Air strikes in Syria

No need for a link really but for anyone who hasn't seen the TV, listened to the radio or read a newspaper here you are:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29321136

I'm so glad five Arab states were involved and hope Cameron gets a yes vote when he recalls parliament to vote on British forces joining the air strikes.

At least it's a coalition involving Arab states in the region so its a start if nothing else.

And the F-22 Raptor finally puts in an appearance in a combat role after years sitting on the sidelines.

Rock on.

I think I saw some Raptors near my house yesterday!

Seriously, Lockheed is about five miles from where I live

Ben_Reilly wrote:I think I saw some Raptors near my house yesterday!

Seriously, Lockheed is about five miles from where I live

This one?

Nah, I'm closer to the company's true HQ in Fort Worth ... in fact, my neighbor works there as an engineer

When we hear planes flying overhead in my area, they're usually military planes going to or from Lockheed rather than commercial airlines, actually.

[ltr]A little-known terrorist group that the US bombed in Syria was in the advanced stages of a plot to blow up airliners with explosives concealed in toothpaste, it has been reported.[/ltr]
[ltr]The Khorasan Group, a relatively unknown Al Qaeda offshoot, was among the groups targetted by the attacks on Syria on Tuesday, that also hit Islamic State's enclave in the country.[/ltr]
[ltr]One of the Khorasan Group's plots was to smuggle bombs on planes with non-metallic devices, including toothpaste tubes. It was in the final stages of planning the attack, a military source told CNN.[/ltr]

[ltr]http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/24/khorasan-group-terror-toothpaste_n_5871732.html?utm_hp_ref=uk[/ltr]

I guess this will encourage terrorist attacks in the west and maybe in other Arab states, but then again those nutters will probably do that anyway. I can't see what else can be done other than try to stamp out the evil that is the Islamic State.

Raggamuffin wrote:I guess this will encourage terrorist attacks in the west and maybe in other Arab states, but then again those nutters will probably do that anyway. I can't see what else can be done other than try to stamp out the evil that is the Islamic State.

And the next one... and the next one...and the next one...and...

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I guess this will encourage terrorist attacks in the west and maybe in other Arab states, but then again those nutters will probably do that anyway. I can't see what else can be done other than try to stamp out the evil that is the Islamic State.

And the next one... and the next one...and the next one...and...

Yeah, I know, but seeing these monsters cutting off the heads of people just makes you want to slap them really hard. ::D::

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

And the next one... and the next one...and the next one...and...

Yeah, I know, but seeing these monsters cutting off the heads of people just makes you want to slap them really hard. ::D::

Cutting off the head is just another way of having someone die.  It happens in automobile accidents, workplace accidents, hangings, guillotining and even some murders.  The only difference is the press shields the public by not making a point of mentioning it.  However, at the ISIL folks' request, the press chooses to make a gory point of it...which is OK, just the readers need to grow up.

The folks at ISIL are just trying to raise the shock level, so's to get your attention.  Dead is dead, so don't take it as meaningful in any way.  In their little rural world this kind of thing works.  So they are trying it out on you.

If that is a reason for war, how did you feel about Aung San Suu Ky?  I find it amazing that we get all up in arms over these little piss-ants in Syria, yet for years we did nothing about Burma.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yeah, I know, but seeing these monsters cutting off the heads of people just makes you want to slap them really hard. ::D::

Cutting off the head is just another way of having someone die.  It happens in automobile accidents, workplace accidents, hangings, guillotining and even some murders.  The only difference is the press shields the public by not making a point of mentioning it.  However, at the ISIL folks' request, the press chooses to make a gory point of it...which is OK, just the readers need to grow up.

The folks at ISIL are just trying to raise the shock level, so's to get your attention.  Dead is dead, so don't take it as meaningful in any way.  In their little rural world this kind of thing works.  So they are trying it out on you.

If that is a reason for war, how did you feel about Aung San Suu Ky?  I find it amazing that we get all up in arms over these little piss-ants in Syria, yet for years we did nothing about Burma.

It's not quite just a matter of cutting someone's head off is it? There's the orange outfit they make them wear, there's the kneeling down in front of the camera, there's the little speech they have to make, and the little speech the twat in a balaclava makes. All the time the threat of the knife is there behind them.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Cutting off the head is just another way of having someone die.  It happens in automobile accidents, workplace accidents, hangings, guillotining and even some murders.  The only difference is the press shields the public by not making a point of mentioning it.  However, at the ISIL folks' request, the press chooses to make a gory point of it...which is OK, just the readers need to grow up.

The folks at ISIL are just trying to raise the shock level, so's to get your attention.  Dead is dead, so don't take it as meaningful in any way.  In their little rural world this kind of thing works.  So they are trying it out on you.

If that is a reason for war, how did you feel about Aung San Suu Ky?  I find it amazing that we get all up in arms over these little piss-ants in Syria, yet for years we did nothing about Burma.

It's not quite just a matter of cutting someone's head off is it? There's the orange outfit they make them wear, there's the kneeling down in front of the camera, there's the little speech they have to make, and the little speech the twat in a balaclava makes. All the time the threat of the knife is there behind them.

But it is all just statements--WORDS. Chopping off heads instead of shooting, orange uniforms, kneeling down, speeches...they are all symbols and gestures. Same thing as words.

Remember the children's parable: Sticks and stones can break my bones...? If a child can tell the difference between symbols and actual fighting, surely Senators, Congressmen and MPs can too.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's not quite just a matter of cutting someone's head off is it? There's the orange outfit they make them wear, there's the kneeling down in front of the camera, there's the little speech they have to make, and the little speech the twat in a balaclava makes. All the time the threat of the knife is there behind them.

But it is all just statements--WORDS.  Chopping off heads instead of shooting, orange uniforms, kneeling down, speeches...they are all symbols and gestures.  Same thing as words.  

Remember the children's parable: Sticks and stones can break my bones...?  If a child can tell the difference between symbols and actual fighting, surely Senators, Congressmen and MPs can too.

Oh well, I'm sure the people who are being held under threat of having their heads cut off will be relieved to know that it's all just a gesture, and that having their head cut off is just like someone saying something vaguely rude to them.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But it is all just statements--WORDS.  Chopping off heads instead of shooting, orange uniforms, kneeling down, speeches...they are all symbols and gestures.  Same thing as words.  

Remember the children's parable: Sticks and stones can break my bones...?  If a child can tell the difference between symbols and actual fighting, surely Senators, Congressmen and MPs can too.

Oh well, I'm sure the people who are being held under threat of having their heads cut off will be relieved to know that it's all just a gesture, and that having their head cut off is just like someone saying something vaguely rude to them.

So you think a better gesture would be nuclear warheads? Don't be silly. Would that make them better off? Are they better off with drones and raptors shooting missiles?

They are dead, or about to die at the hands of small-time hoods. It's not your fault. Here in America we have lots of crimes...children abducted, etc. We don't send in F-22s to knock out whole cities.

Frankly, I would recommend every Caucasion journalist and photographer get out of there and save their own lives. But they won't listen to me.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Oh well, I'm sure the people who are being held under threat of having their heads cut off will be relieved to know that it's all just a gesture, and that having their head cut off is just like someone saying something vaguely rude to them.

So you think a better gesture would be nuclear warheads?  Don't be silly.  Would that make them better off?  Are they better off with drones and raptors shooting missiles?

They are dead, or about to die at the hands of small-time hoods.  It's not your fault.  Here in America we have lots of crimes...children abducted, etc.  We don't send in F-22s to knock out whole cities.

Frankly, I would recommend every Caucasion journalist and photographer get out of there and save their own lives.  But they won't listen to me.

Did I say it was my fault? I think that if those twats so much as touch a British citizen or American citizen, they deserve all they get.

I also think that the journalists should get out of there, and the aid workers too. Let them help themselves - I don't suppose those who were helped give a shit about the men who helped them.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

So you think a better gesture would be nuclear warheads?  Don't be silly.  Would that make them better off?  Are they better off with drones and raptors shooting missiles?

They are dead, or about to die at the hands of small-time hoods.  It's not your fault.  Here in America we have lots of crimes...children abducted, etc.  We don't send in F-22s to knock out whole cities.

Frankly, I would recommend every Caucasion journalist and photographer get out of there and save their own lives.  But they won't listen to me.

Did I say it was my fault? I think that if those twats so much as touch a British citizen or American citizen, they deserve all they get.

I also think that the journalists should get out of there, and the aid workers too. Let them help themselves - I don't suppose those who were helped give a shit about the men who helped them.

I am not blaming you. Rather, I am simply saying that if you feel any loss or compassion for those who are killed, it is not going to be made better by blowing the whole place up.

I don't know how "those who were helped" feel about the men who helped them. Grateful, I hope? I do know they pose a problem for those trying to protect them. And they are fodder in a propaganda mill.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Did I say it was my fault? I think that if those twats so much as touch a British citizen or American citizen, they deserve all they get.

I also think that the journalists should get out of there, and the aid workers too. Let them help themselves - I don't suppose those who were helped give a shit about the men who helped them.

I am not blaming you.  Rather, I am simply saying that if you feel any loss or compassion for those who are killed, it is not going to be made better by blowing the whole place up.

I don't know how "those who were helped" feel about the men who helped them.  Grateful, I hope?  I do know they pose a problem for those trying to protect them.  And they are fodder in a propaganda mill.

I thought you said it didn't matter how people died, so why do you care if they're blown up?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I am not blaming you.  Rather, I am simply saying that if you feel any loss or compassion for those who are killed, it is not going to be made better by blowing the whole place up.

I don't know how "those who were helped" feel about the men who helped them.  Grateful, I hope?  I do know they pose a problem for those trying to protect them.  And they are fodder in a propaganda mill.

I thought you said it didn't matter how people died, so why do you care if they're blown up?

Because with wars you cause more destruction, you lose more money (my taxes) and you end up accomplishing nothing (like us in Iraq).  Wars create overkill and innocent babies and mothers get killed.  Wars cost too much money, and detract from things like education, poverty and healthcare at home.

I'm not trying to minimize that those journalists and aid-workers are murdered in Syria; I'm saying that once dead it hardly matters how they died.  Nor am I saying their deaths shouldn't be vindicated.  I'm saying, how they died is irrelevant.

What is more, one plays into the hands of the bad guys by making a big fuss about how they died.  That's what ISIL wants out of you.  Why give them the satisfaction?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I thought you said it didn't matter how people died, so why do you care if they're blown up?

Because with wars you cause more destruction, you lose more money (my taxes) and you end up accomplishing nothing (like us in Iraq).  Wars create overkill and innocent babies and mothers get killed.  Wars cost too much money, and detract from things like education, poverty and healthcare at home.

I'm not trying to minimize that those journalists and aid-workers are murdered in Syria; I'm saying that once dead it hardly matters how they died.  Nor am I saying their deaths shouldn't be vindicated.  I'm saying, how they died is irrelevant.

What is more, one plays into the hands of the bad guys by making a big fuss about how they died.  That's what ISIL wants out of you.  Why give them the satisfaction?

I think it matters a great deal how those journalists and aid workers die. If mothers and babies die, at least they weren't deliberatly murdered after being mentally tortured. I don't think it matters if I'm giving IS what they want - after all, if they're killed in the airstrikes, it hardly matters what they wanted, does it?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Because with wars you cause more destruction, you lose more money (my taxes) and you end up accomplishing nothing (like us in Iraq).  Wars create overkill and innocent babies and mothers get killed.  Wars cost too much money, and detract from things like education, poverty and healthcare at home.

I'm not trying to minimize that those journalists and aid-workers are murdered in Syria; I'm saying that once dead it hardly matters how they died.  Nor am I saying their deaths shouldn't be vindicated.  I'm saying, how they died is irrelevant.

What is more, one plays into the hands of the bad guys by making a big fuss about how they died.  That's what ISIL wants out of you.  Why give them the satisfaction?

I think it matters a great deal how those journalists and aid workers die. If mothers and babies die, at least they weren't deliberatly murdered after being mentally tortured. I don't think it matters if I'm giving IS what they want - after all, if they're killed in the airstrikes, it hardly matters what they wanted, does it?

But you are only seeing one side of it. The terrorists expect their losses...that's what is so frustrating about suicide bombers. The whole idea of suicide changes the equation...no threat works in that situation. Conversely, when you make such a fuss about it, you only encourage the ISIL folks to do more of the same.

The airstrikes are great displays of anger and have the same effect. Only when coupled with ground forces are airstrikes effective. We have no ground forces and no means to coordinate with the good guys on the ground. BTW, who are the good guys down there?

We are acting like the big silverback gorilla, standing on a rock and pounding his chest. Big display and spending lots of money, but little else.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think it matters a great deal how those journalists and aid workers die. If mothers and babies die, at least they weren't deliberatly murdered after being mentally tortured. I don't think it matters if I'm giving IS what they want - after all, if they're killed in the airstrikes, it hardly matters what they wanted, does it?

But you are only seeing one side of it.  The terrorists expect their losses...that's what is so frustrating about suicide bombers.  The whole idea of suicide changes the equation...no threat works in that situation.  Conversely, when you make such a fuss about it, you only encourage the ISIL folks to do more of the same.

The airstrikes are great displays of anger and have the same effect.  Only when coupled with ground forces are airstrikes effective.  We have no ground forces and no means to coordinate with the good guys on the ground.  BTW, who are the good guys down there?

We are acting like the big silverback gorilla, standing on a rock and pounding his chest.  Big display and spending lots of money, but little else.

Yes, but it's good to know that the Americans aren't taking this lying down. I didn't agree with the invasion of Iraq, but this is different.

Just because there are other tyrants in the world doesn't mean we should ignore ISIS.  They are directly threatening the West and inciting acts of terrorism in our own countries.  We know of the disgusting record of human rights in North Korea, Burma, China etc but they are confined to their own countries whilst ISIS are expanding - any further and they'll be in Europe.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But you are only seeing one side of it.  The terrorists expect their losses...that's what is so frustrating about suicide bombers.  The whole idea of suicide changes the equation...no threat works in that situation.  Conversely, when you make such a fuss about it, you only encourage the ISIL folks to do more of the same.

The airstrikes are great displays of anger and have the same effect.  Only when coupled with ground forces are airstrikes effective.  We have no ground forces and no means to coordinate with the good guys on the ground.  BTW, who are the good guys down there?

We are acting like the big silverback gorilla, standing on a rock and pounding his chest.  Big display and spending lots of money, but little else.

Yes, but it's good to know that the Americans aren't taking this lying down. I didn't agree with the invasion of Iraq, but this is different.

OK, if you want an appropriate demonstration, give 'em two days of good bombing. That should be the equivalent, if we need a pound of flesh.

Beyond that, nothing is to be accomplished. Carry on another ten years of war if you want, and after all is said and done, you will have no one to take over except the guys we have been fighting. What a waste.

Frazzled wrote:Just because there are other tyrants in the world doesn't mean we should ignore ISIS.  They are directly threatening the West and inciting acts of terrorism in our own countries.  We know of the disgusting record of human rights in North Korea, Burma, China etc but they are confined to their own countries whilst ISIS are expanding - any further and they'll be in Europe.

ISIL is just another criminal enterprise. They are no threat to us...not for $17-trillion, they aren't.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, but it's good to know that the Americans aren't taking this lying down. I didn't agree with the invasion of Iraq, but this is different.

OK, if you want an appropriate demonstration, give 'em two days of good bombing.  That should be the equivalent, if we need a pound of flesh.

Beyond that, nothing is to be accomplished.  Carry on another ten years of war if you want, and after all is said and done, you will have no one to take over except the guys we have been fighting.  What a waste.

Well of course nothing will be accomplished in the long run, just like it wasn't when Iraq was invaded. However, there comes a time when one has to take a stand.

We should be fighting our own guerilla war out there - send in a few SAS/black ops units, throw out the geneva convention and just absolutely go to town on ISIS/whatever they call themselves this week. You can't fight by the rules of engagement against an enemy that refuses to even acknowledge them.

The Puzzler wrote:We should be fighting our own guerilla war out there - send in a few SAS/black ops units, throw out the geneva convention and just absolutely go to town on ISIS/whatever they call themselves this week. You can't fight by the rules of engagement against an enemy that refuses to even acknowledge them.

That's what Israel is doing. Y'all Brits should team up with them.

F-18s, velcro and big sticks are useless in asymmetrical wars. They are just an attempt to show off your genitalia.

If y'all wanna kill for sport, just go wandering the streets over there and shoot off your firearms at least every 2-minutes. Shoot into homes or shopping malls...places where you can expect to find people to kill. Then have a sergeant come around everyday at 4 pm to count the bodies and tell you if you are winning.

So much cheaper than bombing.

What a load of bollocks you speak sometimes Quill.

The best ever debate I have heard on the Israel and Gaza:
Very interesting and plenty more to read o the link:



Harris: First, Andrew, I’d like to thank you for taking the time to speak with me. As you know, this began with a blog post I wrote to which you responded. I don’t want to focus too much on those articles—readers who want to do their homework can go back and see what we said. However, I want to begin by acknowledging that certain topics are simply radioactive. It seems to me that one can’t make sense about them fast enough to defuse the bomb that is set to go off in the reader’s brain when one fails to align with his or her every prejudice.
Unfortunately, this is true of many topics I’ve written about—such as gun control, torture, profiling, and even wealth inequality—and it’s especially true of the subject of Israel and its enemies. People just get emotionally hijacked here. One sign of this happening is that readers notice only half of what you’re saying—or they discount half of it as something you don’t really mean, as though they knew your mind better than you do.
I wanted to talk to you directly because it seems to me that you have gotten emotionally hijacked on this issue. I felt that your response to my blog post was, in certain places, quite unfair. At the very least, you were misreading me. Again, we’ve put links to both our articles above so that people can make their own judgments. I think we should talk about the issue from scratch here, rather than focus on what we’ve already written. And I’m hoping we can do this on two levels: The first is to talk about the war in Gaza; the second is to reflect on why this topic is so difficult to talk about.
To start us off on both points, let’s focus on the matter of Israeli war crimes, the existence of which I acknowledged in my original article. The thing we should observe at the outset is that in times of war, ethics degrade on all sides. Every war is an emergency, and in an emergency, people’s ethics tend to fray—or just get tossed out the window. It seems to me that there is nothing remarkable about this. What’s remarkable is when it doesn’t happen. When rockets are raining down on your head, or you’re in a sustained conflict with people who would murder your entire family if they could, it’s very easy, and perhaps inevitable, to de-humanize the other and to respond in ways that begin to look extremely callous with respect to the loss of life on the other side.
We can’t begin a discussion on this topic without acknowledging the reality of collateral damage, because every war fought with modern weapons entails the risk, if not the certainty, that innocent people will be maimed and killed. Unfortunately, pulling dead children out of the rubble in times of war is now becoming a universal experience. This is where the images coming out of Gaza are misleading, because if we had these images from the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq or World War II—you can pick as righteous a war as you like—you would see the same horrific pictures of dead children.
This is why we need to consider the intentions of the parties involved, which is what I was attempting in my blog post. Needless to say, collateral damage is pure horror, regardless of intentions. Consider how we behaved in World War II: We did things that would now constitute the worst war crimes imaginable—the firebombing of Dresden, the nuclear weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We literally burned hundreds of thousands of noncombatants alive. Was all that carnage strategically necessary? I don’t know—probably not. And we certainly couldn’t behave this way today without invoking the wrath of billions of people. However, the crucial question is, what sort of world were we trying to create? What were the real intentions of the U.S. and Britain with respect to Germany and Japan? Well, you saw our intentions after the war: We helped rebuild these countries. Out of the ashes of this war, we created the allies we deserved. The truth is that we wanted to live in a peaceful world with thriving economies on all sides.
I’m not saying that Israel hasn’t done appalling things—but governments, including our own, do appalling things in times of war. In fact, there is evidence that the Israelis intentionally torpedoed a U.S. ship during the 1967 war, killing some dozens of American soldiers. If true, this was an outrageous crime. But none of this cancels the difference between Israel and its enemies. It seems to me that the Israelis really do want to live in peace, however inept and callous they may have been in trying to secure it, while their neighbors are explicitly committed to their destruction.
The final point I’ll make is to remind people of who those neighbors are: Hamas is a death cult—as are ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Al-Shabab, the Taliban, Boko Haram, Hezbollah and every other jihadist organization we could name. Despite their differences, they are in fact the same death cult. And in case our readers imagine that jihadists don’t have global aspirations, they should pay attention to what they say among themselves (read, for instance, “The Management of Savagery”). It’s in this sense that I claimed in my blog post that we’re all living in Israel—an assertion you found ridiculous. This death cult is springing up everywhere: It’s more or less ubiquitous in the Muslim world, obviously, but it’s also in Boston, with the Tsarnaev brothers who woke up one morning and decided that the best use of their short time on earth was to bomb the Boston Marathon. The fact that they didn’t have a formal link to any established terrorist organization is irrelevant. It’s the ideas of martyrdom and jihad that are the problem. These ideas have entranced millions of people, and they are spreading.

Sullivan: I’m not quite sure where to begin, except to take one thing at a time. So let me ask a question about both history and proportions in the struggle against jihadism. Are you surprised at how few Americans have died since 9/11 by jihadist terror? It’s quite remarkable.

Harris: Not really. But I’m happy so few have.

Sullivan: You focused on the Tsarnaev brothers in the same context as Hamas, which seems to me depicts a disproportionate understanding of the situation.

Harris:  I don’t think you can analyze this risk by body count thus far. The fact is that we are now confronted by people who are undeterrable—who really do love death as much as we love life. These are not rational actors, and their access to destructive weaponry is only growing. We’re living in a world in which nuclear terrorism is going to be increasingly difficult to prevent—and yet we must prevent it, year after year after year after year. Pakistan is just a coup away from letting the big bombs fall into the wrong hands. So that’s the lens through which I view the global threat of jihadism. One can easily imagine a terrorist atrocity two orders of magnitude worse than 9/11. And that would change everything.

Sullivan: Well, it’s not entirely bleak. We did see recently a big, successful attempt to sequester the weapons of mass destruction that the Assad regime had: chemical and biological weapons. Of course, Israel is the only power in that region to have nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons without being a signatory to the nonproliferation treaty.

Harris:  Correct. But this just speaks to the difference in intention that I consider paramount. Do you lose any sleep over the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons?

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/making-sense-of-gaza

Original Quill wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Just because there are other tyrants in the world doesn't mean we should ignore ISIS.  They are directly threatening the West and inciting acts of terrorism in our own countries.  We know of the disgusting record of human rights in North Korea, Burma, China etc but they are confined to their own countries whilst ISIS are expanding - any further and they'll be in Europe.

ISIL is just another criminal enterprise.  They are no threat to us...not for $17-trillion, they aren't.

Lol! That's an interesting way to look at it.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

ISIL is just another criminal enterprise.  They are no threat to us...not for $17-trillion, they aren't.

Lol! That's an interesting way to look at it.

Both niave, people thought Hitler was not a threat until to late, so what does it take for people to understand a real threat?
It is not just ISIS by this but an extremist religious ideology and no view formed from military action is an argument to say is the reason for, when such extremism has bee around for centuries. The reality of this which Quill seems to have a memory loss over how Christianity had lost its power, where some within Islam fear the same, religious control.
This is what it has always stemmed down to and why they have a some powerful backers.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Lol! That's an interesting way to look at it.

Both niave, people thought Hitler was not a threat until to late, so what does it take for people to understand a real threat?
It is not just ISIS by this but an extremist religious ideology and no view formed from military action is an argument to say is the reason for, when such extremism has bee around for centuries. The reality of this which Quill seems to have a memory loss over how Christianity had lost its power, where some within Islam fear the same, religious control.
This is what it has always stemmed down to and why they have a some powerful backers.

There is no need to start ranting.

I was merely commenting on his financial analysis which I found funny. Remember having a sense of humour, Didge?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

Both niave, people thought Hitler was not a threat until to late, so what does it take for people to understand a real threat?
It is not just ISIS by this but an extremist religious ideology and no view formed from military action is an argument to say is the reason for, when such extremism has bee around for centuries. The reality of this which Quill seems to have a memory loss over how Christianity had lost its power, where some within Islam fear the same, religious control.
This is what it has always stemmed down to and why they have a some powerful backers.

There is no need to start ranting.

I was merely commenting on his financial analysis which I found funny. Remember having a sense of humour, Didge?

Another childish attempt to deflect, which seems to be your only capability in replying.
Money is needed to combat criminals, which you would not doubt have no objection to here, but have some weird perception to deny many nations putting money forward to stem extremists.
Odd that one.
Quill knows his view point is absurd, where his reasoning is on a failed invalid war to compare, he has not proved that money should not be spent to stop this criminality in this instance.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

There is no need to start ranting.

I was merely commenting on his financial analysis which I found funny. Remember having a sense of humour, Didge?

Another childish attempt to deflect, which seems to be your only capability in replying.
Money is needed to combat criminals, which you would not doubt have no objection to here, but have some weird perception to deny many nations putting money forward to stem extremists.
Odd that one.
Quill knows his view point is absurd, where his reasoning is on a failed invalid war to compare, he has not proved that money should not be spent to stop this criminality in this instance.

Why are you turning something I found a little funny into a rant?

Did you have a bad day?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

Another childish attempt to deflect, which seems to be your only capability in replying.
Money is needed to combat criminals, which you would not doubt have no objection to here, but have some weird perception to deny many nations putting money forward to stem extremists.
Odd that one.
Quill knows his view point is absurd, where his reasoning is on a failed invalid war to compare, he has not proved that money should not be spent to stop this criminality in this instance.

Why are you turning something I found a little funny into a rant?

Did you have a bad day?

A rant is where someone starts mouthing off with abuse, I offer no abuse, thus you again poorly deflect/

I have had a great day, had great sex earlier today when I woke, how about you?

Now getting back to the point you keep poorly trying to get out of.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Why are you turning something I found a little funny into a rant?

Did you have a bad day?

A rant is where someone starts mouthing off with abuse, I offer no abuse, thus you again poorly deflect/

I have had a great day, had great sex earlier today when I woke, how about you?

Now getting back to the point you keep poorly trying to get out of.

Ok, I really didn't want to know about your sex life.

And what point? I was just amused by a post. And then you ejaculated (which is better than ranting).

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

A rant is where someone starts mouthing off with abuse, I offer no abuse, thus you again poorly deflect/

I have had a great day, had great sex earlier today when I woke, how about you?

Now getting back to the point you keep poorly trying to get out of.

Ok, I really didn't want to know about your sex life.

And what point? I was just amused by a post. And then you ejaculated (which is better than ranting).

My point is you are amused at stupid reasoning, sums you up really.
Oh well, you can carry on with your Houdini act.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Ok, I really didn't want to know about your sex life.

And what point? I was just amused by a post. And then you ejaculated (which is better than ranting).

My point is you are amused at stupid reasoning, sums you up really.
Oh well, you can carry on with your Houdini act.

Oh dear. Are you sure you're not a little upset with me? Now by your definition, you are definitely ranting now.

Just because I found something funny, does that mean I find it reasonable? This is where your emotions is clouding your rational self.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

My point is you are amused at stupid reasoning, sums you up really.
Oh well, you can carry on with your Houdini act.

Oh dear. Are you sure you're not a little upset with me? Now by your definition, you are definitely ranting now.

Just because I found something funny, does that mean I find it reasonable? This is where your emotions is clouding your rational self.

Hilarious every single point now about me and not on the topic.

Talk about a contradiction to describing yourself.
So Quills point on the money in the Ira war, it was absurd, because it goes off a lie to commit to war, are you saying IS are not criminals?
You seem to think if you post someone is emotional it makes them such, that is your failing and why you have the maturity of a 5 year old

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Oh dear. Are you sure you're not a little upset with me? Now by your definition, you are definitely ranting now.

Just because I found something funny, does that mean I find it reasonable? This is where your emotions is clouding your rational self.

Hilarious every single point now about me and not on the topic.

Talk about a contradiction to describing yourself.
So Quills point on the money in the Ira war, it was absurd, because it goes off a lie to commit to war, are you saying IS are not criminals?
You seem to think if you post someone is emotional it makes them such, that is your failing and why you have the maturity of a 5 year old

No - I don't think any of that. Your emotional state assumed all that.

I just found it funny. The fact you can't understand that proves how emotional you are. It seems you have a problem with me, and not Quill or anything he said.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

Hilarious every single point now about me and not on the topic.

Talk about a contradiction to describing yourself.
So Quills point on the money in the Ira war, it was absurd, because it goes off a lie to commit to war, are you saying IS are not criminals?
You seem to think if you post someone is emotional it makes them such, that is your failing and why you have the maturity of a 5 year old

No - I don't think any of that. Your emotional state assumed all that.

I just found it funny. The fact you can't understand that proves how emotional you are. It seems you have a problem with me, and not Quill or anything he said.

I have only one emotion at the moment, humour at your deflections.
So you do not have an answer to my points, just say so next time instead of boring the forum with your shrieking.

Thanks

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

No - I don't think any of that. Your emotional state assumed all that.

I just found it funny. The fact you can't understand that proves how emotional you are. It seems you have a problem with me, and not Quill or anything he said.

I have only one emotion at the moment, humour at your deflections.
So you do not have an answer to my points, just say so next time instead of boring the forum with your shrieking.

Thanks

Are you saying I can't shriek on this forum?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

I have only one emotion at the moment, humour at your deflections.
So you do not have an answer to my points, just say so next time instead of boring the forum with your shrieking.

Thanks

Are you saying I can't shriek on this forum?

Of course you can, I am not sexist, baby boys are allowed to shriek.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Are you saying I can't shriek on this forum?

Of course you can, I am not sexist, baby boys are allowed to shriek.

Sexism against baby boys? Hmm!

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


Of course you can, I am not sexist, baby boys are allowed to shriek.

Sexism against baby boys? Hmm!

Irony lost on you I gues lol

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Why are you turning something I found a little funny into a rant?

Did you have a bad day?

A rant is where someone starts mouthing off with abuse, I offer no abuse, thus you again poorly deflect/

I have had a great day, had great sex earlier today when I woke, how about you?

Now getting back to the point you keep poorly trying to get out of.

bloody 'ell Didge...widow palm and her 5 lusty daughters got a hammering did they?????? ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

nicko wrote:What a load of bollocks you speak sometimes Quill.

Yeah well, sometimes I just get tired and have to take a break.

@Zack - the reason why I mention the $17-trillion is to put a value on it all. That's what the last war cost us. Yeah, I know the human cost is much more dear, but that doesn't seem to matter to the idiots who want their wars no matter what.

Raise the colors and strike up the band...it's their 72-virgins. They think a flag-draped coffin and an honor guard will be compensation enough.

But, now, $17-trillion...