Obliterating Islamic State (ISIS)

[lljadw]

We will hear a lot of words from Hollande,Merkel,Cameron,but they will do nothing for electoral reasons .

Obama will as in january parrot Fisk and say that it is the fault of the Europeans .And if Putin is moving, Obama will,as usually,criticize him .

Yesterday in a debate the socialist Saunders told Hillary : it is all your fault (the war in Iraq) and Hillary said : it is the fault of Assad : we are at that point :the probable Democratic presidential candidate said : 11/13 is the fault of Assad .

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

Strawman : I did not advocate to nuke the 1.5 billion Muslims

But you want to nuke Syria and Iraq.

 

[lljadw]

I do not : I said that it would be a good strategy to use small tactical nuclear weapons against the HQ of ISIS, I never mentionned Aleppo,Mosul,Bagdad,damascus .

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

I do not : I said that it would be a good strategy to use small tactical nuclear weapons against the HQ of ISIS, I never mentionned Aleppo,Mosul,Bagdad,damascus .

How can a nuke be used against ISIS but not against Syria and/or Iraq?

 

[lljadw]

Very easily : the ISIS HQ is not covering the whole of Syria and the whole of Iraq : ISIS HQ is only a few square km,and to destroy it a small tactical nuclear weapon is sufficient .

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

Very easily : the ISIS HQ is not covering the whole of Syria and the whole of Iraq : ISIS HQ is only a few square km,and to destroy it a small tactical nuclear weapon is sufficient .

A small tactical device, huh? So you mean about 10-15 Kilotons device?

Still, if the HQ is situated in Syria, the device will be used in Syria.

 

[lljadw]

Much smaller

MK 54 David Crockett 10 or 20 ton

MK 54 SADM :10 ton-1 kiloton

W 54 250 ton

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

Much smaller

MK 54 David Crockett 10 or 20 ton

MK 54 SADM :10 ton-1 kiloton

W 54 250 ton

Are you serious? You don't understand the reaction if anybody uses a nuclear device. There is no difference between tactical and strategical nuclear weapons, if you use any, regardless size, you have crossed the Rubicon. The reaction in the world will be enormous. If you use a reference to the two nuclear weapons used in 1945, you don't understand the history and how the world has changed since 1945.

 

[lljadw]

That's not a valid argument :

1) The Muslims were looking without batting an eyelid while ISIS was murdering on a horrible manner tens of thousands of people, thus why would they be offended if a small nuclear peapon caused the death of a few thousand people :the value of human live in the ME can be expressed in Eurocent .


2) Or the civilians in ISIS country are the victims of ISIS (which is nonsense) and than it is perfectly acceptable to sacrifice some of them to save the others from the massacres of ISIS (it would be perfectly acceptable to attack Auschwitz,resulting in some thousand deaths to save tens of thousands of Jews)


3) Or the civilians in ISIS country are the willing accomplices of ISIS,and than,we should not have any scruples .


4) I tell you who would protest : the Liberals and the Muslim lobby : the pope, the UNO,Merkel, Hollande, Cameron, Clinton,:all these hypocrites who were looking at the ISIS massacres without batting an eyelid ,the antisemites as Fisk who are manoeuvring for a mega Auschwitz .


Should we be impressed by their protests ? Of course not.When we attacked the German cities,Goebbels also was protesting but noone took any notion .

If we continue to do nothing against ISIS,it will not last 5 years before a nuclear war will start in the ME causing millions of death in the ME,Africa and Europe .

it is not 5 before 12,it is 5 after 12 .

Besides,we have no choice :it is a small nuclear weapon or a mass WWII strategic air offensive and,we have no longer the means for such an offensive .

In 1945 the use of nuclear weapons was saving lives;it would also save lives in 2015.

In 1945 it finished the war, it would finish the war in 2015.

 

[MontyB]

Strawman : I did not advocate to nuke the 1.5 billion Muslims

And I am not advocating we nuke all Catholics either as we simply dont have enough nukes, we can start with the Vatican as a hot bed of support for the IRA and lets face it they smuggled Nazi's after the war, are reknown kiddy fiddlers and lets not get into the whole Iquisition and Crusades thing so they have it coming then after that we can take it on a case by case basis.

I really do find your stance impossible to take seriously because if I did I would regard you as no different to ISIS, certainly as dangerous and perhaps in need of the same solution.

 

[lljadw]

This is nonsense :your answer is to do nothing against ISIS,you are advocating unconditional surrender .

 

[JOC]

That's not a valid argument :

1) The Muslims were looking without batting an eyelid while ISIS was murdering on a horrible manner tens of thousands of people, thus why would they be offended if a small nuclear peapon caused the death of a few thousand people :the value of human live in the ME can be expressed in Eurocent .


2) Or the civilians in ISIS country are the victims of ISIS (which is nonsense) and than it is perfectly acceptable to sacrifice some of them to save the others from the massacres of ISIS (it would be perfectly acceptable to attack Auschwitz,resulting in some thousand deaths to save tens of thousands of Jews)


3) Or the civilians in ISIS country are the willing accomplices of ISIS,and than,we should not have any scruples .


4) I tell you who would protest : the Liberals and the Muslim lobby : the pope, the UNO,Merkel, Hollande, Cameron, Clinton,:all these hypocrites who were looking at the ISIS massacres without batting an eyelid ,the antisemites as Fisk who are manoeuvring for a mega Auschwitz .


Should we be impressed by their protests ? Of course not.When we attacked the German cities,Goebbels also was protesting but noone took any notion .

If we continue to do nothing against ISIS,it will not last 5 years before a nuclear war will start in the ME causing millions of death in the ME,Africa and Europe .

it is not 5 before 12,it is 5 after 12 .

Besides,we have no choice :it is a small nuclear weapon or a mass WWII strategic air offensive and,we have no longer the means for such an offensive .

In 1945 the use of nuclear weapons was saving lives;it would also save lives in 2015.

In 1945 it finished the war, it would finish the war in 2015.

You are right the value of the individual life to these terrorist (ISIS, al Qaeda, Taliban, Boko Haram, Hezbollah) whether Arab, Persian, Turkic, Kurdish or Western means nothing. Why should we reduce ourselves to their level by wiping massive amounts of innocents just to get some of the guilty? Isn’t that reducing us to their level?

Also to repeat the US has the airpower too completely wipeout many kilometers of real estate with B-52’s using conventional bombs. Do you have any idea how much damage 70 thousand pounds of convention bombs can do? That’s the max payload for just a single B-52. Image squadron after squadron of B-52 dropping that kind of payload. The result would be easily equal that of a smaller nuclear device. However again is this response justified? How can the innocent lives be spared with saturation bombing?

Also the entire idea of using a nuclear device is just plain nuts. It would be like painting a target on the back of every American as the ranks of the enemy would overflow for all terrorist groups and regimes, galvanized them against the USA.

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

This is nonsense :your answer is to do nothing against ISIS,you are advocating unconditional surrender .

Only because Monty disagree with using a nuclear device against ISIS? The majority of people who don't have extreme ideas don't like the idea of using nukes, because they comprehend the consequences of using one in today's world.

You don't see the consequences because you are incompetent and equally dangerous as the ISIS, why aren't a little fascist like you volunteer to fight the ISIS in Syria? You were talking about revenge, talking is cheap, show some guts and volunteer to fight a long sides with the Kurdish fighters.

 

[lljadw]

You are right the value of the individual life to these terrorist (ISIS, al Qaeda, Taliban, Boko Haram, Hezbollah) whether Arab, Persian, Turkic, Kurdish or Western means nothing. Why should we reduce ourselves to their level by wiping massive amounts of innocents just to get some of the guilty? Isn’t that reducing us to their level?

Also to repeat the US has the airpower too completely wipeout many kilometers of real estate with B-52’s using conventional bombs. Do you have any idea how much damage 70 thousand pounds of convention bombs can do? That’s the max payload for just a single B-52. Image squadron after squadron of B-52 dropping that kind of payload. The result would be easily equal that of a smaller nuclear device. However again is this response justified? How can the innocent lives be spared with saturation bombing?

Also the entire idea of using a nuclear device is just plain nuts. It would be like painting a target on the back of every American as the ranks of the enemy would overflow for all terrorist groups and regimes, galvanized them against the USA.

You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs .

The fear for civilian losses can not be an obstacle to victory,otherwise you lose.

Who was saying that there are no innocents on a battlefield ? He was right .

If people choose to live on a battlefield, they must suffer the consequences .

 

[MontyB]

You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs .

The fear for civilian losses can not be an obstacle to victory,otherwise you lose.

Who was saying that there are no innocents on a battlefield ? He was right .

If people choose to live on a battlefield, they must suffer the consequences .

You cant make an omelet by setting fire to the kitchen either, ISIS need to be confronted on the ground and destroyed but nuking Syria will do little more than put the entire human race on a path to destruction.

Will this put troops at risk, unfortunately it will but then to be a cold calculating bastard that is why we have militaries other wise we could make them all redundant and just start firing nuclear missiles at everyone that annoyed us.

 

[lljadw]

To confront ISIS on the ground will cost more civilian losses and ,more important, more casualties to our own forces . Besides,we haven't the money,nor the men for a ground combat .

Without the strategic air attacks in WWII,much more allied soldiers would have died .


As in 1945,the commitment of a nuclear weapon will save lives .

 

[Tuan]

To confront ISIS on the ground will cost more civilian losses and ,more important, more casualties to our own forces . Besides,we haven't the money,nor the men for a ground combat .

Without the strategic air attacks in WWII,much more allied soldiers would have died .


As in 1945,the commitment of a nuclear weapon will save lives .

I am not sure if this is appropriate to say on this military forum, but as a person who was born and bred in the Indian subcontinent region, I internalized Gandhi’s non-violent way of living which saved my life during the darkest period of my lifetime that I lived before start over from scratch in a beautiful country, such as Canada. As such, I am against any military solution to this conundrum and always think like a peace-keeper. Therein, my Plan B to deal with ISIS, as follows:

I don’t think the US led west should engage neither ground troops nor air strikes, I’ll tell you why:

1. Because, regardless of the complexities of sectarian divide, the six-state GCC countries in ME are playing their cards deviously, for them it is a political issue but in fact it is global security issue.
2. They successfully draw the US led west, who is desperately looking for someone to sell their weapons, into this chaos while GCC nations are being very diplomatic with ISIS.
3. There is no single attack in these wealthy GCC countries to date, whereas the west got caught into the ISIS world view of Crusade vs. Jihad narrative. In the eyes of ISIS, NATO is an enemy intruder but the GCC is a sacred land and common ground.
4. Thus, in my opinion, we should turn the tables around diplomatically and make the Muslims fight the Muslims contrary to Christians fight the Muslims.
5. It is against this backdrop, I believe, that the NATO should withdraw from its bombing mission and train and arm GCC plus the indigenous/local military to combat ISIS effectively and strategically.

In conclusion: when you turn the majority of global Muslim population against these minute sections of the extremists there shall be peace at the end!

 

[MontyB]

I am not sure if this is appropriate to say on this military forum, but as a person who was born and bred in the Indian subcontinent region, I internalized Gandhi’s non-violent way of living which saved my life during the darkest period of my lifetime that I lived before start over from scratch in a beautiful country, such as Canada. As such, I am against any military solution to this conundrum and always think like a peace-keeper. Therein, my Plan B to deal with ISIS, as follows:

I don’t think the US led west should engage neither ground troops nor air strikes, I’ll tell you why:

1. Because, regardless of the complexities of sectarian divide, the six-state GCC countries in ME are playing their cards deviously, for them it is a political issue but in fact it is global security issue.
2. They successfully draw the US led west, who is desperately looking for someone to sell their weapons, into this chaos while GCC nations are being very diplomatic with ISIS.
3. There is no single attack in these wealthy GCC countries to date, whereas the west got caught into the ISIS world view of Crusade vs. Jihad narrative. In the eyes of ISIS, NATO is an enemy intruder but the GCC is a sacred land and common ground.
4. Thus, in my opinion, we should turn the tables around diplomatically and make the Muslims fight the Muslims contrary to Christians fight the Muslims.
5. It is against this backdrop, I believe, that the NATO should withdraw from its bombing mission and train and arm GCC plus the indigenous/local military to combat ISIS effectively and strategically.

In conclusion: when you turn the majority of global Muslim population against these minute sections of the extremists there shall be peace at the end!

So basically it is Iran and the Kurds as they are the only regional countries with the stomach for a fight.

Saudi Arabia are worse than useless, playing both sides, trying drag anyone who will fight for them into it and bravely ran away at the sight of a Houthi on a donkey cart I cant imagine how fast they would run with ISIS in a pickup on their collective arses.

Iraq is a complete joke riddled with corruption, cowardice and a military that wont even fight for its own country.

Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain are busily handing out cash to both sides to avoid having to actually do something.

Egypt and Jordan have their own issues with ISIS to deal with with Jordan having them on two borders and Egypt having them in the Sinai and Libya to be able to divert resources to Syria and Iraq.

So we are left with Iran and the stateless Kurds, if you back the Kurds then Turkey will sit on its hands or even worse start attacking them and the Americans and Israeli's get all petulant if you pick Iran.

Like it or not this mess is a western (I am being nice but I am sure you know who I mean) made one, the perpetual destabilisation and subsequent meddling in the affairs of region because they are not in the Wests pocket has led to the mess we have now and this is why we are going to have to be the ones that fix it.

Of course thanks to the destabilising of the Ukraine in order to make that pro-west we have also now annoyed the crap out of the Russians enough to get involved in Syria so I am sure this will work out well.

 

[lljadw]

I am not sure if this is appropriate to say on this military forum, but as a person who was born and bred in the Indian subcontinent region, I internalized Gandhi’s non-violent way of living which saved my life during the darkest period of my lifetime that I lived before start over from scratch in a beautiful country, such as Canada. As such, I am against any military solution to this conundrum and always think like a peace-keeper. Therein, my Plan B to deal with ISIS, as follows:

I don’t think the US led west should engage neither ground troops nor air strikes, I’ll tell you why:

1. Because, regardless of the complexities of sectarian divide, the six-state GCC countries in ME are playing their cards deviously, for them it is a political issue but in fact it is global security issue.
2. They successfully draw the US led west, who is desperately looking for someone to sell their weapons, into this chaos while GCC nations are being very diplomatic with ISIS.
3. There is no single attack in these wealthy GCC countries to date, whereas the west got caught into the ISIS world view of Crusade vs. Jihad narrative. In the eyes of ISIS, NATO is an enemy intruder but the GCC is a sacred land and common ground.
4. Thus, in my opinion, we should turn the tables around diplomatically and make the Muslims fight the Muslims contrary to Christians fight the Muslims.
5. It is against this backdrop, I believe, that the NATO should withdraw from its bombing mission and train and arm GCC plus the indigenous/local military to combat ISIS effectively and strategically.

In conclusion: when you turn the majority of global Muslim population against these minute sections of the extremists there shall be peace at the end!

There are 1.5 billion Muslims : 200000 would suffice to destroy ISIS; there are no 200000 willing to fight ISIS:the 1.5 billion are looking impassibly and indifferently while ISIS is committing its atrocities .

 

[JOC]

Saudi Arabia are worse than useless, playing both sides, trying drag anyone who will fight for them into it and bravely ran away at the sight of a Houthi on a donkey cart I cant imagine how fast they would run with ISIS in a pickup on their collective arses..

Politics aside, I trained with the Saudi's 1st hand and found them to be 1st rate troops.