Foreign jihadists flocking to Iraq and Syria on 'unprecedented scale' – UN

by Guest Fri Oct 31, 2014 12:41 pm

UN report suggests decline of al-Qaida has yielded an explosion of jihadist enthusiasm for its even mightier successor organisations, chiefly Isis.
The United Nations has warned that foreign jihadists are swarming into the twin conflicts in Iraq and Syria on “an unprecedented scale” and from countries that had not previously contributed combatants to global terrorism.

A report by the UN security council, obtained by the Guardian, finds that 15,000 people have travelled to Syria and Iraq to fight alongside the Islamic State (Isis) and similar extremist groups. They come from more than 80 countries, the report states, “including a tail of countries that have not previously faced challenges relating to al-Qaida”.

The UN said it was uncertain whether al-Qaida would benefit from the surge. Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leader of al-Qaida who booted Isis out of his organisation, “appears to be maneuvering for relevance”, the report says.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/30/foreign-jihadist-iraq-syria-unprecedented-un-isis

by Original Quill Fri Oct 31, 2014 3:21 pm

Good 'nuff reason to stay out of there. Imagine if the western nations entered the fray...what a recruitment tool for them.

by Guest Fri Oct 31, 2014 3:25 pm

Original Quill wrote:Good 'nuff reason to stay out of there. Imagine if the western nations entered the fray...what a recruitment tool for them.

That makes no sense Quill, as the propaganda method IS are using is way more effective in recruiting based on the numbers, than has been seen since before. Thus any intervention by the west would have little or no affect based off the reality they are already able to recruit better than anyone has before when nations were previously entered the fray.

by Original Quill Fri Oct 31, 2014 3:45 pm

I just remember that when GWB went into Iraq, it prolonged the war by around 8-years, making al-Qaeda a real force. In 2002 al-Qaeda had about 170 members. By 2009, according to Robert Cassidy, al-Qaeda controled two separate forces deployed alongside insurgents in Iraq and Pakistan, numbering 20-30,000 members.

The propaganda method ISIL is using is aimed at bringing the west into the fray. Now why would they want to do that...and why would we want to help them?

Best decision a Bush ever made was GHWB's having an end-game to Desert Storm (Kuwait War). Kuwait's invasion by Iraqi troops that began 2 August 1990...answered by GHWB in January-February 1991. Badda-Bing, Badda-Bing...gone in 60 seconds.

Too bad the old man didn't teach the kid that trick.

by Guest Fri Oct 31, 2014 5:43 pm

They were a real force al-Qead the moment they were successful on 9/11 and the situation was prolonged in Iraq not because of armed US actions, because of people outside this area funding money to create problems and this again comes from both side. Again the root cause will fall back to Iran and Saudi, pulling strings behind the scenes.

The method they are using to recruit, is meant to recruit and if you had not notice and the west is already in the fray with supplies and air units.

The problem is always going to be a problem with fund raisers within the middle east creating these storms, as this all about who has control over the Middle East via religion, through either Shia or Sunni. I mean the view to blame this war for this terrorism, is short sighted, because they were here before this. It may be argued that it can be used to help the opposing side with propaganda. AS most countries when freed from a dictatorship help rebuild that nation, and was never the intended measure to do, in the Eyes of Iran and Saudi, as thy both seek control.

by Lone Wolf Fri Oct 31, 2014 5:44 pm

EIGHTEEN Australian "jihadists' have been killed so far this year fighting for enemy ISIS/ISIL gangs in foreign conflicts in Syria and Iraq...

THE collective intelligence of all three countries has inevitably been raised by their migrations..

by Original Quill Fri Oct 31, 2014 6:26 pm

9/11 had nothing to do with it. That was just 19-criminals bent on destruction. It was a show...trying to induce the US, and it was successful. We shouldn't make them successful once again.

The greatest recruitment tool we could give ISIL right now is to go in there and make a cause out of it for uncommitted Muslims. That's why ISIL is begging us to come in.

by Guest Fri Oct 31, 2014 6:33 pm

Original Quill wrote:9/11 had nothing to do with it. That was just 19-criminals bent on destruction. It was a show...trying to induce the US, and it was successful. We shouldn't make them successful once again.

The greatest recruitment tool we could give ISIL right now is to go in there and make a cause out of it for uncommitted Muslims. That's why ISIL is begging us to come in.

It did, it showed the capabilities and reach of this group ore than just 19 individuals with a central command and countless smaller cells.
Again no it is not the best tool because if it was all previous engagements would have far more flocking to these extremist cause before IS, and in such s short space of time. It shows that argument is not good enough to persuade many people, what is though is their new propaganda by IS.

by Original Quill Fri Oct 31, 2014 6:57 pm

Brasidas wrote:
Original Quill wrote:9/11 had nothing to do with it. That was just 19-criminals bent on destruction. It was a show...trying to induce the US, and it was successful. We shouldn't make them successful once again.

The greatest recruitment tool we could give ISIL right now is to go in there and make a cause out of it for uncommitted Muslims. That's why ISIL is begging us to come in.

It did, it showed the capabilities and reach of this group ore than just 19 individuals with a central command and countless smaller cells.
Again no it is not the best tool because if it was all previous engagements would have far more flocking to these extremist cause before IS, and in such s short space of time. It shows that argument is not good enough to persuade many people, what is though is their new propaganda by IS.

What those 19 individuals proved is that in today's age, with media and the Internet, you can make a lot of noise with very little effort. Can you imagine doing that much damage in 1880? There wasn't enough infrastructure to harm. Not enough airplanes to crash.

All that is very interesting, but it isn't answering our questions. What can we do about it? Very little. The last thing we want to do is go into two wars, lasting 11-years, and costing $17-trillion, and ending right back where you started, accomplishing nothing at all.

The point is that 19-individuals on 9/11 were not an army invading a country, and it is no response to treat this as a war. It was a publicity stunt. Publicity stunts work in this media age.

You do what you can. But you don't try to force a square peg into a round hole.

by Guest Fri Oct 31, 2014 7:13 pm

Yes all well and good about making voices Quill but this group had been formed years before.
The last thing we want to do, when we can do something about it is to do nothing. That helps nobody other than IS itself who can seek to gain by such inactivity. This will also be used by IS to show sign of weakness in the west that the west fears IS. Where they would claim we are too afraid of them to act (Thus proving how their tactic are working) and would no doubt claim also, for dramatic effect that Allah intervention in this making the west cower. You see even your inaction view points has many factors, that you have not factored in.

Bye for now.

by Original Quill Sat Nov 01, 2014 12:58 am

There's nothing we can do. One can not change another; others have to change themselves. And first, they have to want to change.

Neither the Sunnis nor the Shi'ia want to change themselves...yet. Oh, there will come a day when they are sorry...when they realize that they wasted away an existence and have nothing to show for it. But that's a long way away right now.

We are but outsiders. It is not ours to change their destiny. Have patience...one can be available, but one must have patience.

by nicko Sat Nov 01, 2014 7:07 am

Quill, while we are having "patience" hundreds of innocents are being murdered, that can't be right, can it?

by Guest Sat Nov 01, 2014 7:28 am

Original Quill wrote:There's nothing we can do. One can not change another; others have to change themselves. And first, they have to want to change.

Neither the Sunnis nor the Shi'ia want to change themselves...yet. Oh, there will come a day when they are sorry...when they realize that they wasted away an existence and have nothing to show for it. But that's a long way away right now.

We are but outsiders. It is not ours to change their destiny. Have patience...one can be available, but one must have patience.

Sorry but that is a load of gobbledygook, if we took that approach we would still be having massive problems in Northern Ireland. The realty is many Muslims do want change but this is difficult when as explained again there is extremists on both sides well organised and funded to keep the problems continuing. We are ll humans at the end of the day, to go down that road you perceive is where racism first started, where a perception forms of a group of people from a country different to yours. So we are not outsiders, we only choose to be outsiders, because we are all human at the end of the day.

by Tommy Monk Sat Nov 01, 2014 4:00 pm

Original Quill wrote:9/11 had nothing to do with it. That was just 19-criminals bent on destruction. It was a show...trying to induce the US, and it was successful. We shouldn't make them successful once again.

The greatest recruitment tool we could give ISIL right now is to go in there and make a cause out of it for uncommitted Muslims. That's why ISIL is begging us to come in.

They don't need another recruitment tool you tool, they already got the only one they need and that is their guide book the koran.

Your argument is to do nothing and just let them murder, rob and rape their way across the middle east...!?

Those 19 were just very naughty boys I suppose?

And Those ISIS lot just need a good telling off....

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/isis-executed-600-iraqi-prisoners-rights-group-says/

Your argument is that if we do something they win but if we do nothing they also win so whatever we do they win???

Doing nothing is not an option, and doing something actually means they lose.

The level of atrocities they are committing on a daily basis is so great that we cannot just stand by and let it carry on.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -
Edmund Burke

by Guest Sat Nov 01, 2014 4:04 pm

Stop the press and this is a first, a post from Tommy I actually agree with, now that deserves a thanks, so well done.

Great quote to end with.

by Original Quill Sat Nov 01, 2014 4:57 pm

Brasidas wrote:Stop the press and this is a first, a post from Tommy I actually agree with, now that deserves a thanks, so well done.

Great quote to end with.

I kinda agree with him, too...in effect, although I still think he is an ignorant cunnus-mouth. Razz

Tommy M. wrote:The level of atrocities they are committing on a daily basis is so great that we cannot just stand by and let it carry on.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -
Edmund Burke

What I recommend is tommy go into his corner and masturbate. T'wud be just as effective, Burke notwithstanding. And much less expensive.

War is just a pastime for conservatives. It's compensatory behavior for people with very small penises. Kings used to start wars in order to have something to write on their epitaph. But that ended with nuclear weapons.

Now, the best money says we know why we are starting wars, and we have an exit-strategy. My hunch is that Tommy doesn't begin to even fathom this. I should end this post here, but on the off-chance that someone intelligent is listening:

1. If you enter this war, why?

2. If you enter this war, what do you want to achieve?

3. If you enter this war, how soon do you expect achieve it (give estimate in months, years, etc)?

4. If you enter this war, will you repeat when the same set of conditions come along next time?

5. If you enter this war, do you have any Islamic religious convictions that compel you to favour one side?

5. If you enter this war, on whose side will you go in? Why?

6. If you enter this war, what religious outcome do you hope to achieve, if any?

7. If you enter this war, will you insist that nations in the communal area enter it as well?

8. Does that mean Israel?

9. If you enter this war adverse to ISIL, does that mean that you will form an alliance with Iran? Hamas?

10. If you enter this war, how will you get out?

Hopefully, y'all now see my reference to masturbation. If you can't talk intelligently and rationally about wars and geopolitical maneuvering, you are just jacking-off.

by Guest Sat Nov 01, 2014 5:15 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Brasidas wrote:Stop the press and this is a first, a post from Tommy I actually agree with, now that deserves a thanks, so well done.

Great quote to end with.

I kinda agree with him, too...in effect, although I still think he is an ignorant cunnus-mouth.

Tommy M. wrote:The level of atrocities they are committing on a daily basis is so great that we cannot just stand by and let it carry on.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -
Edmund Burke

What I recommend is tommy go into his corner and masturbate. T'wud be just as effective, Burke notwithstanding. And much less expensive.

War is just a pastime for conservatives. It's compensatory behavior for people with very small penises. Kings used to start wars in order to have something to write on their epitaph. But that ended with nuclear weapons.

Now, the best money says we know why we are starting wars, and we have an exit-strategy. My hunch is that Tommy doesn't begin to even fathom this. I should end this post here, but on the off-chance that someone intelligent is listening:

1. If you enter this war, why?
To save innocent loss of life and the very survival of some minority religious and ethic groups from extinction

2. If you enter this war, what do you want to achieve?
The survival of minority ethnic and religious groups.

3. If you enter this war, how soon do you expect achieve it (give estimate in months, years, etc)?
Until the threat against the existence of the minority ethnic and religious groups has been neutralized.

4. If you enter this war, will you repeat when the same set of conditions come along next time?
If achievable, yes. The very factor is and argument should be to help no matter what. Granted this is not always possible due to who may fight against you, based around those capable of using nuclear weapons that could kill millions of your own people.

5. If you enter this war, do you have any Islamic religious convictions that compel you to favour one side?
No, religious convictions aside, the priority here is the survival of religious and ethnic groups, you can argue and try to influence a better way of life after the mission has been accomplished.

5. If you enter this war, on whose side will you go in? Why?
The right side, the one fighting for its very existence.

6. If you enter this war, what religious outcome do you hope to achieve, if any?
None, religion plays no part in wanting to save people from barbaric murder, sex slavery etc, who have committed no crime and face such persecution by extremists who view them as inferior and even worse that you should not exist.

7. If you enter this war, will you insist that nations in the communal area enter it as well?
I would try to gain their support, but if I cannot then that should still not prevent me from achieving my goal of saving life.

8. Does that mean Israel?
It could but it would be better with both Israel and other Arab nations

9. If you enter this war adverse to ISIL, does that mean that you will form an alliance with Iran? Hamas?
It is not required or a necessity, as defeating IS from being in control of areas and preventing them committing persecutions and genocide is the main goal, which can be achieved without them.

10. If you enter this war, how will you get out?
There is no need to get out of anything if the support you provide is Ariel support and special forces. They are already within the region

Hopefully, y'all now see my reference to masturbation. If you can't talk intelligently and rationally about wars and geopolitical maneuvering, you are just jacking-off.

Yes your reference was poor mate and I easily provided rational answers to your questions, because my views come from what is natural and rational to do. Yours is irrational because any inaction against any problem in life will allow for more problems to the ultimate problem of allowing people to die, when you could have saved them. That is like knowing a patient has got cancer and denying them treatment that could save their life, as you have basically condemned them to death.

by Tommy Monk Sat Nov 01, 2014 5:21 pm

I was against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We had Iraq on lock down with no fly zone and sanctions.

There was no Al Q in Iraq and the bush Blair war was based on lies.

That was Blair, the leader of our UK left wing labour party by the way....

But what we have now going on is a massacre of innocent people throughout ISIS held areas and brutality on a major scale.

You seem to think that as it's Muslims killing other Muslims then they don't matter....

by Original Quill Sat Nov 01, 2014 5:49 pm

Brasidas wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I kinda agree with him, too...in effect, although I still think he is an ignorant cunnus-mouth.

What I recommend is tommy go into his corner and masturbate. T'wud be just as effective, Burke notwithstanding. And much less expensive.

War is just a pastime for conservatives. It's compensatory behavior for people with very small penises. Kings used to start wars in order to have something to write on their epitaph. But that ended with nuclear weapons.

Now, the best money says we know why we are starting wars, and we have an exit-strategy. My hunch is that Tommy doesn't begin to even fathom this. I should end this post here, but on the off-chance that someone intelligent is listening:

1. If you enter this war, why?
To save innocent loss of life and the very survival of some minority religious and ethic groups from extinction

How are you going to do that? With guns or shovels?

2. If you enter this war, what do you want to achieve?
The survival of minority ethnic and religious groups.

Does that mean you are pro-Shi'ia? They are in the minority, yet when Iriqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi was in office, he himself was oppressive toward Sunnis. Is this what you mean by survival of minorities?

3. If you enter this war, how soon do you expect achieve it (give estimate in months, years, etc)?
Until the threat against the existence of the minority ethnic and religious groups has been neutralized.

So, you have no answer. You are just the caped-crusader flying around saving souls for eternity.

4. If you enter this war, will you repeat when the same set of conditions come along next time?
If achievable, yes. The very factor is and argument should be to help no matter what. Granted this is not always possible due to who may fight against you, based around those capable of using nucleus weapons that could kill millions of your own people.

See above. Will you stop in to see your wife and kids while you are flying around saving souls?

5. If you enter this war, do you have any Islamic religious convictions that compel you to favour one side?
No, religious convictions aside, the priority here is the survival of religious and ethnic groups, you can argue and try to influence a better way of life after the mission has been accomplished.

Why do you choose the Shi'ia over the Sunni? Will you aid Haider al-Abadi in suppressing the Sunni, as the US did, even when you realize that he doesn't share your noble goals of 'survival of religious and ethnic groups'?

5. If you enter this war, on whose side will you go in? Why?
The right side, the one fighting for its very existence.

Does that mean ISIL or al-Qaeda or the Taliban? Which one is right? The Shi'ia or Sunni?

6. If you enter this war, what religious outcome do you hope to achieve, if any?
None, religion plays no part in wanting to save people from barbaric murder, sex slavery etc, who have committed no crime and face such persecution by extremists who view them as inferior and even worse that you should not exist.

Sweet jesus...where do you expect to find all of that in this war? Both sides want just the opposite.

7. If you enter this war, will you insist that nations in the communal area enter it as well?
I would try to gain their support, but if I cannot then that should still not prevent me from achieving my goal of saving life.

Even when you hear their reasons?

8. Does that mean Israel?
It could but it would be better with both Israel and other Arab nations

Powder-keg there. But at least the right answer.

9. If you enter this war adverse to ISIL, does that mean that you will form an alliance with Iran? Hamas?
It is not required or a necessity, as defeating IS from being in control of areas and preventing them committing persecutions and genocide is the main goal, which can be achieved without them.

You do realize that ISIL is fighting a war against the Shi'ia government (or former government) of Iraq? That means Iran and Hamas? That's the underlying cause of all of this.

10. If you enter this war, how will you get out?
There is no need to get out of anything if the support you provide is Ariel support and special forces. They are already within the region

Air support without ground troops is just fireworks for fun. When the other side captures the special forces and video tapes their decapitation, will you then be willing to go in with ground forces?

Hopefully, y'all now see my reference to masturbation. If you can't talk intelligently and rationally about wars and geopolitical maneuvering, you are just jacking-off.

Yes your reference was poor mate and I easily provided rational answers to your questions, because my views come from what is natural and rational to do. Yours is irrational because any inaction against any problem in life will allow for more problems to the ultimate problem of allowing people to die, when you could have saved them. That is like knowing a patient has got cancer and denying them treatment that could save their life, as you have basically condemned them to death.

Appreciate the effort, and see my comments. Some good thinking...but is it thinking it all the way through?

On this issue of 'inaction', I have let this go because there are bigger fish to fry in our discussions. But I am not in favor of inaction, per se. There are other options. My argument with conservatives is that they can conceive of no other options than combat. The other options are slower, but more compelling.

The problem is that they don't provide the fireworks of a film clip depicting dropping a bomb and the bloodied corpses of children--all for the evening news. You see, it's not just the equity, but the urgency that conservatives want. (In salesman's terms, it's not just buy this, but buy now!) The pain is more immediate with war, and that's what they like. It's vengeance, rather than rational thought.

by Guest Sat Nov 01, 2014 6:01 pm

Oh for goodness sake your efforts were an embarrassment.

Point one: With weaponry

Point Two: Daft reply, I am pro nothing other than the survival of innocent life, religion plays no part in saving an innocent life.

Point 3 & 4: Copout reply. I do not need to do anything, what made you decide I had to, no parameter stated I should. If I did, it would still be for the greater good, my life is one compared to thousands of others.

Point 5: I have not chosen anyone, there is not just shias dying but Sunni, Yizadi, Christians etc all innocent. You seem to think by saving innocent lives is making a choice over religion when as seen it is not and you scarping at the barrels to infer and claim things I have not stated, showing how poor your replies are.

Point 6:Really, both sides want this? Stereotype failure alert.

Point 7: Is a waffle answer, not asking anything of value, wow.

Point 8: There is no right answer, nobody decided you were the judge to the correct answers

Point 9: Incorrect they are also at odds of many Arab nations they view as run by western puppets, their enemies their ultimate is the Saudi Royal family itself, showing again your lack of knowledge of the conflict and IS itself.

Point 10: There is ground troops, what the fuck do you think the Kurds are, doh with again missing the point on special forces, doh

Bigger fish to fry, you let it go, more like I just proved that you have no rational, natural or moral reply to my points to then deflect this now to daft assertions on political view points which have fuck all to do with this showing your clear desperation to get out of a debate you are losing. That is poor mate. I could care less what you perceive conservative people to be like, that is utterly irrelevant to the natural and rational thing to do against a real threat where your inaction, based upon where you can do something to help which does not place counters of others at risk is condemning people to death, when you could save them.

Conclusion, you have no rational or natural answer to my points and I have the higher rational and moral argument.

by Tommy Monk Sat Nov 01, 2014 6:08 pm

ISIS are fighting for the imposition of Islam and strict sharia law throughout there and everywhere else in the world if they can.

They will not stop at the borders unless they are stopped by force.

And We can't just stand by and watch as they murder, rob and rape their way across.

by Original Quill Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:06 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:ISIS are fighting for the imposition of Islam and strict sharia law throughout there and everywhere else in the world if they can.

They will not stop at the borders unless they are stopped by force.

And We can't just stand by and watch as they murder, rob and rape their way across.

“There is no instance of a nation benefiting from prolonged warfare.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

by Tommy Monk Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:44 pm

Maybe not but there will be untold more death and suffering of innocent people if we do nothing.

by Original Quill Mon Nov 03, 2014 4:26 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Maybe not but there will be untold more death and suffering of innocent people if we do nothing.

And the same if we go in there killing and adding to the mayhem. The only difference is we will knock off a few thousand of our own boys and girls, and spend another $17-trillion, only to face the next movement.

No thanks.

by Tommy Monk Mon Nov 03, 2014 5:03 pm

Fine attitude from you Americans who have done so much to destabilize the area over the last decade or so....

And before you trot out your typical response of blaming the conservatives, it was our labour govt who were responsible over here, and how many years has Obama and the democrats been your leaders...?

It is our responsibility to act for humanitarian reasons but also because the mess there is a result of our intervention and maybe the hasty withdrawal is also to blame.

It's funny how some on here call me a racist and islamaphobe etc, while it is me who is showing concern for these innocent Muslims who are being massacred while you hypocritical lefties seem happy to see them butchered as they're only Muslims aren't they...!?

So their lives aren't important and besides, it might cost a few quid that we don't really want to spend....

Fucking disgraceful!!!

by Guest Mon Nov 03, 2014 5:22 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Maybe not but there will be untold more death and suffering of innocent people if we do nothing.

And the same if we go in there killing and adding to the mayhem. The only difference is we will knock off a few thousand of our own boys and girls, and spend another $17-trillion, only to face the next movement.

No thanks.

Again you place money over the value of life.

No contest, humans will always come first.

by Original Quill Mon Nov 03, 2014 5:26 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Fine attitude from you Americans who have done so much to destabilize the area over the last decade or so....

So then you would agree we ought not to do any more damage. On behalf of all Americans, I repent. Mia culpa, mia culpa. I pledge for the rest of my life to work to keep America out of foolhardy adventures like this.

Tommy Monk wrote:And before you trot out your typical response of blaming the conservatives, it was our labour govt who were responsible over here, and how many years has Obama and the democrats been your leaders...?

I agree. Y'all need to change your Labour Party to the extent that they serve as lap dogs for Republicans around here. Listen, Republicans are the devil's abettors...don't under any circumstances consort with them.

Tommy Monk wrote:It is our responsibility to act for humanitarian reasons but also because the mess there is a result of our intervention and maybe the hasty withdrawal is also to blame.

I have no objection to going in there with the Red Cross or the World Health Organization, Doctors Withoud Borders or any other "peace" doing operation.. Just don't attempt peace with firearms, bombs and implements of destruction. Killing is not conducive to peace, nor explosives to tranquility. That kind of Orwellian perspective leads directly to the kind of destabilization of which you earlier spoke. Let's hear no more of it.

Tommy Monk wrote:It's funny how some on here call me a racist and islamaphobe etc, while it is me who is showing concern for these innocent Muslims who are being massacred while you hypocritical lefties seem happy to see them butchered as they're only Muslims aren't they...!?

So their lives aren't important and besides, it might cost a few quid that we don't really want to spend....

Fucking disgraceful!!!

Keep up the good work, Tommy.

by Tommy Monk Mon Nov 03, 2014 5:46 pm

And I suppose an international peace keeping force will go in there armed with leftie propaganda and best intentions....

by Original Quill Mon Nov 03, 2014 6:03 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:And I suppose an international peace keeping force will go in there armed with leftie propaganda and best intentions....

It's better than killing the women and children.

They were killing people in Cambodia; did we go in with guns? They were killing people in Burma; did we go in with guns?

You can't settle things with guys. You can only kill. And with people who don't respond to threat or intimidation, you can't even hold a gun on them. Your only option is to kill.

You are about to adopt a career of killing. And it will go on until you become the genocider, as GWB would say. Weren't you the one against destabilization?

by Tommy Monk Mon Nov 03, 2014 6:57 pm

The destabilisation has already happened and the killing of innocent men women and children is happening now too, in fact it is on a genocidal scale.

I believe we have a duty to act to try to prevent this further, and if that means killing the terrorists then so be it. They will not stop until they are stopped.

by Original Quill Tue Nov 04, 2014 6:25 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:The destabilisation has already happened and the killing of innocent men women and children is happening now too, in fact it is on a genocidal scale.

I believe we have a duty to act to try to prevent this further, and if that means killing the terrorists then so be it. They will not stop until they are stopped.

Nevertheless, you do seem unsure. If you fail to plan, you plan to fail. Could you give us a bit more detail about your plan? What are your goals? How do you plan to achieve your goals? And what is your exit-strategy?

by Guest Tue Nov 04, 2014 6:29 pm

It has already been explained how the goals will be achieved, you failed to address the points. The whole point here is to prevent further genocide.

by Original Quill Tue Nov 04, 2014 6:46 pm

Brasidas wrote:It has already been explained how the goals will be achieved, you failed to address the points. The whole point here is to prevent further genocide.

Yes, I know...you intend to go in there and blast the shit out of everything and everyone, and then, what, take photographs and pass out candy to the children.

Yes, yes, yes...GWB explained all that to us over a decade ago.....on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln during a victory speech on May 1, 2003.

Foreign jihadists flocking to Iraq and Syria on 'unprecedented scale' – UN Mission_accomplished

Foreign jihadists flocking to Iraq and Syria on 'unprecedented scale' – UN Mission_accomplished

But you are over on the other thread. This one is Tommy's...and I just thought he might have some other thoughts on the subject.

No?

by Guest Tue Nov 04, 2014 6:48 pm

Brasidas wrote:Oh for goodness sake your efforts were an embarrassment.

Point one: With weaponry

Point Two: Daft reply, I am pro nothing other than the survival of innocent life, religion plays no part in saving an innocent life.

Point 3 & 4: Copout reply. I do not need to do anything, what made you decide I had to, no parameter stated I should. If I did, it would still be for the greater good, my life is one compared to thousands of others.

Point 5: I have not chosen anyone, there is not just shias dying but Sunni, Yizadi, Christians etc all innocent. You seem to think by saving innocent lives is making a choice over religion when as seen it is not and you scarping at the barrels to infer and claim things I have not stated, showing how poor your replies are.

Point 6:Really, both sides want this? Stereotype failure alert.

Point 7: Is a waffle answer, not asking anything of value, wow.

Point 8: There is no right answer, nobody decided you were the judge to the correct answers

Point 9: Incorrect they are also at odds of many Arab nations they view as run by western puppets, their enemies their ultimate is the Saudi Royal family itself, showing again your lack of knowledge of the conflict and IS itself.

Point 10: There is ground troops, what the fuck do you think the Kurds are, doh with again missing the point on special forces, doh

Bigger fish to fry, you let it go, more like I just proved that you have no rational, natural or moral reply to my points to then deflect this now to daft assertions on political view points which have fuck all to do with this showing your clear desperation to get out of a debate you are losing. That is poor mate. I could care less what you perceive conservative people to be like, that is utterly irrelevant to the natural and rational thing to do against a real threat where your inaction, based upon where you can do something to help which does not place counters of others at risk is condemning people to death, when you could save them.

Conclusion, you have no rational or natural answer to my points and I have the higher rational and moral argument.

I beg to differ Quill as usual you bowed out having no answers.
When you start to understand what is rational and natural you will see why your points have no substance

by Original Quill Tue Nov 04, 2014 6:58 pm

by Guest Tue Nov 04, 2014 7:00 pm

I see you have bowed out again.
Hey ho, better luck next time then.

by Original Quill Tue Nov 04, 2014 7:14 pm

Foreign jihadists flocking to Iraq and Syria on 'unprecedented scale' – UN 5104af6250dd4

ISIL? What ISIL? We is ready for all comers.

by Tommy Monk Tue Nov 04, 2014 7:28 pm

Quill is happy to see this.....

THE PRICE OF HUMAN MISERY - THE FULL ISIS PRICE LIST FOR SLAVES

A woman aged 40 to 50 - 50,000 dinars (£27)
A woman aged 30 to 40 - 75,000 dinars (£40)
A woman aged 20 to 30 - 100,000 dinars (£53)
A girl, aged 10 to 20 - 150,000 dinars (£80)
A child under nine - 200,000 dinars (£106)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2820603/The-price-slave-determined-official-ISIS-price-list-Islamist-group-sets-prices-Yazidi-Christian-women-girls-nine-fetching-highest-price.html#ixzz3I82B1CPt

by veya_victaous Tue Nov 04, 2014 9:50 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

THE PRICE OF HUMAN MISERY - THE FULL ISIS PRICE LIST FOR SLAVES

A woman aged 40 to 50 - 50,000 dinars (£27)
A woman aged 30 to 40 - 75,000 dinars (£40)
A woman aged 20 to 30 - 100,000 dinars (£53)
A girl, aged 10 to 20 - 150,000 dinars (£80)
A child under nine - 200,000 dinars (£106)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2820603/The-price-slave-determined-official-ISIS-price-list-Islamist-group-sets-prices-Yazidi-Christian-women-girls-nine-fetching-highest-price.html#ixzz3I82B1CPt

That's pretty crazy that a human life is so cheap pale

I don't know if it is good or bad that I could buy multiple humans with one days pay, but it does highlight how fucked up the world is and how lucky we have it in the west.

by Original Quill Wed Nov 05, 2014 5:15 am

Yes...worldwide, the whole sex/slave trade is on the uptake.

by Tommy Monk Wed Nov 05, 2014 2:46 pm

Yeah, we have eastern Europeans and Paki Muslims here raping and trafficking girls into the sex trade.....

And we have laws against it and authorities who are doing something about it, this however is an open market in ISIS controlled areas, with the victims all being captured yazidi women and girls dished out like cattleto be raped and abused, just like it says in the Koran...

Surely these are more war crimes and the international community needs to act against such atrocities!?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2790131/Islamic-State-magazine-says-group-enslaved-Yazidis.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-brings-back-slavery-yazidi-girls-sold-to-isis-fighters-as-concubines-for-1000-9792056.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-fighters-barter-over-yazidi-girls-on-slave-market-day--the-shocking-video-9836589.html

by Sponsored content