Solomon1 Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 (edited) in that meantime they have grown in numbers, capibility, wealth, support, have started a holy war, occupied two sovereign states All with the arming, funding and training of the US and UK ---------- Post added 22-11-2015 at 23:27 ---------- IS has to be wiped out, the Caliphate eliminated and Muslims, radical, impressionable or otherwise, released from the religious duty to be part of it And the best way to achieve this? By solidarity with muslims against them! THIS is what ISIS fear the most - unity between muslims and non-muslims Scuppers ALL of their plans! SO, BE SUPER NICE TO YOUR MUSLIM NEIGHBOURS SPEAK TO THEM, GET TO KNOW THEM We're all in this together against ISIS It took both Catholics and Protestants to unite against the IRA. Edited November 22, 2015 by Solomon1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiseOwl182 Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Will you be organising a march saying how the actions of these men isn't representative of white working class males? I know you didn't aim this at me but feel I have to step in here as I can see what you're trying to get at. Crimes happen all the time, by different races and religions. The difference is, they don't claim to be representing the wider group, like ISIS do. I don't think Muslims should have to explicitly condemn the actions of ISIS, but if I was a Muslim I would want to distance myself as far as possible, personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 I have come back to this thread to apologise. I was a bit heated and unobjective last time I was here so I took myself away over the weekend to calm down. Calling that Marine a 'crap' soldier was a stupid and unfair thing to say. His actions anger me, but that doesn't make him a bad soldier, just someone who made a terrible decision in the heat of the moment. I still think Geneva convention needs updating to allow us to fight with different tactics needed against what is effectively a guerrilla fighting force, but I do not think it should become legal to shoot anyone who is unarmed. ---------- Post added 23-11-2015 at 10:07 ---------- Both Eric Arthur and Solomon are surely right? IS need wiping out, but that doesn't necessarily need to be through bombs and weapons. We just need to stop people fighting for them. I can't see how we avoid military action totally. We need to disarm them as best we can NOW, but then we need a strategy to stop them coming back, and that does include 'having a cup of tea'. Both things need to be combined which is what a lot of cross party MPs are calling for. No point dropping bombs if we don't have a follow up plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exxon Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 [/color]Both Eric Arthur and Solomon are surely right? IS need wiping out, but that doesn't necessarily need to be through bombs and weapons. We just need to stop people fighting for them. I can't see how we avoid military action totally. We need to disarm them as best we can NOW, but then we need a strategy to stop them coming back, and that does include 'having a cup of tea'. Both things need to be combined which is what a lot of cross party MPs are calling for. No point dropping bombs if we don't have a follow up plan. Well until you come up with a better plan of how to get them to put down their weapons then bombing would seem like the best option. They stop shooting when they are dead. So with most of the world on board it should be possible to wipe them out. Just to be clear we fought the Germans and the Japanese. They could be just as bloodthirsty and had the most advanced technology available. The only difference is we didn't have loads of simpering liberals moaning everytime a Lancaster Bomber dropped a bomb on Berlin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Well until you come up with a better plan of how to get them to put down their weapons then bombing would seem like the best option. They stop shooting when they are dead. So with most of the world on board it should be possible to wipe them out. Just to be clear we fought the Germans and the Japanese. They could be just as bloodthirsty and had the most advanced technology available. The only difference is we didn't have loads of simpering liberals moaning everytime a Lancaster Bomber dropped a bomb on Berlin. I presume you didn't read my other posts where I said I think that the best way to remove senior ISIS leaders without causing collateral damage that might make more people fight for ISIS, would be to go in with ground based strike troops. Funnily enough, the government clearly thinks similarly as they have 'found' budget for 10,000 of these type of in and out quietly fighters. And actually you had quite a few people up in arms when we bombed Dresden, but of course admitting we tried to wipe out an entire city with no military targets so we could emotionally hurt the Germans seems to get missed out of the history books. I wonder why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Well until you come up with a better plan of how to get them to put down their weapons then bombing would seem like the best option. They stop shooting when they are dead. So with most of the world on board it should be possible to wipe them out. Just to be clear we fought the Germans and the Japanese. They could be just as bloodthirsty and had the most advanced technology available. The only difference is we didn't have loads of simpering liberals moaning everytime a Lancaster Bomber dropped a bomb on Berlin. We were in a middle of total war in WW2, we are not in the same situation now. Unless we allow ISIS to win the propaganda war, and make the conflict 10 times more difficult our response has to be proportional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exxon Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 We were in a middle of total war in WW2, we are not in the same situation now. Unless we allow ISIS to win the propaganda war, and make the conflict 10 times more difficult our response has to be proportional. Why?......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 I presume you didn't read my other posts where I said I think that the best way to remove senior ISIS leaders without causing collateral damage that might make more people fight for ISIS, would be to go in with ground based strike troops. Funnily enough, the government clearly thinks similarly as they have 'found' budget for 10,000 of these type of in and out quietly fighters. And actually you had quite a few people up in arms when we bombed Dresden, but of course admitting we tried to wipe out an entire city with no military targets so we could emotionally hurt the Germans seems to get missed out of the history books. I wonder why. Dresden was bombed for a variety of reasons, coming toward the end of the war, I think most war leaders stopped hoping to shock Germany into submission. Dresden hasn't been missed out in the history books,as there are lots of books discussion it. I'd recommend this one by Frederick Taylor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exxon Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 (edited) I presume you didn't read my other posts where I said I think that the best way to remove senior ISIS leaders without causing collateral damage that might make more people fight for ISIS, would be to go in with ground based strike troops. Funnily enough, the government clearly thinks similarly as they have 'found' budget for 10,000 of these type of in and out quietly fighters. And actually you had quite a few people up in arms when we bombed Dresden, but of course admitting we tried to wipe out an entire city with no military targets so we could emotionally hurt the Germans seems to get missed out of the history books. I wonder why. To be honest it is only the bleeding heart liberals who make a fuss about Dresden anyhow. When you are fighting a war killing the man who makes the bullets is just as important as killing the man who is firing them. In a similar vein someone has to make the uniform for the soldier and someone has to make his lunch. The reason why the trains ran through dresden was not so the holiday makers could get to the seaside. It was to help the German war effort. The Germans bombed Sheffield because the civillian population here made steel, shells, guns, crankshafts for Spitfires and millions of other things that supported the front line troops. So just to be clear about Dresden... an official 1942 guide to the city described it as "one of the foremost industrial locations of the Reich" and in 1944, the German Army High Command's Weapons Office listed 127 medium-to-large factories and workshops that were supplying the army with materiel. .....Who do you think it was that was shooting back at British bombers? Edited November 23, 2015 by exxon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Dresden was bombed for a variety of reasons, coming toward the end of the war, I think most war leaders stopped hoping to shock Germany into submission. Dresden hasn't been missed out in the history books,as there are lots of books discussion it. I'd recommend this one by Frederick Taylor School history books I guess I should have said. The point being that during WW2 we used dubious tactics to win. The war was different, enemy was different, propaganda was different. I shouldn't really have compared the 2 here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts