzzy Zack Mon Aug 25, 2014 1:17 pm

Of course nobody understands humanity, history, science, politics and now war strategy like our friend Didge.

We must all be grateful that he comes down from the Mount of Intellect and graces his intelligence on this board in order to educate us plebs.

HA HA!

Can we win the war against ISIS without breaking int law? Yes we can. Simples.

by Guest Mon Aug 25, 2014 1:21 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Of course nobody understands humanity, history, science, politics and now war strategy like our friend Didge.

We must all be grateful that he comes down from the Mount of Intellect and graces his intelligence on this board in order to educate us plebs.

HA HA!

Can we win the war against ISIS without breaking int law? Yes we can. Simples.

I see my points prove you have no understanding as yet again your flattery of me proves this being as you deflect to me.
Thanks, as seen this is all you are capable of.
Can we win using conventional means?
Incorrect, 10 years plus has shown we have failed to win and at present are in fact losing using such methods, as seen political blunders like the imprisonment of the Royal Marine prove to groups like the Taliban, IS, that the west constrains itself in combat and fails to understand the affects of combat itself on the men on the ground, which places them with an advantage.

by The Puzzler Mon Aug 25, 2014 1:29 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
The Puzzler wrote:The only way we could lower ourselves to the level of ISIS is if we started committing religious genocide - to fight them without the constraints of the GC is NOT going down to their level.

The point is you/we don't have to break the Geneva Conventions or int law to win this war.

Only the emotional hot heads want us to. Pointless and stupid. And we dehumanise ourselves in the process. Didge may want to act like an animal with an over sensitive amygdala but his type don't have to drag the rest of us down with them.

We fought the Taliban with one hand tied behind our back, to the point where a Marine was convicted of murder for shooting a dying insurgent, and look what happened there...if we don't take the gloves off it will just be another total disaster for us and the people of Iraq. NATO didn't care much for international law when they were bombing Serb TV stations either...

by Fuzzy Zack Mon Aug 25, 2014 1:33 pm

Didge wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:Of course nobody understands humanity, history, science, politics and now war strategy like our friend Didge.

We must all be grateful that he comes down from the Mount of Intellect and graces his intelligence on this board in order to educate us plebs.

HA HA!

Can we win the war against ISIS without breaking int law? Yes we can. Simples.

I see my points prove you have no understanding as yet again your flattery of me proves this being as you deflect to me.
Thanks, as seen this is all you are capable of.
Can we win using conventional means?
Incorrect, 10 years plus has shown we have failed to win and at present are in fact losing using such methods, as seen political blunders like the imprisonment of the Royal Marine prove to groups like the Taliban, IS, that the west constrains itself in combat and fails to understand the affects of combat itself on the men on the ground, which places them with an advantage.

You say we can't win against ISIS using conventional means , then you're not as intelligent as you assume.

AQIR were allowed to thrive because there was no Marshall type plan or process of reconciliation between religious and other groups. It is a political failure, not a military one.

As Les said, you cannot defeat every extremist using military means without dehumanising the ones they amongst. Are you prepared to kill the Iraqi and Syrian Sunni civilians who ISIS live amongst?

Although considering your stance on Gaza, you probably think it's okay to kill those civilians because ISIS are using them as a human shield.

by The Puzzler Mon Aug 25, 2014 1:37 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Of course nobody understands humanity, history, science, politics and now war strategy like our friend Didge.

We must all be grateful that he comes down from the Mount of Intellect and graces his intelligence on this board in order to educate us plebs.

HA HA!

Can we win the war against ISIS without breaking int law? Yes we can. Simples.

How then Zack, when they are able to embed among civilians and are willing to use suicide/IED attacks and guerilla tactics? How do we win a war against an unconventional, non uniformed enemy by using conventional rules of engagement? Even when fighting the German and Japanese armies in WW2, rules had to be broken or the war would never have been won by the allies. So please explain how we can defeat a terrorist force and stick to international law, I'd love to hear this.

by Fuzzy Zack Mon Aug 25, 2014 1:37 pm

The Puzzler wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

The point is you/we don't have to break the Geneva Conventions or int law to win this war.

Only the emotional hot heads want us to. Pointless and stupid. And we dehumanise ourselves in the process. Didge may want to act like an animal with an over sensitive amygdala but his type don't have to drag the rest of us down with them.
We fought the Taliban with one hand tied behind our back, to the point where a Marine was convicted of murder for shooting a dying insurgent, and look what happened there...if we don't take the gloves off it will just be another total disaster for us and the people of Iraq. NATO didn't care much for international law when they were bombing Serb TV stations either...

Each case is different.

In this case, we don't have to break international law. So why should we?

by Guest Mon Aug 25, 2014 1:40 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Didge wrote:

I see my points prove you have no understanding as yet again your flattery of me proves this being as you deflect to me.
Thanks, as seen this is all you are capable of.
Can we win using conventional means?
Incorrect, 10 years plus has shown we have failed to win and at present are in fact losing using such methods, as seen political blunders like the imprisonment of the Royal Marine prove to groups like the Taliban, IS, that the west constrains itself in combat and fails to understand the affects of combat itself on the men on the ground, which places them with an advantage.

You say we can't win against ISIS using conventional means , then you're not as intelligent as you assume.
Deflection again, as all you can do is talk about me, and not take on my points

AQIR were allowed to thrive because there was no Marshall type plan or process of reconciliation between religious and other groups. It is a political failure, not a military one.
Incorrect, they were allowed to thrive based on corruption and again those in charge being discriminating against minority groups, where also perceived weakness by the west, again where they use conventional means, provides a view that as seen is used to their advantage

As Les said, you cannot defeat every extremist using military means without dehumanising the ones they amongst. Are you prepared to kill the Iraqi and Syrian Sunni civilians who ISIS live amongst?
Who said anything about civilians? The fact is civilians are being killed by an enemy, that has no conception of human rights and you think taking them on in battle which will only be a hollow victory as all they will do is disperse only to rise again. If some civilians die through collateral damage, that is part and parcel sadly of war. The means here are to win, where again I asked you where the Japanese predicted 20 million deaths if their home Island was invaded, what made them surrender, being as they lost far less than this?

Although considering your stance on Gaza, you probably think it's okay to kill those civilians because ISIS are using them as a human shield.

Israel has the right tactic against extremism and as seen it works, after 50 years it still continues to work and it will be the likes of Israel who will not shy away from hitting IS hard in time, if their expansion grows and then you will be praising Israel

by Fuzzy Zack Mon Aug 25, 2014 1:42 pm

The Puzzler wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:Of course nobody understands humanity, history, science, politics and now war strategy like our friend Didge.

We must all be grateful that he comes down from the Mount of Intellect and graces his intelligence on this board in order to educate us plebs.

HA HA!

Can we win the war against ISIS without breaking int law? Yes we can. Simples.
How then Zack, when they are able to embed among civilians and are willing to use suicide/IED attacks and guerilla tactics? How do we win a war against an unconventional, non uniformed enemy by using conventional rules of engagement? Even when fighting the German and Japanese armies in WW2, rules had to be broken or the war would never have been won by the allies. So please explain how we can defeat a terrorist force and stick to international law, I'd love to hear this.

Considering an US citizen was attacked and with the consent of the sovereign government of Iraq, international law may allow us to go after al Bhagdadi.

Chop off the head of the serpent.

Further - I would negotiate with terrorists. The adage we don't negotiate with terrorists doesn't hold water anymore. Get the journalists freed. Terrorists will continue to take hostages regardless if we negotiate with them or not.

Also, ban all other journalists from entering the war zone.

by Guest Mon Aug 25, 2014 1:43 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
The Puzzler wrote:
We fought the Taliban with one hand tied behind our back, to the point where a Marine was convicted of murder for shooting a dying insurgent, and look what happened there...if we don't take the gloves off it will just be another total disaster for us and the people of Iraq. NATO didn't care much for international law when they were bombing Serb TV stations either...

Each case is different.

In this case, we don't have to break international law. So why should we?

Because these conventional laws are stopping the west from winning, where before such laws were cast to one side, so again I will ask you again to help you understand, why did where the Japanese predicted 20 million deaths if their home Island was invaded in WW2, what made them surrender, being as they lost far less than this?

by Guest Mon Aug 25, 2014 1:46 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
The Puzzler wrote:
How then Zack, when they are able to embed among civilians and are willing to use suicide/IED attacks and guerilla tactics? How do we win a war against an unconventional, non uniformed enemy by using conventional rules of engagement? Even when fighting the German and Japanese armies in WW2, rules had to be broken or the war would never have been won by the allies. So please explain how we can defeat a terrorist force and stick to international law, I'd love to hear this.

Considering an US citizen was attacked and with the consent of the sovereign government of Iraq, international law may allow us to go after al Bhagdadi.

Chop off the head of the serpent.

Further - I would negotiate with terrorists. The adage we don't negotiate with terrorists doesn't hold water anymore. Get the journalists freed. Terrorists will continue to take hostages regardless if we negotiate with them or not.

Also, ban all other journalists from entering the war zone.

Dear me that is poor, you wish to negotiate with groups that have no conception of human rights, thus that is weakness again, which is what they want, where even Obama will not entertain such poor strategic thinking. Ban the press from any war zone as they are part of the problem in regards to conflicts and where constrains are made.
By negotiating with terrorist, you give them recognition, which is a tactical blunder.

by Fuzzy Zack Mon Aug 25, 2014 1:47 pm

Didge wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

You say we can't win against ISIS using conventional means , then you're not as intelligent as you assume.
Deflection again, as all you can do is talk about me, and not take on my points

AQIR were allowed to thrive because there was no Marshall type plan or process of reconciliation between religious and other groups. It is a political failure, not a military one.
Incorrect, they were allowed to thrive based on corruption and again those in charge being discriminating against minority groups, where also perceived weakness by the west, again where they use conventional means, provides a view that as seen is used to their advantage

As Les said, you cannot defeat every extremist using military means without dehumanising the ones they amongst. Are you prepared to kill the Iraqi and Syrian Sunni civilians who ISIS live amongst?
Who said anything about civilians? The fact is civilians are being killed by an enemy, that has no conception of human rights and you think taking them on in battle which will only be a hollow victory as all they will do is disperse only to rise again. If some civilians die through collateral damage, that is part and parcel sadly of war. The means here are to win, where again I asked you where the Japanese predicted 20 million deaths if their home Island was invaded, what made them surrender, being as they lost far less than this?

Although considering your stance on Gaza, you probably think it's okay to kill those civilians because ISIS are using them as a human shield.

Israel has the right tactic against extremism and as seen it works, after 50 years it still continues to work and it will be the likes of Israel who will not shy away from hitting IS hard in time, if their expansion grows and then you will be praising Israel

You dismiss the murder of civilians, including babies as collateral damage and you wonder why people are calling you Smelly.

You won't be able to get to front line extremists without killing many of the civilians from the villages where ISIS hide.

by Fuzzy Zack Mon Aug 25, 2014 1:49 pm

Didge wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Considering an US citizen was attacked and with the consent of the sovereign government of Iraq, international law may allow us to go after al Bhagdadi.

Chop off the head of the serpent.

Further - I would negotiate with terrorists. The adage we don't negotiate with terrorists doesn't hold water anymore. Get the journalists freed. Terrorists will continue to take hostages regardless if we negotiate with them or not.

Also, ban all other journalists from entering the war zone.

Dear me that is poor, you wish to negotiate with groups that have no conception of human rights, thus that is weakness again, which is what they want, where even Obama will not entertain such poor strategic thinking. Ban the press from any war zone as they are part of the problem in regards to conflicts and where constrains are made.
By negotiating with terrorist, you give them recognition, which is a tactical blunder.

Your tactics are so 20th century. As is your reason not to negotiate with terrorists.

It's not like the US (or Israel) haven't negotiated with terrorists before. The US did so recently. And Israel will do so again. Is that weakness?

by Guest Mon Aug 25, 2014 2:03 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Didge wrote:

Israel has the right tactic against extremism and as seen it works, after 50 years it still continues to work and it will be the likes of Israel who will not shy away from hitting IS hard in time, if their expansion grows and then you will be praising Israel

You dismiss the murder of civilians, including babies as collateral damage and you wonder why people are calling you Smelly.

You won't be able to get to front line extremists without killing many of the civilians from the villages where ISIS hide.

Sadly civillians sometimes have to die for a tactical win, which is why I know you cannot answer my question.
The use of the two atomic bombs in WW2, cost the lives of tens of thousands of innocent civilians, but it made Japan recognize that America could continually repeat this without ever needing to invade, it thus made them capitulate. Thus where the Japanese had predicted losing up to 20 million deaths from an invasion and the allies up to one million, this tactical use of two bombs, saved the lives of millions of Japanese and around a million allied servicemen. It was a difficult decision to make, but tactically the correct one, that in the long run saved more lives.
This is why you do not understand strategy.

by Guest Mon Aug 25, 2014 2:06 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Didge wrote:

Dear me that is poor, you wish to negotiate with groups that have no conception of human rights, thus that is weakness again, which is what they want, where even Obama will not entertain such poor strategic thinking. Ban the press from any war zone as they are part of the problem in regards to conflicts and where constrains are made.
By negotiating with terrorist, you give them recognition, which is a tactical blunder.

Your tactics are so 20th century. As is your reason not to negotiate with terrorists.

It's not like the US (or Israel) haven't negotiated with terrorists before. The US did so recently. And Israel will do so again. Is that weakness?

Would you reason with Brevik?
The US has before negotiated but Obama with not with IS, it is a tactical blunder to do so, where as seen it provides recognition and shows weakness to the enemy, it leaves them with only two choices, fight or die, which is tactically right to leave them little options.
Civilians will sadly die, that is war, which it seems in all your answers it is because you are plagued by emotions, that you have no understanding of war, where as seen this is what constrains the west when taking on such extremist groups

by Fuzzy Zack Mon Aug 25, 2014 2:09 pm

Didge wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

You dismiss the murder of civilians, including babies as collateral damage and you wonder why people are calling you Smelly.

You won't be able to get to front line extremists without killing many of the civilians from the villages where ISIS hide.

Sadly civillians sometimes have to die for a tactical win, which is why I know you cannot answer my question.
The use of the two atomic bombs in WW2, cost the lives of tens of thousands of innocent civilians, but it made Japan recognize that America could continually repeat this without ever needing to invade, it thus made them capitulate. Thus where the Japanese had predicted losing up to 20 million deaths from an invasion and the allies up to one million, this tactical use of two bombs, saved the lives of millions of Japanese and around a million allied servicemen. It was a difficult decision to make, but tactically the correct one, that in the long run saved more lives.
This is why you do not understand strategy.

To be honest Didge, I'm glad I don't understand the strategy that compares WW2, Hiroshima and Nagasaki to ISIS. Not sure anyone except you does. I don't want to nuke the Middle East. Just you and Smelly.

I'm sure the thousands of babies who died as a result of a nuclear explosion understood why they had to die. So 'you' could live and be judge, jury and executioner of yet more babies.

by Fuzzy Zack Mon Aug 25, 2014 2:12 pm

Didge wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Your tactics are so 20th century. As is your reason not to negotiate with terrorists.

It's not like the US (or Israel) haven't negotiated with terrorists before. The US did so recently. And Israel will do so again. Is that weakness?

Would you reason with Brevik?
The US has before negotiated but Obama with not with IS, it is a tactical blunder to do so, where as seen it provides recognition and shows weakness to the enemy, it leaves them with only two choices, fight or die, which is tactically right to leave them little options.
Civilians will sadly die, that is war, which it seems in all your answers it is because you are plagued by emotions, that you have no understanding of war, where as seen this is what constrains the west when taking on such extremist groups

Your second sentence is incoherent. Are you saying Obama is the only president to negotiate with terrorists?

by Guest Mon Aug 25, 2014 2:13 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Didge wrote:

Sadly civillians sometimes have to die for a tactical win, which is why I know you cannot answer my question.
The use of the two atomic bombs in WW2, cost the lives of tens of thousands of innocent civilians, but it made Japan recognize that America could continually repeat this without ever needing to invade, it thus made them capitulate. Thus where the Japanese had predicted losing up to 20 million deaths from an invasion and the allies up to one million, this tactical use of two bombs, saved the lives of millions of Japanese and around a million allied servicemen. It was a difficult decision to make, but tactically the correct one, that in the long run saved more lives.
This is why you do not understand strategy.

To be honest Didge, I'm glad I don't understand the strategy that compares WW2, Hiroshima and Nagasaki to ISIS. Not sure anyone except you does. I don't want to nuke the Middle East. Just you and Smelly.

I'm sure the thousands of babies who died as a result of a nuclear explosion understood why they had to die. So 'you' could live and be judge, jury and executioner of yet more babies.

Incorrect again, I am showing you a difficult tactical decision, not once have I stated to nuke the middle east, but you do poorly try to twist something when I am trying to educate you.
Well do the maths, 20 million Japanese lives and a million allied service men were saved for the cost of tens of thousands of civilians.
Collateral damage and proves that it is you ruled by emotions on war and not Victor and I

by Guest Mon Aug 25, 2014 2:15 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Didge wrote:

Would you reason with Brevik?
The US has before negotiated but Obama with not with IS, it is a tactical blunder to do so, where as seen it provides recognition and shows weakness to the enemy, it leaves them with only two choices, fight or die, which is tactically right to leave them little options.
Civilians will sadly die, that is war, which it seems in all your answers it is because you are plagued by emotions, that you have no understanding of war, where as seen this is what constrains the west when taking on such extremist groups

Your second sentence is incoherent. Are you saying Obama is the only president to negotiate with terrorists?

Nope, I am saying he will not with IS.

I see you again avoid all points with more poor deflection.

by Fuzzy Zack Mon Aug 25, 2014 2:51 pm

Didge wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Your second sentence is incoherent. Are you saying Obama is the only president to negotiate with terrorists?

Nope, I am saying he will not with IS.

I see you again avoid all points with more poor deflection.

Good.

But I'm saying Obama should. Just like most if not all us presidents since the one who supposedly coined the phrase "we do not negotiate with terrorists", Ronald Reagan.

Even GW "you're either with us or against us" Bush negotiated with terrorists.

by Sponsored content