Eric Arthur Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 There is no requirement for true Muslims to travel there. Oh yes there is. That is the whole point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 i suggest we reform freedom of speech to some extent especially with those that patently hate our culture, our way of life whilst taking and bleeding that same cash cow? I knew the loony tunes stuff was in you somewhere, and here it all comes tumbling out. What you appear to suggesting here is totalitarian nonsense more suited to a state like Russia. ---------- Post added 21-11-2015 at 14:27 ---------- Oh yes there is. That is the whole point. You're wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted November 21, 2015 Author Share Posted November 21, 2015 Totally agree about the Kurds finally gaining statehood. Big sticking point: Turkey (NATO member) does not want that to happen. Removal of Assad and partition of Syria was always the end game but we won't see the back of IS until Assad is gone. The USA isn't being honest about that. And of course the Russians are now on the ground in support of Assad. The Russians have an obvious regional interest as their southern border is little more than 250 miles from the conflict. As long as Russia props up Assad, then the USA will prop up IS. I'm surprised more people don't realise that. Paris and Mali are the collateral damage caused by the USA's unwillingness to defeat ISIS, to join in a genuine coalition with Russia and Iran that will solve the problem. I don't buy that for a second. By simultaneously bombing ISIS and supporting them all that's going to happen is another large scale terrorist attack on U.S. soil at some stage. I don't doubt that by supplying the FSA, arms meant for them are ending up in ISIS hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scania Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 So, you're Ok with killing innocents then. Remind you of anyone? How do you tackle the ideologies that drive young men (and women) towards terror groups? Are you forgetting that targeting these pig scum is completely different to how they kill at random, without any thought or conscience? Its a job that needs doing, and the collateral damage is a sorrowful byproduct of a necessary undertaking. Sympathize for them, and you are doing nothing but giving them a green light to carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 I don't buy that for a second. By simultaneously bombing ISIS and supporting them all that's going to happen is another large scale terrorist attack on U.S. soil at some stage. I don't doubt that by supplying the FSA, arms meant for them are ending up in ISIS hands. You're being naive. Of course that is what is going to happen. Of course there will be more attacks. So, on the one hand the USA needs to be seen to be doing something. On the other it needs IS to continue to destabilise Assad. Funny how the USA tracked convoys of fuel trucks for 13 months, watching them deliver oil worth £2m a day for IS but never attacked the trucks until very recently, and even then they only disabled 10% of the trucks. Undefended trucks. Sitting ducks. Delivering tens of millions of pounds every month to IS funds. The USA allowed the major source of ISIS funds to continue unchecked for 13 months. Almost $1bn in funding!!!! And then when France was attacked there was by some miracle a number of high profile IS targets for them to strike, untouched by 13 months of previous bombing. ---------- Post added 21-11-2015 at 14:47 ---------- Oh yes there is. That is the whole point. No, that's complete nonsense. You talk to any normal Muslim and they do not regard the IS brand of Islam as true Islam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted November 21, 2015 Author Share Posted November 21, 2015 You're being naive. Of course that is what is going to happen. Of course there will be more attacks. So, on the one hand the USA needs to be seen to be doing something. On the other it needs IS to continue to destabilise Assad. Funny how the USA tracked convoys of fuel trucks for 13 months, watching them deliver oil worth £2m a day for IS but never attacked the trucks until very recently, and even then they only disabled 10% of the trucks. Undefended trucks. Sitting ducks. Delivering tens of millions of pounds every month to IS funds. The USA allowed the major source of ISIS funds to continue unchecked for 13 months. Almost $1bn in funding!!!! And then when France was attacked there was by some miracle a number of high profile IS targets for them to strike, untouched by 13 months of previous bombing. It's odd I grant you but I don't think it's a definative answer. I'd love the reason given to be environmental but I'm not that naive. In other news, the other great satan Belgium, is telling its citizens to stay away from crowds and stay at home if possible. What's Belgium done to warrant attacks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubaidani13 Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 I knew the loony tunes stuff was in you somewhere, and here it all comes tumbling out. What you appear to suggesting here is totalitarian nonsense more suited to a state like Russia. ---------- Post added 21-11-2015 at 14:27 ---------- no looney tunes here matey just good old common sense:roll: as for Russia and totalitarian nonsense according to you ? actually Russia is a pretty good option they are not going to stand for all this islamic IS nonesense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 Are you forgetting that targeting these pig scum is completely different to how they kill at random, without any thought or conscience? Its a job that needs doing, and the collateral damage is a sorrowful byproduct of a necessary undertaking. Sympathize for them, and you are doing nothing but giving them a green light to carry on. It's not that different though is it, since it results in the deaths of innocent people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Arthur Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 You're wrong. Please explain why you think that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 It's not that different though is it, since it results in the deaths of innocent people. Im surprised you cnat see the difference between the way ISIS conducts its activities as opposed to the western forces, one side seeks to maximise civilian casualties whislt the other seeks to minimise them. They are very different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts