Christians now fleeing from the islamists Iraq

[Anna Glypta 10]

Where are they going to get more from? And what about a Navy or Air Force - You can't conquer this modern world without them can you?

 

All the money their have looted from banks, and oil fields they hold, won't help them get the hardware they'd need because nobody is going to trade with them.

 

Any of the Western nations could easily drive IS into the hills and reclaim the territory they currently hold. Trouble is it costs money, lives and wouldn't make the problem go away. It would mean an ongoing commitment to contain the problem and that is a price people will only pay if there is something in it for them. That is why I say it is a case of all in or all out... colonise and take the spoils of war or leave them to it.

 

Where do you think they got their current weapons and money? They got them by over running Iraq's and Syria's military bases and banks. I believe both Syria and Iraq have rather large stocks of weapons of all sorts including nerve gases, aircraft, balistic misiles etc. They also have oil to sell.

 

Isis don't seem to have any quarms about killing the civilian population and stealing everything they possess so having cash isn't a problem. Stopping them spending it certainly is. Remember Sadam Hussein and the super gun.

 

I don't think you need a Navy to overrun another country. Turkey has a land border, so does Jordan. Greece has a land border with Turkey. etc etc.

 

It is best to swat a fly before it lays eggs and becomes a swarm.

Edited August 13, 2014 by Anna Glypta

[Zamo 10]

ISIS will pose the biggest threat to the West if they become the governing power of a country, if they take control of several countries the threat increases for the West and the civilian populations of those countries. Once they control a country it will be very difficult to dislodge them without killing innocents, so its best to do it now.

 

How would IS threaten the west if it controlled Iraq? What would they do exactly?

[Anna Glypta 10]

How would IS threaten the west if it controlled Iraq? What would they do exactly?

 

At a guess they would fire rockets at Israel and Turkey as a first move

[Zamo 10]

Where do you think they got their current weapons and money? They got them by over running Iraq's and Syria's military bases and banks. I believe both Syria and Iraq have rather large stocks of weapons of all sorts including nerve gases, aircraft, balistic misiles etc. They also have oil to sell.

 

Isis don't seem to have any quarms about killing the civilian population and stealing everything they possess so having cash isn't a problem. Stopping them spending it certainly is. Remember Sadam Hussein and the super gun.

 

I don't think you need a Navy to overrun another country. Turkey has a land border, so does Jordan. Greece has a land border with Turkey. etc etc.

 

It is best to swat a fly before it lays eggs and becomes a swarm.

 

I'm no military expert but I an pretty certain your assessment is wrong. You would most certainly need a Navy and Air Force to have any success against any western power and they are never going to get that. They can't capture it, they can't buy it (nobody will/can sell it to them) and the will not have the skills and knowledge to use it effectively. IS is a guerrilla group and no threat to the West.

 

So, if they are no real threat, what is in it for us to swat the IS fly? We lose money, lives and make ourselves a target... just as we did when we invade Iraq the first time. Unless we are going to take the spoils of war there is no point in going to war with them... leave them to it.

[firemanbob 10]

How would IS threaten the west if it controlled Iraq? What would they do exactly?

 

They would use Iraq as a base of operation for acts of terrorism against the West, they would try to consolidate their position and expand into other Islamic countries, they would try to buy weapons from countries like North Korea. Its far better to squash what is at the moment a very small but very affective fighting force, than to wait until they are a much larger force.

 

 

Hamas support ISIS and ISIS support Hamas.

 

Hamas militants are attempting to negotiate a new arms deal with North Korea for missiles and communications equipment that will allow them to maintain their offensive against Israel, according to Western security sources.

 

 

 

Security officials say the deal between Hamas and North Korea is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars and is being handled by a Lebanese-based trading company with close ties to the militant Palestinian organisation based in east Beirut.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/10992921/Hamas-and-North-Korea-in-secret-arms-deal.html

Edited August 13, 2014 by firemanbob

[L00b 441]

I'm no military expert but I an pretty certain your assessment is wrong. You would most certainly need a Navy and Air Force to have any success against any western power and they are never going to get that. They can't capture it, they can't buy it (nobody will/can sell it to them) and the will not have the skills and knowledge to use it effectively.

There's a rotund Korean kid with a country's worth of air-, sea- and land-going military hardware, a perennial requirement for hard currency (the sort grabbed in Syrian and Iraqi banks) and the moral fibre of a gnat, that begs to differ. Just sayin'.

IS is a guerrilla group and no threat to the West.

The families of all those innocents killed by Muslim terrorists in the West beg to differ. There's a few thousands of them across the US and the EU since 2001 (but we could go earlier). Just sayin'.

[Zamo 10]

They would use Iraq as a base of operation for acts of terrorism against the West, they would try to consolidate their position and expand into other Islamic countries, they would try to buy weapons from countries like North Korea. Its far better to squash what is at the moment a very small but very affective fighting force, than to wait until they are a much larger force.

 

 

Hamas support ISIS and ISIS support Hamas.

 

Hamas militants are attempting to negotiate a new arms deal with North Korea for missiles and communications equipment that will allow them to maintain their offensive against Israel, according to Western security sources.

 

Security officials say the deal between Hamas and North Korea is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars and is being handled by a Lebanese-based trading company with close ties to the militant Palestinian organisation based in east Beirut.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/10992921/Hamas-and-North-Korea-in-secret-arms-deal.html

 

North Korea cannot provide enough hardware for IS to even break out of Iraq, the logistics are also impossible (getting it to them) and NK wouldn't risk the wrath of the West.

 

IS are no threat to the West and we wouldn't 'swat' them any more than the Taliban were swatted. They could be contained but there has to be something in it for us to compensate for the cost, loss of lives and for making ourselves a target. Interfering has been disastrous... take over or leave alone.

 

---------- Post added 13-08-2014 at 11:20 ----------

 

There's a rotund Korean kid with a country's worth of air-, sea- and land-going military hardware, a perennial requirement for hard currency (the sort grabbed in Syrian and Iraqi banks) and the moral fibre of a gnat, that begs to differ. Just sayin'.

 

Even if NK wanted to risk the wrath of America... how would they get any serious hardware to IS in Iraq?

 

The families of all those innocents killed by Muslim terrorists in the West beg to differ. There's a few thousands of them across the US and the EU since 2001 (but we could go earlier). Just sayin'.

 

That wasn't IS. Besides, all of our exploits and interference in the middle east has fueled Islamic extremism rather than reduce the risk. The verdict is in on using the military to try and swat extremism... it doesn't work. You can use the military to contain it but it is expensive in terms of money and lives and it makes us more of a target. There is no point unleashing the war machine unless we are going to take get the spoils of war. All in or all out.

[firemanbob 10]

North Korea cannot provide enough hardware for IS to even break out of Iraq, the logistics are also impossible (getting it to them) and NK wouldn't risk the wrath of the West.

 

IS are no threat to the West and we wouldn't 'swat' them any more than the Taliban were swatted. They could be contained but there has to be something in it for us to compensate for the cost, loss of lives and for making ourselves a target. Interfering has been disastrous... take over or leave alone.

 

A more preferable option is to help a less extreme and suicidal group take control and keep control of any country that ISIS have their sights on.

[tinfoilhat 11]

I note that France has decided to the Kurds a load of weapons. I bet fellow NATO partner turkey are just thrilled with that.

Edited August 13, 2014 by tinfoilhat

[ronthenekred 10]

 

So just to be clear, when I say destroy ISIS or Hamas or Al-Qaeda, or any one of the many Islamist terrorist organisation, I don't mean kill every single Muslims in the world, which is something you very likley already know.

 

This is the problem when debating with you. Under differing username you defend your corner by using differing tactics.

 

Under the guise of Mr Smith you have made it VERY clear your "understanding" of the teachings of the Qur'an that all those that follow the teachings are intrinsically all the same with the same agenda, that agenda being Islamic world domination. You're a disingenuous coward knowing that quoting other user names can risk a ban, especially the rantings within a thread that's been closed, which makes it difficult to debate with you..."something you very likley already know".

 

"So just to be clear"..you believe or now believe that the vast majority of Muslims who follow the teachings of the Qur'an are of no threat?

 

---------- Post added 13-08-2014 at 12:26 ----------

 

A more preferable option is to help a less extreme and suicidal group take control and keep control of any country that ISIS have their sights on.

 

We already did that, in Syria. Being of swarthy complexion it's hard to differ who is extreme or not.

 

---------- Post added 13-08-2014 at 12:27 ----------

 

You may find this interesting....if you can be bothered to read it....

http://schnellmann.org/how-islam-will-dominate-the-world.html

 

So you'll be the first to start murdering Muslims in Birmingham because of a "link".?

Edited August 13, 2014 by ronthenekred

[L00b 441]

Even if NK wanted to risk the wrath of America...

I bet KJU is positively quaking in his little furry boots in view of Obama's increasing isolationism and diplomatic retreating

 

The US has washed its hands of medium- to wide-scale military interventionism for a good while, and the world's villains know it only too well. Not a dig at the US, just an objective statement. There's a power vacuum developing at the "top", and that creates its own opportunities for those waiting/looking for them. Not least e.g. China, only too happy to let the West gets its collective knickers in a twist over Ukraine and the Middle East at large, whilst it continues plodding on quietly and fairly efficiently throughout Africa and South America.

how would they get any serious hardware to IS in Iraq?

Sea is an option as IS has some coastal control in Syria and land continuity from there into Iraq. NK also has non-trivial airlifting capacities. Not saying it would happen (or not be prevented by larger players), just that it is physically possible.

That wasn't IS.

Ah, so leopards can change their spots after all!

 

About IS and the West, here's another topical snippet.

I note that France has decided to the Kurds a load of weapons. I bet fellow NATO partner turkey are just thrilled with that.

A genuine point (will be interesting to see what the US says about it, if anything) though I wouldn't worry too much, it's not going to be first-line equipment. I'd expect mostly small arms (France is phasing out the FAMAS, so old stock may find its way), AT mines, comms gear and, at best, some ATGMs (HOTs and Milans - I doubt France would make the same error as the CIA handing out Stingers to the Talibs way-back-when). Edited August 13, 2014 by L00b

[firemanbob 10]

This is the problem when debating with you. Under differing username you defend your corner by using differing tactics.

 

Under the guise of Mr Smith you have made it VERY clear your "understanding" of the teachings of the Qur'an that all those that follow the teachings are intrinsically all the same with the same agenda, that agenda being Islamic world domination. You're a disingenuous coward knowing that quoting other user names can risk a ban, especially the rantings within a thread that's been closed, which makes it difficult to debate with you..."something you very likley already know".

 

"So just to be clear"..you believe or now believe that the vast majority of Muslims who follow the teachings of the Qur'an are of no threat?

 

Is there any chance you could descuss this topic without this unhealthy obsession you appear to have.