True, but an undefeated enemy being losing a conventional war tends to resort to asymmetrical warfare eg guerrilla warfare or coming to our country and blowing up civilians.

An article in the Observer last week, from a regional expert, was saying just that. That the destruction of the Caliphate could be the worst possible result, as ISIS then disseminates itself around Europe to reek terrorist havoc around the continent.

As it stands, all the lunatics are pretty much contained in one place.

I feel absolutely certain that our government will have fully considered this before they go doing anything rash. Definitely.

I think bombing won’t work on it’s own, but I can see it could be part of the strategy that will work.

And that strategy would be….?

> Can you explain what makes you morally superior to somebody who supports ISIL? You both agree that killing civilians is justified for your beliefs.

No. I’m going to follow a rule I learnt from a friend on who to debate with, so decline this opportunity.

No I didn’t miss it molgrips. What would you do?

I’d be gathering as much intelligence as I could and working from that. As I’m not in government, I’m not really in a position to propose solutions in any kind of detail. I don’t expect many others on this thread are either.

We do however have quite a lot of historical evidence in the public domain to suggest that airstrikes on terrorist organisations don’t work very well. Do you think that it would be different this time?

Airey fairy nonsense. Dead fighters can’t fight

No but you kill a fighter and his father/brother/son cousins all become fighters.

This is why the Taliban in Afganistan weren’t remotely worried about casualties, every death grew their armed forces.

I watched a documentary about Vietnam a while back, they interviewed half a dozen or so ex-VC. The thing that struck me was that every single person had joined the VC after an american attack on them or their family. There was no other recruitment motive amongst the people they interviewed.

We can empathise with this can’t we? My great uncle was a conscientious objector in WW2 until his cousin got killed in Africa – then he joined up and became a fighter pilot. Time and time again you see people on the history channel who joined up when a father/brother/cousin got killed or a house got bombed. It was a typical motive to become a soldier in WW2 and you can bet it is amongst modern day Sunnis.

Every dead Sunni, will create a handful of new Sunni fighters. No doubt.

No. I’m going to follow a rule I learnt from a friend on who to debate with, so decline this opportunity.

I think, with that response, you have answered my question.

No

My great uncle was a conscientious objector in WW2 until his cousin got killed in Africa – then he joined up and became a fighter pilot.

It’s why the Poles made such good pilots during the Battle of Britain. Rather ironic, really.

It’s why the Poles made such good pilots during the Battle of Britain. Rather ironic, really.

Also ironic that they ended up fighting on the side of Russia who’d invaded Poland on the same day as Germany.

Which takes nothing away from the quality and fighting spirit of their pilots.

> I’d be gathering as much intelligence as I could and working from that.

Yes that’s another part of the toolbox too. Absolutely. Perhaps they are! I hope so.

> We do however have quite a lot of historical evidence in the public domain to suggest that airstrikes on terrorist organisations don’t work very well. Do you think that it would be different this time?

I don’t see IS as a terrorist organisation any more, I think they’re bigger than that now. They hold significant territory and assets for one thing.

My expectation is the process will be very unpleasant and the outcome messy but it will probably be better than “doing nothing”. OK you don’t advocate nothing, I realise.

I can see a case for stopping at ‘containment’, but I don’t see how in practice that can be actioned other than by military force, which brings us back to positive action against them.

The chap in that guardian article had some suggestions.

The thing is, even if we can’t think of anything else, I don’t think bombing them will actually work at all. It’ll kill some terrorists but it could well just create more.

Yes.

I would still class them as terrorist because the land they occupy (ok it’s mostly desert..) is somebody else’s country which has an international definition and a ruling authority. let’s face it Assad or the Iraqi council haven’t agreed to let them take it over

they have assets but no people, this is why I think bombing isn’t the answer, because bombs will enable recruiting; better to stop the money flow but you don’t do this with weapons.

The “What next” is the $64m question

Which takes nothing away from the quality and fighting spirit of their pilots.

Totally agreed.

My enemy’s enemy is my ally?

The chap in that guardian article had some suggestions.

I’m sure there’s others, but that’s actually the first article I’ve read with what appear to be plausible alternatives that uses first-hand experience instead of advised guesswork based around political popularity.

But I see the civilians in Mosul, Raqqa etc as living under an army of occupation, something analogous to Europe under the Nazis, rather than them being fundamentally sympathetic to the occupiers.

The Nazi analogy is fine, but can we also learn from another aspect of the European theatre of WW2: that after Germany was defeated, there were many years of refugee movements, ethnic cleansing, some civil wars, an expensive and problematic reconstruction process, and a large group of people who were placed under puppet regimes friendly to the military victors.

It would be nice if we could remember that problems don’t all get solved on the last day of a war.

> better to stop the money flow but you don’t do this with weapons.

This is essential too.

The US recently destroyed 160 (I believe) tanker trucks by bombing, which probably helps in a small way, but really the oil purchase has to be stopped at the economic/diplomatic level.

It’s not just the oil. They have access to vast amounts of agricultural land that rakes in a lot of money. GOod luck banning the sale of that.

Time to break out some herbicides.

> Time to break out some herbicides.

Oh. That didn’t work out too well in Vietnam either.

I’ve posted this on another thread but it’s even more relevant here… http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/16/isis-military-france-paris-attacks-nato-article-5

“But the biggest challenge comes if you imagine what victory would look like. Isis-held territory being reoccupied by armies that, this time, can withstand the suicide bombings, truck bombs and kidnappings that a defeated Isis would unleash. Mosques and madrassas across the region stripped of their jihadi preachers. A massive programme of economic development focused on human capital – education, healthcare and institution building – as well as physical reconstruction. Nonsectarian, democratic states in Iraq and Syria and an independent Kurdistan state spanning parts of both countries. To achieve this you would need to unleash surveillance, policing and military action on a scale that could only be acceptable to western electorates if carried out with a restraint and accountability not shown in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The alternative is to disengage, contain Isis, deal with the refugees and try to ignore the beheading videos.”

My expectation is the process will be very unpleasant and the outcome messy but it will probably be better than “doing nothing”.

If that’s the best case for military action we should not take military action.

But the biggest challenge comes if you imagine what victory would look like. Isis-held territory being reoccupied

More likely Sunni areas being reoccupied by Shias, who have already committed so many atrocities against Sunnis.

The only reason ISIS has any power at all is because Sunnis are far more frightened of Shia’s than they are of ISIS.

I think you could make a case that leaving ISIS is place is less harmful than handing Sunni areas over to their enemies. ISIS have already done most of their revenge/ethnic cleansing. The Shias would be starting the new round of revenge/ethnic clensing, and you can bet they have countless grudges to settle.

no.

I am increasingly of the opinion that this won’t get solved in the next 20 years or so.

I don’t even know what “solved” means. Perhaps if that can be defined we can work out what needs to happen to get there?

Forget the place exists? Maybe they will forget we exist?

Hell yes! (just in case you miss reading my previous threads 😆 )

Bomb them until submission, if not bomb more or use mini-nuke (time to test some of them new toys).

Human population needs culling no ifs or buts.

They can keep their ideology as much/long as they like so long as this gives others the opportunity / reason to cull human population who are trying to become a disease.

Human population needs culling no ifs or buts.

Can I kill you then?

molgrips – Member

Human population needs culling no ifs or buts.

Can I kill you then? [/quote]

Of course you can or if you wish to … 🙄

How do you think I should response? Like a hypocrite? 😯

I am a fair person and I treat everyone equally so my view is applicable to the entire human population on this planet.

Everyone is going to die sometime in the future and no one live forever. Fact! Even your scientific mind cannot dispute that.

I’m wondering how ISIS would react if we said “We are Rome. Please assemble all your warriors in Dabiq, allow everyone who wants out to leave. They we can get on with the phrophesised battle”.

What would they say?

outofbreath – Member

I’m wondering how ISIS would react if we said “We are Rome. Please assemble all your warriors in Dabiq, allow everyone who wants out to leave. They we can get on with the phrophesised battle”.

What would they say?

They would find/use the dirtiest underhand tactics/tricks they could master to wipe all your warriors out then enjoy your woman and children as the like in their paradise on earth.

Then they have their national day(s) to celebrate by laughing at bunch of idiots warriors who died trying to fight fair and stoopid.

For them the interpretation of dirties underhand tactics/tricks is the sign of intelligence … that dominates over the honest idiotic ways.

They would find/use the dirtiest underhand tactics/tricks

Not really. They’d be lined up in some kind of Medieval Battle order and we’d just napalm them from the air.

I’m just wondering what kind of excuse they’d use to avoid it. They can hardly say “We’d rather not have a fight at Dabiq”.

outofbreath – Member

They would find/use the dirtiest underhand tactics/tricks

Not really. They’d be lined up in some kind of Medieval Battle order and we’d just napalm them from the air.[/quote]

You are learning fast!

We use dirty tricks on them then … the question is what plane(s) to carry the napalm? 😆 I like a swan of B-52s.

I’m just wondering what kind of excuse they’d use to avoid it. They can hardly say “We’d rather not have a fight at Dabiq”.

Very simple. They simply refuse to acknowledge your rules of engagement since your rules do not come from a supreme being.

Meanwhile the children die…

Is this what we really want?

epicyclo – Member
Meanwhile the children die…
Is this what we really want?

Meanwhile the propaganda continues and we want to feel more guilt …

As far as I know the purpose of the machines on both sides is to eliminate all living things without consideration.

Meanwhile the children die…

Horrific but I suspect the casualties from the bombing are nothing compared to what will happen when the Sunni population of Mosul are “liberated” by Shias.

Interestingly ISIS took over Mosul in 2014. The local (Cameron would call them ‘moderate’) Sunnis (or perhaps it was the Kurds) ethnically cleansed the Christians out in 2008. Yet another example of how hard it’s going to be to find moderates to lead this region once ISIS are kicked out.

But I see the civilians in Mosul, Raqqa etc as living under an army of occupation, something analogous to Europe under the Nazis, rather than them being fundamentally sympathetic to the occupiers.

ISIS’s stunning and sweeping “victories” last year in Iraq could not have happened without some significant local backing – there is no evidence that ISIS are particularly impressive fighters, or greatly superior to Iraq’s western armed and trained military.

There is no doubt that hatred of the corrupt Baghdad government played a part in ISIS’s success.

Many people might not have welcomed ISIS with open arms but I’m sure that for many they were seen as preferable to a hostile and sectarian shiite administration.

In much the same same way that the support Assad enjoys in Syria is largely based of the perception that the alternatives are considerably worse.

I’m wondering how ISIS would react if we said “We are Rome. Please assemble all your warriors in Dabiq, allow everyone who wants out to leave. They we can get on with the phrophesised battle”.
What would they say?

We need someone to bear that message to the Middle East. An envoy, if you will. Someone who’s been given a responsibility for matters of peace and war. Someone who has a recent affinity with Rome would be good.

Can anyone think of a suitable person?

ISIS’s stunning and sweeping “victories” last year in Iraq could not have happened without some significant local backing

Indeed, it isn’t coincidence they’ve only been able to take over largely Sunni areas.

Many people might not have welcomed ISIS with open arms but I’m sure that for many they were seen as preferable to a hostile and sectarian shiite administration. In much the same same way that the support Assad enjoys in Syria is largely based of the perception that the alternatives are considerably worse.

This.

Indeed, it isn’t coincidence they’ve only been able to take over largely Sunni areas.

And often with little or no fighting.

No
Bomb them and radicalise a load more closer to home.

No, no, no.

Maybe sanctions against Turkey as there was a report recently on them sympathising or letting known isis members through with very little resistance.